Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies
DSpace
UBCV
Schinnerl, Sandra
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
The number of international students with a valid study permit in Canada has more than tripled since 1998 to 827,586 in 2019. Once described as a laggard, Canada is now an industry leader in international student recruitment. Federal government investment and policy change in visa processing, temporary work authorizations and immigration pathways for international student graduates have facilitated year over year increases in international student enrolments since the mid-2000s. These changes are in stark contrast to international student immigration policy only twenty years prior but little research exists to explain this major policy shift. The literature that does exist hypothesizes that policy change is prompted by competitive policy diffusion in which Canada considered the policies of other countries to create their own for competitive advantage. I argue this explanation is incomplete and does not account for the internal special interest lobbying taking place by the higher education sector. Through an outcomes-based process tracing approach I establish that higher education institutions and their associations did not respond to government policy change, but instead lobbied government for changes to temporary and permanent immigration. This research provides a detailed within case account of the chronology of policy change using lobbying records, media and document analysis and elite interviews to develop a series of causal process observations. Policy influence or success is then determined using the degree of preference attainment methodology that compares policy preferences of special interests with policy outcomes and contributes to the understanding of interest group theory. The results highlight the cross- jurisdictional and inter-departmental challenges both between the provinces and the federal government and across federal departments. Higher education sector leaders navigated this jurisdictional logjam by looking for government allies and creating a coalition to advance their interests. As increasing numbers of international students graduate with work authorization and an aspiration to immigrate to Canada permanently, there is a question about the evolving role of higher education institutions in the migration pathway in terms of becoming a de facto portal for migration and as a migration hub along the responsibilities that come with it.
THE INFLUENCE OF HIGHER EDUCATION ON IMMIGRATION POLICY IN CANADA by Sandra Schinnerl A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Interdisciplinary Studies) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) October 2021 © Sandra Schinnerl, 2021 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled: The influence of higher education on immigration policy in Canada submitted by Sandra Schinnerl in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Interdisciplinary Studies Examining Committee: Antje Ellermann, Professor, Department of Political Science, UBC Co-Supervisor Lesley Andres, Professor, Department of Educational Studies, UBC Co-Supervisor Co-Supervisor Hongxia Shan, Associate Profession, Department of Educational Studies, UBC Supervisory Committee Member Rima Wilkes, Professor, Department of Sociology, UBC University Examiner Carey Dobertstein, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, UBC University Examiner iii Abstract The number of international students with a valid study permit in Canada has more than tripled since 1998 to 827,586 in 2019. Once described as a laggard, Canada is now an industry leader in international student recruitment. Federal government investment and policy change in visa processing, temporary work authorizations and immigration pathways for international student graduates have facilitated year over year increases in international student enrolments since the mid-2000s. These changes are in stark contrast to international student immigration policy only twenty years prior but little research exists to explain this major policy shift. The literature that does exist hypothesizes that policy change is prompted by competitive policy diffusion in which Canada considered the policies of other countries to create their own for competitive advantage. I argue this explanation is incomplete and does not account for the internal special interest lobbying taking place by the higher education sector. Through an outcomes-based process tracing approach I establish that higher education institutions and their associations did not respond to government policy change, but instead lobbied government for changes to temporary and permanent immigration. This research provides a detailed within case account of the chronology of policy change using lobbying records, media and document analysis and elite interviews to develop a series of causal process observations. Policy influence or success is then determined using the degree of preference attainment methodology that compares policy preferences of special interests with policy outcomes and contributes to the understanding of interest group theory. The results highlight the cross- jurisdictional and inter-departmental challenges both between the provinces and the federal government and across federal departments. Higher education sector leaders navigated this jurisdictional logjam by looking for government allies and creating a coalition to advance their interests. As increasing iv numbers of international students graduate with work authorization and an aspiration to immigrate to Canada permanently, there is a question about the evolving role of higher education institutions in the migration pathway in terms of becoming a de facto portal for migration and as a migration hub along the responsibilities that come with it. v Lay Summary The number of international students with a valid study permit in Canada has more than tripled since 1998 to 827,586 in 2019. Once described as a laggard, Canada is now an industry leader in international student recruitment. I establish that higher education institutions and their associations lobbied government for changes to temporary and permanent immigration to make it easier to recruit international students and then assess the degree of their success by comparing higher education sector preferences versus actual policy outcomes. As increasing numbers of international students graduate with work authorization and an aspiration to immigrate to Canada permanently, there is a question about the evolving role and responsibilities of higher education institutions in the migration pathway as they increasingly become a de facto portal for migration and a migration hub within communities. vi Preface This dissertation is an original intellectual product of the author, S. Schinnerl. The fieldwork reported in Chapters 5 through 7 are covered by UBC Ethics Certificate number H18-02745. vii Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary .................................................................................................................................v Preface ........................................................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ vii List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. xiii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. xiv List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. xvi Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. xviii Dedication ................................................................................................................................... xix Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................1 1.1 International students in Canada ..................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose, hypotheses, and related research ...................................................................... 3 1.3 Higher education as a special interest group ................................................................... 5 1.4 Methods of inquiry .......................................................................................................... 7 1.5 Significance................................................................................................................... 12 1.6 Chapter outline .............................................................................................................. 13 Chapter 2: Review of education, immigration, and interest group literature .......................18 2.1 Globalization and higher education .............................................................................. 18 2.1.1 Internationalization of higher education ................................................................... 20 2.1.2 Immigration theories to explain why students move across borders ........................ 21 2.1.3 Higher education theories to explain why students move across borders ................ 24 viii 2.2 International students, interests, and policymaking ...................................................... 28 2.2.1 Information as policy influence ................................................................................ 35 2.2.2 Policy influence through coalitions .......................................................................... 36 2.2.3 Government officials as allies in advocacy .............................................................. 40 2.3 Alternative explanations ............................................................................................... 42 Chapter 3: Education, movement, and migration of international students..........................46 3.1 Historical overview of international education in Canada ............................................ 46 3.2 Motivations for international student mobility ............................................................. 49 3.3 Global international student mobility trends................................................................. 51 3.4 Canadian international student mobility trends ............................................................ 57 3.5 Emerging trends ............................................................................................................ 59 Chapter 4: Changes in Canadian international student immigration policy 1990-2017.......62 4.1 Immigration policy change and international student immigration pathways .............. 62 4.2 Immigration legislation in Canada impacting international students ........................... 63 4.2.1 Overview of Temporary Labour Migration Programs in Canada ............................. 66 4.2.2 Immigration pathways and temporary foreign worker programs ............................. 68 4.2.3 International student migration pathways ................................................................. 69 4.3 Changes to student visa processing and government investment in international student recruitment ................................................................................................................................ 74 4.3.1 EduCanada: Launching of a Canada brand ............................................................... 75 4.3.2 Student Partners Program opens the door to Canadian colleges ............................... 77 4.3.3 Designated Learning Institutions and Off Campus Work Program .......................... 79 4.3.4 Provincial support of international student recruitment initiatives ........................... 80 ix 4.4 Changes to post-study authorizations and immigration pathways for international student graduates ....................................................................................................................... 82 4.4.1 Post Graduate Work Program ................................................................................... 83 4.4.3 Provincial Nominee Programs .................................................................................. 87 4.4.4 Express entry ............................................................................................................. 88 4.5 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 90 Chapter 5: How to measure influence: a process tracing approach .......................................92 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 92 5.2 Process tracing methodology ........................................................................................ 93 5.3 Key elements in process tracing ................................................................................... 93 5.3.1 Why timing matters................................................................................................... 94 5.3.2 How case description contributes to the process tracing approach ........................... 95 5.3.3 Testing hypotheses in process tracing ....................................................................... 96 5.3.3.1 Types of evidence/CPOs ................................................................................... 96 5.3.3.2 Types of process tracing tests ......................................................................... 100 5.3.4 Testing a rival alternate theory ............................................................................... 106 5.4 Assessing the Degree of Preference Attainment ......................................................... 106 5.4.1 Measuring preference attainment ............................................................................ 108 5.5 Data collection ............................................................................................................ 109 5.5.1 Lobbying records .................................................................................................... 110 5.5.2 Public documents .................................................................................................... 112 5.5.3 Media reporting ....................................................................................................... 114 5.5.4 Elite interviews ....................................................................................................... 117 x 5.5.4.1 Access and researcher positionality ................................................................ 121 5.6 Application of the process tracing and preference attainment methodologies to data collection ................................................................................................................................. 122 5.7 Study Limitations ........................................................................................................ 126 5.7.1 The challenges of trying to simplify something immensely complex .................... 127 Chapter 6: Possible explanations of the policy shift in student migration in Canada .........132 6.1 Lobbying activity and the role of higher education associations ................................ 134 6.2 Lobbying and media reporting .................................................................................... 146 6.3 Breaking the jurisdictional logjam on international student recruitment.................... 151 6.4 Mechanisms of policy influence ................................................................................. 162 6.4.1 Information and expert knowledge ......................................................................... 162 6.4.2 Creation of lobbying coalitions ............................................................................... 166 6.5 Returning to the rival hypothesis of policy diffusion through competition ................ 178 6.6 How much influence: assessing the degree of preference attainment ........................ 181 6.6.1 Determining the policy preferences of the higher education sector ....................... 182 6.6.2 Federal investment in international education ........................................................ 183 6.6.3 Visa processing ....................................................................................................... 185 6.6.4 Work authorizations ................................................................................................ 188 6.6.5 Immigration pathways ............................................................................................ 190 6.6.6 Summary ................................................................................................................. 192 Chapter 7: Why does it matter? The immigration-education nexus ...................................194 7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 194 7.2 Research implications ................................................................................................. 195 xi 7.3 Policy implications in higher education ...................................................................... 197 7.4 Policy implications in immigration ............................................................................. 200 7.5 Future research ............................................................................................................ 205 7.6 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 207 Chapter 8: Epilogue ...................................................................................................................211 8.1 Government responses to COVID-19 and its impacts on international students ....... 212 8.1.1 Border closures ....................................................................................................... 213 8.2 Financial support for in-country international students .............................................. 214 8.2.1 Work authorization and immigration pathway policy responses ............................ 217 8.2.2 Admission of new international students during the pandemic .............................. 219 8.3 Does the theory still hold? A second look at policy diffusion .................................... 219 8.4 Initial indicators of HEI sector engagement in the COVID-19 pandemic response ... 221 8.5 Immigration and international student recruitment in Canada post-COVID-19 ........ 225 8.5.1 COVID-19 update and Canada’s continued policy responses ................................ 229 8.6 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 229 Bibliography ...............................................................................................................................231 Appendices ..................................................................................................................................259 Ministerial Instruction Provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act................................................................................................................................................. 259 Provincial Nominee Program provisions for international students................... 261 Summary of lobbying records of the higher education sector related to international student recruitment and immigration ................................................................. 262 C.1 Lobbying registrations and reports by subject 2008-2017 ...................................... 262 xii C.2 Lobbying registrations and reports by government department 2008-2017 ........... 262 Media Analysis ................................................................................................... 263 D.1 Frequency of key words in media related to international students 1990-2017 ..... 263 D.2 Media analysis economic versus immigrant frame 2006-2014 .............................. 265 D.3 Spokesperson analysis in the media on international student recruitment and immigration ......................................................................................................................... 266 Interview Scripts ................................................................................................. 267 E.1 Government representatives interview script .......................................................... 267 E.2 Higher Education representatives interview script ................................................. 269 Interview methods table ...................................................................................... 271 Causal Process Observations .............................................................................. 273 Preference Attainment Rubric and Scoring ........................................................ 280 H.1 Preference attainment rubric ................................................................................... 280 H.2 Preference attainment scoring for federal investment ............................................ 281 H.3 Preference attainment scoring for international student visa processing ................ 282 H.4 Preference attainment for work authorizations ....................................................... 283 H.5 Preference attainment for immigration pathways ................................................... 284 xiii List of Tables Table 4. 1 Temporary Foreign Worker program (TWFP) and International Mobility Program (IMP) Work Permit Holders by year permit became effective, 2011-2019 ................................. 67 Table 5. 1 Major types of Causal Process Observations (CPOs) used in Process Tracing ........... 97 Table 5. 2 Necessary and sufficient condition tests used in process tracing .............................. 102 xiv List of Figures Figure 1.1 Study and work permits compared with all other temporary work permits in Canada 2000-2019 .................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 2. 1 Wilson's (1980) typology of special interests .............................................................31 Figure 3. 1 Number of international foreign students enrolled in OECD and Non-OECD countries 1998-2017...................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 3. 2 Total number of higher education international students in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom 2013-2019............................................................................................. 54 Figure 3. 3 Total international student enrolments in 2019 by top destination countries .............56 Figure 3. 4 Number of international students in Canada with new study permits 1998-2019 ......59 Figure 6. 1 Media references for search terms “international students” and “foreign students” ....................................................................................................................... 147 Figure 6. 2 Frequency on economic and immigration frames used in media sources 2006-2017 ................................................................................................................................... 149 Figure 6. 3 Count of number of spokespeople by speaker type referencing international or foreign students 2006-2014......................................................................................................... 150 Figure 6. 4 Preference attainment for federal investment in international education ..................185 Figure 6. 5 Preference attainment for changes to visa processing and rate of approvals of international students .................................................................................................................. 188 Figure 6. 6 Preference attainment for work authorization changes for international students and graduates. ............................................................................................................................. 190 Figure 6. 7 Preference attainment for immigration pathways for international students ............192 xv Figure 7. 1 Number of Post Graduate Work Permit (PGWP) Holders 2000-2020 .....................201 Figure 7. 2 All temporary permits with work authorizations ......................................................202 xvi List of Abbreviations ACCC Association of Canadian Community Colleges APFC Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada AUCC Association of University and Colleges in Canada BCCIE British Columbia Council for International Education CAPS-I Canadian Association of Public Schools - International CBIE Canadian Bureau of International Education CBSA Canadian Border Services Agency CCIE Canadian Consortium for International Education CCIEM Canadian Consortium for International Education Marketing CEC Canadian Education Centre CEGEP Collège d'enseignement général et professionnel CIC Citizenship and Immigration Canada CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CIS Commonwealth of Independent States CMEC Council of Ministers of Education, Canada COTF Council of the Federation (Canada's Premiers) COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease CPO Causal Process Observations DAAD Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst DFAIT Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade DLI Designated Learning Institute DOI Digital object identifier EE Express Entry EU European Union FMRI Forum of Ministers Responsible for Immigration FPCCERIA Federal-Provincial Consultative Committee on Education-Related International Activities FSWP Federal Skilled Worker Program GDP Gross Domestic Product GOC Government of Canada HEI Higher Education Institution ICEF International Consultants for Education Fairs IIE Institute of International Education IMDB Longitudinal Immigration Database IRCC Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada IRPA Immigration and Refugee Protection Act IRPP Institute for Research on Public Policy ISP International Student Program ITA Invitation to apply NGO Non-governmental organization xvii NOC National Occupation Classification OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OISE Ontario Institute for Studies in Education PGWP Post-graduate work permit PGWPP Post-graduate Work Permit Program PNP Provincial Nominee Program SDS Student Direct Stream SPP Student Partners Program TFWP Temporary Foreign Worker Program UBC University of British Columbia UIS UNESCO Institute for Statistics UK United Kingdom UN United Nations UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization URL Uniform Resource Identifier USA United States of America WWI World War I WWII World War II xviii Acknowledgements I wish to recognize the UBC Public Scholars program for allowing me to link my practice to theory and share it back with my colleagues and professional community within international education. I also would like to thank the supportive and thoughtful instructors offering UBC’s Certificate in Advanced Teaching and Learning who helped me to articulate my teaching philosophy and deepen my understanding of the many ways we can share knowledge. I am particularly grateful to have been a small part of the development of the UBC Migration Cluster and see it grow into the Centre for Migration Studies. It allowed me to connect with faculty members and graduate students across many different departments and faculties at UBC and beyond to see, in practice, the many ways in which the migration and movement and mobilities of people are being studied and why it matters. Their work and the community that is now built has inspired and enriched me. I wish to give special thanks to my committee members Drs. Lesley Andres, Hongxia Shan and Antje Ellermann for their patience and grace in navigating my interdisciplinary research journey. In addition, I extend my gratitude to Dr. Hiebert and Dr. Ellermann for providing me with research and teaching opportunities which have been instrumental in my development as a teacher and scholar. I am also forever grateful to my family for their belief and support. xix Dedication My parents were both immigrants to Canada. My father came by boat in 1950 at the age of 20. He spoke no English. He had no money. He had a grade eight education. He had no special skills. He found work in the forest industry as a labourer. My mother arrived in 1958 at the age of 21. She spoke no English. She had no money. She had a grade six education. She found work as a nanny. They built a business, a family, and a life in Canada. This work is dedicated to them and others like them to remind us that ideal immigrants are people who want nothing more than to have a happy life and become Canadian. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 International students in Canada At the end of 1998 there were 145,205 international students with valid study permits in Canada. At the time higher education institutions did little to actively recruit foreign students, the speed of study permit processing was slow and policies to work and remain in Canada after study were restrictive. International students were not able to work off-campus during their studies and were only allowed to remain in Canada post-graduation for one year if they were approved for a work permit after first securing employment in a related field to their studies (Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), 2001). Prior to 2008, student visa applications were vetted to ensure there was no “dual intent” of international students coming to study. Dual intent is said to be present when “a foreign national who has applied or may apply for permanent residence in Canada also applies to enter Canada for a temporary period as a visitor, student or worker" (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) subsection A22 (2)). Previously, if dual intent was identified, it was grounds for student visa refusal. Given that international students were expected to leave at the end of their studies there were also no pathways to facilitate this form of skilled migration after graduation. International student graduates were in fact required to leave and apply out of country through other traditional skilled migration mechanisms. In other words, the study-migration link had yet to be established. In contrast, by the end of December 31, 2019, there were 827,586 international students in Canada according to Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) with 78% (over 2 640,000) of these being students studying at the post-secondary level1. This represents more than a 342% increase in the number of international students since 1998. This major expansion includes expanding international student enrolments not just in universities but also colleges, collège d'enseignement général et professionnel (CEGEPs), K-12 and English-language programming. Today international students enjoy open work authorization during their studies, up to three years of post-graduation work authorization and preferential immigration pathways to stay permanently in Canada. Changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) now allows for dual intent and is no longer prima facie grounds for the refusal of temporary resident status. Economically, international students contributed an estimated $21.6 billion to Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2018 and supported almost 170,000 jobs. (Government of Canada (GOC), 2019). To put that into perspective, in 2016, international student spending accounted for 14.5% of Canada’s total value of export of services. International student spending is the 6th largest manufacturing export sector for Canada, surpassing categories including liquefied petroleum, lumber, and wheat (GOC, 2017). While the global mobility of students also saw significant and sustained growth over the same period, Canada has expanded its world share of international students. Tertiary-level international students numbered 2 million worldwide in 1998, steadily growing to 5.3 million students by 2017 a 165% increase (Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2019). Canada’s market 1 In 1998, the international students with valid permits were drawn almost entirely from the post-secondary level, specifically university level attendance. Recruitment from the K-12 sector expanded in the late 2000s and contributed to the increase in overall international student numbers. At the same time there was signficant expansion of longer- term English language training programs. These numbers do not reflect those international students who study in Canada at all levels for 6 months or less, since they do not require a study visa. 3 share of tertiary-level international students over that same time grew from 4% to 7%. This increase was at a time when major international student markets in the United States and United Kingdom saw market share decline and other countries entered the international education market and started recruiting students to study, increasing competition. Canada, once considered a laggard in terms of international student enrolments, has emerged as major global player through its successful marketing and liberal migration policies which makes it important to understand how those changes were able to occur and what forces were driving them. 1.2 Purpose, hypotheses, and related research In spite of this significant growth and the extent of policy change and investment from the federal government, there is surprisingly little research available to explain how and why these changes took place. The policy changes are a substantive departure from previous policy on international students and contributed to the transformation of international education into an “industry” that is now also an important immigration pipeline. The result is an increasingly intertwined student to skilled migrant to permanent resident expectation which is influencing higher education delivery, content, and services. As the numbers and importance of international students increased both worldwide and in Canada, research on and about international students also began to emerge. From an education policy perspective, current research often highlights the role of post-secondary institutions in providing educational training to facilitate transition success of recent immigrants into the Canadian workforce and society (Anisef & Sweet, 2009; Hou, 2014). There are also studies that speak to the challenges of recent immigrants in terms of prior credential recognition (Shan, 2009), and the challenges to secure appropriate work given their academic credentials (OECD, 4 2006). From an immigration policy perspective, there is a general absence of research referencing higher education’s interest or role as a stakeholder in immigration policy formation. This can in part be explained by the fact that international student mobility, as a significant immigration pathway, is a relatively recent phenomenon. Research related to policy-making and international students is however beginning to expand (Baas, 2017; Creso & Sabzalieva, 2017; Gopal, 2016) as are studies highlighting the different migration trajectories of international students and what the characteristics are of those that stay (Lu, 2015; Frenette, Lu & Chan, 2019), as well as comparative studies on how those that begin as international students fare economically when they stay (Sweetman & Warman, 2014). Surprisingly however, there is still little research on the relationship and degree of influence that higher education institutions (HEIs) and their associations have had (or not had) on immigration policy making. The literature that does exist hypothesizes that policy change is prompted by competitive policy diffusion in which Canada considered the policies of other countries to create its own policies for competitive advantage. I argue this explanation is incomplete and does not account for the domestic special interest lobbying from the higher education sector which advanced its members’ interests to federal policy makers in Canada in spite institutionally being under provincial jurisdiction, and without established relationships to political elites with responsibility for immigration. I theorize that higher education institutions acted as special interest to improve the speed and acceptance rates for international student visa processing and to press for the creation of immigration pathways to make Canada an attractive study destination. This study is meant to account for the fundamental shift in international student immigration policy in Canada in the past 20 years. Who were the major stakeholders and what were their interactions and strategies to bring about policy change? Theories from political 5 science, immigration and educational studies are used to understand the nature and degree of policy change and provide possible explanations. Literature on the internationalization of higher education and the role internationally mobile students play within institutional international strategies explain the motivations of higher education institutions in the policy change arena and are part of the supply side of this increase in student mobility. Economic immigration theory highlighting the push and pull factors that encourage tertiary students to cross national borders for their education are also used to explain the motivations of obtaining international credentials. These supply and demand side levers for international student movement make it clear why immigration policy is central to this discussion and why immigration policy change, whether more liberal or more restrictive has an impact on institutional international student recruitment success. 1.3 Higher education as a special interest group Immigration policy is defined as the legislation, regulations and government programs regulating the entry, residents and rights of immigrants and refugees in host countries (Boswell, 2009). Higher education institutions had an interest in changing immigration policy to make it “easier” to attract international students. That “easier” came in several different asks of government. First, was a call for faster and less restrictive processing and approval of student visa applications, second, a more pan- Canadian approach to marketing Canada as a study destination, and third a request to provide easier access to Canada’s labour market. Finally, HEIs had a strong interest in advocating for clear (and easy) pathways for international student graduates to achieve permanent residence. I make the case that HEIs and their organizations successfully lobbied the federal government and in a deliberate and organized way requested 6 concessions to make it easier for international students to come and study, work, and gain preferential consideration if they chose to remain in Canada at the completion of their studies. It is difficult to find reference of higher education institutions or their representative organizations positioning themselves as a special interest group vis-à-vis the development of immigration policy in Canada. Given the absence of any significant presence of higher education institutions in the literature it becomes important to identify what groups are included in current theories and the roles or relationships they are seen to play. Interest group theories often highlight organized business interests and businesses playing a key role in the shaping of immigration policies (Borjas, 2001; Freeman, 1995; Menz, 2009; Tichenor, 2002). In a study of interest group impacts on US immigration policy, Facchini and colleagues (2011) confirm evidence that both pro- and anti-immigration interest groups play a statistically significant and economically relevant role in shaping migration policy across sectors by looking at the number of temporary work visas issued with data on lobbying activity associated with immigration. They found that sectors with higher business lobbying expenditures are associated with lower barriers to migration, but where there was a high presence of labour union lobby investment, the policy barriers to migration were higher. In his study on corporate lobbying and immigration policy in Canada, Rheult (2013) provides a systematic assessment of the claim that governments cater to corporate interests when managing immigration. He finds empirical evidence to support the view that Canadian businesses care about the issue of immigration and that public data archived by the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying reveals that the business sector does actively lobby on the specific subject of immigration. The study suggests that inflows of temporary workers, rather than permanent economic migrants are the most responsive to lobbying efforts from the business sector. Other studies highlight the interplay between business interests, particularly temporary 7 foreign workers, and social organizations that lobby for immigrant rights (Wong, 2006). Beyond economic interest groups, organized social justice and non-profit sectors are identified, though their relative influence is hard to determine. There is research in other regulatory areas that suggest that Canada’s institutions and parliamentary system make it difficult to discern if in fact any lobbying or influence is effective given the relative degree of insulation to special interest pressure, characterized by opaque or closed decision making and policy review that relies heavily on expert judgement (Harrison & Hoberg, 1994). The high degree of autonomy granted the executive branch and bureaucracy reduces an otherwise politicized process that requires deal-making and compromise (Triadiapoulos, 2010). This study fills a gap in the existing literature and identifies the emerging political relationships that have evolved in recent history as a result of globalization and the internationalization of higher education and the interests of higher education in immigration policy formation. 1.4 Methods of inquiry This research provides a detailed within case account of policy change and the involvement of higher education institutions using lobbying records, media and document analysis and elite interviews. While there is no specialized literature on methods for interest groups related research (Eising, 2016) scholars have noted that the field has grown over the last 20 years and includes both qualitative and quantitative empirical studies, particularly in the fields of European Studies, comparative European politics, and American politics (Beyers et al., 2008). The study of interest group influence is often seen as problematic because it is difficult to operationalize the concept of “influence” (Mahoney, 2008) even though it provides important insights into understanding political processes. The number of studies to measure interest group 8 influence are also relatively small but growing (Eising, 2016). There are three major methodological approaches typically used to measure interest group influence: process tracing, which is the most frequently used method, assessing attributed influence, and gauging the degree of preference attainment (Dür, 2008). Process tracing is an analytical tool for drawing descriptive and causal inferences from diagnostic pieces of evidence (Collier, 2011). It is defined by Bennett and Checkel (2015) as “the examination of intermediate steps in a process to make inferences about hypotheses on how that process took place and whether and how it generated the outcome of interest.” It is typically used for within case analysis based on qualitative data and is particularly well suited for measuring and testing hypothesized causal mechanisms. Causal mechanisms link a dependent variable X to an outcome Y and allow for a high degree of explanatory knowledge of a process, described as X ->mechanism ->Y (Beach and Pedersen, 2013). Process tracing can be used to test or build theories as well as explain outcomes. In explaining-outcome process tracing the aim is to develop an explanation of a puzzling outcome in a specific historical case. Assessing attributed influence typically uses self-assessment or peer assessment surveys to attribute influence (March, 1955). It has the advantage of being straightforward to administer but is open to stakeholder bias and focuses on perceptions of influence rather than actual influence. A third method for measuring interest group influence is gauging the degree of preference attainment. This method compares what actors’ ideal policy outcomes are and compares it with actual policy outcomes (Mahoney, 2007). The advantage of this approach is that it can capture a measurement of influence rather than only determining if influence was or was not present as is the case with an outcomes-based process tracing approach. 9 Given the strengths and weaknesses of each method in measuring interest group influence Dür (2008) suggests using a combination of different methods in a single study to resolve some of the issues related to each of the individual methods. Several studies on interest group influence have successfully used a combination of methods (Dür & De Bièvre, 2007; Schneider & Baltz, 2005). For this study, an explaining-outcome process tracing methodology will be used combined with measuring preference attainment. The objective is to both trace the within case causal mechanisms to establish if higher education institutions and their organizations influenced immigration policy outcomes and the degree to which their policy preferences were attained. How policy has changed is relatively easy to document. However, understanding the forces that prompted policy change is often more complex. What can explain the fundamental policy shift from limited immigration pathways for students, to preferential immigration pathways? In process tracing, the sequence and timing of observations and events is key to making claims about the degree of influence higher education institutions may or may not have had on the immigration policy process. In essence, the study will draw from several different information sources and act “as detective,” searching for clues that might validate (or disprove) the expected relationship of the dependent and independent variables (Collier, Brady & Seawright, 2010). In this analysis, careful attention is paid to when key discussions, events and documents took place or were released to the public and which people were providing or making recommendations and when. This helps to establish the direction of the information and relationship. If conversations can be confirmed, or if there are studies or reports released prior to government changes emanating from HEIs, then attributing a degree of influence might be possible. If policy positions of HEIs are communicated after immigration policy shifts and not prior, then these observations will undermine or disprove the stated theory. 10 A broad range of resources are used to piece together the timing and level of activity. Legislative and regulatory and lobbying records have been collected, as well as a media analysis. The evolution of the Government of Canada’s messaging on international students through briefings and reports alongside reports from key higher education associations are added for insights into any discrepancies between the interests of the higher education sector and government policy. Elite interviews, when combined with other methods of qualitative data collection, also provide an effective approach in reconstructing less-visible sequences and processes leading to specific outcomes. They can also provide information not recorded elsewhere (Davies, 2001; Tansey, 2007). The semi-structured format is recommended when interviewing elites to provide adequate scope for meaningful and descriptive answers and encourages those with in-depth knowledge of the historical context to share their insights (Aberbach & Rockman, 2002). "For projects where depth, context, or the historical record is at the heart of data collection, elite interviewing using broad, open-ended questioning might be the best choice" (Berry, 2002, p. 679). For this study, 32 elite interviews were conducted with various stakeholders including bureaucrats, political elites, senior representatives of professional higher education associations and higher education senior administration representatives. Each person interviewed was directly associated with an aspect of the policy changes over the period of the study and each interviewee was asked a series of five open-ended questions which took approximately 45 to 50 minutes to complete. The combination of elite interviews and the range of documents and records collected provides ample data to trace the policy implementation process and draw conclusions about what 11 critical factors were driving change. It will become apparent that higher education institutions, while not traditionally involved in immigration policy advocacy previously, made concerted efforts to engage with government actors. They worked as a coordinated sector to leverage their special interest position by building a coalition that represented not just higher education, but the K-12 system and English language programs as well. They provided expert advice, conducted research, and pointed to both economic and competitive factors that created an imaginary of international students as “ideal immigrants” which became part of the government rhetoric. While other factors led to the messaging being well timed and government receptive, there is no doubt the role of higher education was critical to the transformation of Canada becoming a major player in international student recruitment and the comparatively expansive and generous immigration pathways for international students’ pre-admission, during and post-graduation. The extent of policy success of higher education institutions is determined using the degree of preference attainment methodology that compares policy preferences of special interests with policy outcomes. The results highlight the cross- jurisdictional and inter-departmental challenges both between the provinces and the federal government and across federal departments. Higher education sector leaders navigated this jurisdictional logjam by looking for government allies and creating a coalition to advance their interests. As increasing numbers of international students graduate with post graduate work authorization and an aspiration to immigrate to Canada permanently, there is a question about the evolving role of higher education institutions as de facto migration portals and migration transition hubs along the responsibilities that come with it. This research also contributes to the understanding of interest group interactions in policy formation, particularly with respect to parliamentary systems 12 of government where it is typically understood that there is greater insulation from interest group influence. 1.5 Significance The increase in international student numbers means that international students as a category now exceed all other temporary foreign workers admitted to Canada (IRCC, 2018). Since international students also have work privileges (part time during studies and full-time during study breaks) this represents a significant source of not just students but temporary foreign workers (Figure 1.1)2. When both study visas and post graduate work permit numbers are combined, the result is that international students and international student graduates represent the majority of all temporary foreign workers in the country and an increasing number of the temporary foreign workers who transition to permanent residence (IRCC, 2019). As the number of international students increase there is a correlated but delayed increase in the number of post graduate work permits issued as larger numbers of international students graduate and seek work opportunities. Figure 1.1 captures this increasing proportion well. Changes in immigration policy therefore have not only translated into an increase in international students but have resulted in a fundamental change in the profile of temporary foreign workers in general and increasingly who becomes a permanent resident and Canadian citizen. Reflecting on how this policy arena has evolved contributes to research on policy making and policy outcomes but also asks what 2 In Figure 1.1 The category “other work permits” includes all temporary work permits issued under the temporary foreign worker program (TFWP) and the International Mobility Program (IMP) minus Post Graduate Work Permits issued. It does not include temporary work permits issued under the Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) purposes category. All categories presented are total numbers as of December 31 of each year. The H&C year-end numbers are not reported in IRCCs Open Data Portal and represent only a small percentage of overall foreign workers. 13 responsibility do HEIs have to the successful transition of international students if migration is their objective, particularly given their interests and advocacy to create and benefit from the study-migration connections that now exist. Figure 1. 1 Study and work permits compared with all other temporary work permits in Canada 2000-2019 Source: IRCC Open Data 1.6 Chapter outline In order to make the case that higher education institutions had “special interests” in the liberalization of immigration policy related to international students it becomes relevant to trace the evolution of international education trends on Canadian campuses. The motivations and interest in receiving international students has shifted over time and these shifts are relevant to understanding why HEIs were keen to influence immigration policy change starting in the early 14 2000s. Chapter 2 covers the literature on several interdisciplinary but related topics including globalization and the internationalization of higher education and the relationship between these two concepts along with a review of the major theories of migration generally and the motivations for student mobility specifically to explain why people move across borders as well as a review of the literature describing interest group theory within political science. A more in-depth description with examples of process tracing as a methodological approach is also included in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 provides the basis for understanding how the international student recruitment landscape has evolved and places Canada within this global environment. The chapter then goes into detail about the international student movement and migration trends within Canada to highlight some emerging developments. Chapter 4 will shift focus to trace the key immigration policy changes in Canada from 1990-2017 related to international students studying within its borders. Looking at both legislation and regulations, the chapter will document the gradual loosening of restrictions and the increase in administrative responsiveness to international student visa admissions. It will also provide a background to changes in work and study guidelines, post-graduation work opportunities and two-step migration trends. The changes have been varied and substantive and speak to a fundamental shift in policy from restrictionist to what is now regarded as one of the most generous worldwide (OECD, 2017). Several key programs are also highlighted. The emergence and increasing importance of the Provincial Nominee Program in the late 1990s along with the launch of the Canadian Experience Class in 2008 and the Express Entry (EE) Program in 2015 introduce two-step migration pathways for international students. The role of provinces in shaping policy related to international student migration pathways is also highlighted and their influence on federal government priorities in marketing 15 and branding of Canada to international students is another factor which adds to the explanation of how significant policy change was able to take place. The previous chapters are the building blocks needed to create a case for immigration policy influence of HEIs. They deliberately situate majors shifts and policy changes chronologically to determine what events, reports, meetings, or discussions preceded or followed major policy change. From here Chapter 5 includes the methodology used to determine immigration policy influence. Using an outcomes-based process tracing approach, the chapter details how elite interviews and a range of documents, including media sources, lobbying records, and government, think tank, and professional association reports are used to build a case. The chapter concludes with a description of the methods to be used to assess the degree of preference attainment of higher education institutions relative to other stakeholders as a means for better understanding the role HEIs played in policy change in this arena. Chapter 6 then makes the case that higher education institutions influenced immigration policy related to international students. It will test, using the data collected, for “observable implications” or things one would expect to see if the theory holds that HEIs are a source of influence. It will become evident that the timing and nature of information created from various sources, along with the accounts of those who were part of the policy change process, indicate a strong and coordinated special interest effort on the part of higher education institutions. The chapter also looks at the competing or alternative explanation that policy change is a response to policy learning from other nation states which compete with Canada for international students using the same process tracing approach. Chapter 6 establishes that higher education institutions promoted their position to government and the ways in which they did so. It goes on to determine the degree to which the policy preferences of higher education institutions were met. Looking at 16 the specific preferences of the higher education sector, to what extent were the preferences of HEIs realized? Were they successful in getting their preferences adopted by government? What preferences were not realized? Were there counter interests who were lobbying for different outcomes? The degree of influence will be a measure of how closely their policy preferences are reflected in government policy. Chapter 7 asks why establishing higher education institutions’ role in immigration policy formation matters. Reviewing the outcomes of the policy change reminds us of the significant changes in the scale and scope of not only the numbers of international students over time, but which levels of tertiary education have been impacted and in what ways. It has become a significant economic driver, a major and growing stream of temporary foreign workers as well as a significant migration pathway. It would not be an exaggeration to say that higher education institutions, through their own admissions processes of international students are directly impacting who can and cannot access the generous study, work, and migration opportunities in Canada and in many respects have become a de facto arm of its national immigration system. The chapter asks what are the responsibilities of higher education institutions? HEIs are not passive players implementing government policy but a special interest which has been encouraging policies for ever increasing numbers of international students. How have these policies in turn changed other aspects of higher education policy and what how will this impact future policy? Given that the data collection for this research took place prior to the global pandemic in 2020 from the COVID-19 virus, I reflect on the policy responses of the Canadian government in relation to international students during this unprecedented time. I look at whether the hypotheses I put forward still has relevance and I look for evidence of the higher education 17 sector’s ability to continue to provide policy input and have their preferences reflected in policy. In the Chapter 8 Epilogue I compare the early policy responses related to international students, with that of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand during COVID-19 to demonstrate both in timing and policy response Canada continues to promote the admission and migration of international students that is distinctive from other comparative English-speaking countries. 18 Chapter 2: Review of education, immigration, and interest group literature Students moving across borders is not new. It has been an integral part of academic life for centuries and international education within universities also has a long tradition. The idea of an “academic pilgrimage” (de Wit, 2002) began in the Middle Ages and marks the first in several historical developments that demonstrate how higher education has been influenced by an international dimension (Gürüz, 2008). However, the nature and motivations of the international movement of students has changed over time. Reviewing the literature on globalization, the internationalization of higher education institutions (HEIs) and the push and pull factors of international student mobility provides the background to situate policy change within the Canadian context. 2.1 Globalization and higher education The concept of globalization is complex, multidimensional and without a single definition. Some authors describe it as a process (Waters, 1995; Knight, 2008), while others as a system (Marginson, 1999), and still others as a phenomenon of time and place (Rizvi & Lingard, 2000). The wide-ranging differences in the discourse of globalization is in part a result of different disciplinary, theoretical, and ideological perspectives (Zadja, 2015). For the most part however, the literature is divided between the economic, social, and cultural dimensions of globalization (Beerkens, 2003) in both definitional and theoretical perspectives. Originally the term globalization was first described as "a concept that refers to the compression of the world as a whole" (Robertson, 2005, p. 151). From an economic perspective it is understood to mean world trade mechanisms based on free trade and open markets (Giddens, 19 2000; Robertson, 2005). These economic definitions align most closely with a neoliberal theory of globalization which are based on a range of free market policies such as competition, deregulation, privatization, and the reduction of the welfare state. Since the 1980s, globalization driven reforms around the world have resulted in “structural, ideological, and qualitative changes in education and policy (Zadja, 2015; Van der Wende, 2007; Lingard, Rizvi and Taylor, 1999). The scope of its perceived impacts is wide ranging and context dependent, but there is consensus that higher education systems are at once part of the process of globalization and are also affected by it (Beerkens, 2003; van der Wende, 2007). One of the first identified effects of globalization is that higher education organizations are increasingly articulating their goals and strategies through an entrepreneurial business model that focuses on efficiency, accountability and a revenue generating ethos (Johnstone & Lee, 2014; Zadja, 2015). A second characteristic is how this interconnectedness and global networking, enabled by the rapid technological change (Azmat et al., 2013) facilitates the ability of higher education systems (both public and private) to commodify their knowledge to a global market (Ampuja, 2012; Zadja, 2015). Third is the increasing prevalence of the English language for teaching and research (Nerad & Heggelund, 2008; Knight & de Wit, 1999). Altbach (2007) identified the expansion of English in tertiary level education as an outcome of globalization and an indication of a type of convergence of world higher education systems. Finally, and in many respects most importantly, is the increase in international student movements. The sustained, increasing trend in international student movement and migration across national borders is part of the globalization phenomena in which the majority of demand and flow of students is from developing to industrialized countries (van der Wende, 2007). 20 2.1.1 Internationalization of higher education While globalization is a contemporary concept, international education within universities has a long tradition. A brief historical overview is relevant to the discussion of the nexus between globalization and internationalization in higher education and will help to show the significant changes that have taken place in institutional priorities over time. It will also assist in providing a logic to why internationalization, though related, is not considered the same as globalization (Matthews, 2002). There is wide consensus that globalization and internationalization are related but not the same (Altbach & Knight, 2007) but beyond this general claim the explanations about the differences vary widely. For some, globalization “largely provides the impetus for accelerated institutional internationalization” (Maringe & Foskett, 2010, p. 17). For others, globalization is seen as an advanced phase of the process of internationalization, part of a continuum of development (Bartell, 2003). Jones et al. (2009) see internationalization and globalization as two different dimensions as well but related to cross border human actions with different geospatial dynamics. Matthews, (2002) describes internationalization as a particular configuration of a specifically neoliberal globalization ideology and while distinct both concepts impact and evolve to create conditions of possibility for the other (Jones et al., 2009; Marginson, 1999). This means that internationalization of higher education not only passively responds to globalization but is also an agent and active player in the process (de Wit, 2002). As a key strategy for responding to the influence of globalization, internationalization is generally understood to mean the integration of an international or intercultural dimension into the tripartite mission of teaching, research, and service functions of higher education (de Wit, 2002; Knight 2004; Sadlack, 1998; 21 Teichler, 2012) and is an inevitable result of the globalized and knowledge-based economy of the 21st century (Altbach & Teichler, 2001). Various definitions of internationalization have been proposed (de Wit, 2002; Van der Wende, 2007) but their universal application has been severely curtailed by the inclusion of specific rationales, actors, strategies, and outcomes embedded in the descriptions (Deardorff, de Wit & Heyl, 2012). A succinct and well cited definition of internationalization is provided by Jane Knight (2004, p. 11) who describes internationalization as "the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education.” It includes the policies and practices undertaken by academic institutions to cope with the global academic environment, but the nature, scale and scope of these activities naturally varies across different institutions, and it is acknowledged that the type of higher education institution and its political, economic, and social contexts will influence the degree to which internationalization is adopted. The process of internationalization will also have significant differences across levels of credentials so that internationalization activities at the undergraduate level will look different than those that apply to graduate level learning (van der Wende, 2007). This translates into differences not only across nations, regions and individual institutions but also differences within the institutions themselves. 2.1.2 Immigration theories to explain why students move across borders Since the new millennium, the migration of students has seen substantive and sustained growth but is not uniform across countries nor merely an expansion of past movements. To understand what motivates student mobility and migration I look to research and theories within the study of immigration and higher education. 22 Massey et al. (1993) argue that there is no single, coherent theory of international migration, only a fragmented set of theories that have developed largely in isolation from one another, often contained within disciplinary boundaries. Despite this, immigration theories allow us to think about what motivates people to move across borders. Traditional theories focus on the economic movement of workers, but these are also a legitimate starting point to understanding motivations to study overseas given the multi-step migration pathways from study to work which have emerged. International migration theory started with neoclassical economics arguing that at the macro level, migration can be explained by geographic differences in the supply and demand for labour (Lewis, 1954; Harris & Todaro, 1970). One of its assumptions is that the international migration of workers is caused by differences in wage rates between countries. Eliminating wage differentials would mean that migration would also end. From the micro-economic perspective international migration is conceptualized as a form of investment in human capital (Sjaastad, 1962; Todaro, 1976). Its rational choice approach says that people will move to where they can be the most productive. Those wishing to migrate will weigh the costs and benefits of moving to where they can receive the greatest net returns over time (Borjas, 1990). If this theory were operating prospective international students would have a higher propensity to seek permanent residence in a receiving country when employment or income opportunities were limited in their home country. The new economics of migration (Stark & Bloom 1985) emphasizes larger units of related people, primarily families, that act collectively to maximize monetary gains through income, as well as minimizing economic risks. This theoretical model does not require a wage differential as a necessary condition for migration. It does however recognize that risks, in developing countries 23 in particular, which lack the social programs and mechanisms to protect against market failures, create incentives for families to mitigate risk through migration. Given the substantive costs for international study, financing one member of the family to establish themselves in a host country and then either sponsor or send remittances back to mitigate home country risk to the family might also explain the motivation to migrate. These classic immigration theories explain why people migrate, but not necessarily why they study internationally. There is no country which guarantees migration through study, so if the intention is to migrate, then host country policies which preferentially link host country study to a migration pathway will be considered an attractive option. These two theories rely on push factors to explain international migration, but Piore (1979) argues that international migration is an inherent part of the economic structure of developed nations as well. This means that pull factors in receiving countries and a systemic need for foreign workers in its domestic labour force instead act as pull factors for economic migration. Pull factors that would be consistent with this theory would include the recruitment of international students by nation states and their institutions. Once migration flows between regions are established, migration systems theory then argues that these movements are reinforced and obtain a level of permanence as immigrant networks in the host country that support and assist in the costs and risks of movement (Hugo, 1981; Massey, 1990; Zlotnick, 1992). The movement of students could be a result of these established networks or could be the initiation of new networks as well. International student movement and migration can then be seen as a subset of skilled labour immigration. There is however another body of literature emanating from a social capital and education domain that theorizes international student movement differently but is equally relevant to understanding why some students choose to study across borders. 24 2.1.3 Higher education theories to explain why students move across borders The connection to migration in the higher education literature is evolving but initially a great deal of importance was attached to international student mobility as a way of engaging in the internationalization of higher education (Azmat et al., 2013) and several institutional strategies are employed to encourage students to consider education abroad (Cairns, 2014; Rizvi, 2011). Typically, international student mobility is differentiated into two main groups. Long term, degree or diploma mobility refers to students who complete a full credential in another country and short-term study, also known as student exchange or study abroad, refers to both semester long programs as well as other forms of short-term international study experiences (King & Ruiz-Gelices, 2003; Prazeres, 2013). Trends indicate that students from low and middle-income countries (global South) move mostly to countries with more advanced economies (global North) for degree programs, a phenomenon also described as vertical mobility (Altbach & Teichler, 2001; Teichler, 2012). Student mobility between countries with similar levels of economic development and education quality, described as horizontal mobility, is more common to short term student exchange. Exchange and mobility between Southern regions and from North to South is still limited (van der Wende, 2007; de Wit et al., 2008). Vertical migration has seen the most substantive growth and is relevant to the discussion of two step migration and immigration pathways since many students in this category are motivated to study because they are seeking better economic opportunities outside of their home country and intend to migrate permanently if possible. Major study destinations are predominantly focused on English-speaking countries which have experienced sustained international student growth for over a decade (Bhandari and 25 Blumenthal, 2011; Waters, 2006). In 2017, there were over 5.2 million tertiary students studying outside of their country of origin with the number of international students more than tripling between the years 2000 – 2017 (OECD, 2019). The top six receiving countries are the United States, Canada, Australia, United Kingdom, Germany, and France. Together, these 6 countries receive over 50% of all international students. Outbound student mobility from these destinations is conspicuously limited in comparison and there is growing concern about the low numbers of outbound students from these English-speaking countries (Doyle et al., 2010). Like the mobility flows they describe, current research has grown significantly over the past twenty years with a focus primarily on mobility within the European Union, the Western world and on incoming foreign students to major English-speaking countries (Gürüz, 2008; Prazeres, 2013). There are several generalizations that can be made about international student mobility which begin with the perceived benefits of mobility and the possible inequalities that can result. International student mobility, regardless of length, is often regarded as a means of developing differentiated (and elevated) social and cultural capital (Findlay et al., 2012). Identifying which qualities of an international education provide these benefits is the subject of several studies. The opportunities for personal development, new cultural experience and in many cases linguistic improvement have been shown to provide students with a greater propensity to engage in postgraduate study, better job profiles, higher incomes, and higher levels of employment (Crossman & Clarke, 2010; King & Ruiz-Gelices, 2003; Waters, 2006). As a result, international academic mobility is also said to exacerbate inequalities given the cost of international study which often amplify discrepancies in class difference (Altbach, 2004; Chan, 26 2012; Teichler, 2004). As competition for economic global talent intensifies nation-states are also impacted (Brown, 1995; Geddie, 2015; Waters, 2006). If short term mobility is considered one of the traditional forms of internationalization, the growth and interest in long term degree mobility is to be considered its contemporary cousin. It has become a major component of most higher education internationalization strategies but is largely motivated by economic factors (Collins, 2010). This is true both for the students who engage in degree mobility and the universities which receive them. As international student numbers expand different strands of research that explore these mobilities and its implications for cross border education have grown as well (Geddie, 2015). Research includes individual and household strategies that underpin motives for an overseas degree with theoretical links to immigration and economic theories (Waters, 2006); research on the extent to which international education experiences contribute to the reproduction of social and class inequalities (Brown, 1995; Shields, 2013; Tannock, 2013; Waters 2006), and international student recruitment policy development including work and migration incentives (Brown & Tannock, 2009; Geddie, 2015). Associated with long term mobility are the aggressive recruitment strategies of developed country governments in association with its national universities (Kell & Vogl, 2010). Degree mobility itself has not only grown but seen some major shifts. The significant increase in self-funded international study and an increase in diploma and undergraduate level students underpins the work of several scholars (Bevis, 2014; Prazeres, 2013). Regionalization and network theories have also emerged which track several Asian countries, including Singapore, Japan, Malaysia, and China, who are challenging the hegemony of traditional South to North international student flows by participating in the recruitment of international students as well (Chan, 2012; Wei, 2013). Concurrently other scholars describe trends of increasing polarization 27 of student flows which seem at odds with the evidence of new and emerging destinations for international students in Asia and the Middle East (Hawkins & Jacob, 2011; Shields, 2013). With the rising interest in attracting international degree seeking students from both national governments and higher education systems, there is growing research interest in the motivations and determinants of long-term student mobility (Brooks & Waters, 2010; de Wit, 2008) and social and cultural capital development (Rahguram, 2013; Water, 2006), including language acquisition, which figures prominently in longer term mobility. However, it is still more common to see motivations described within the context of economic theories of migration related to “push” and “pull” factors in a way that is relatively absent from discussion in shorter term opportunities. In this regard “push factors” would include the inability to access home country education (Brooks & Waters, 2010; Teichler, 2012) and foreign credentials valued highly at home (Azmat et al., 2013). Pull factors would include institutional reputation (Findlay et al., 2012; Gonzales, 2011; Furukawa, 2013) and higher wage earnings and employability (Cairns, 2014; Gonzales, 2011; Chira, 2013). There are some dissenting views related to the importance of some of these factors. Hazen and Alberts (2006) note that professional and academic considerations such as graduate student funding, access to technologies and breadth of course availability were the main motivating factors in international students’ decisions to study abroad, not social or economic considerations. However, Wei (2013) in an empirical study based on 48 countries and regions from 1998-2008, determined that developed country students look to educational quality factors in their decision making, but students from developed countries are motivated primarily by economic factors. This suggests that the ability to find and participate in local employment opportunities is another major factor in the decision-making process of where to study for students from developing countries. 28 These findings are also linked to using higher education study as a means of “two-step migration”, a term coined by Lesleyanne Hawthorne (2010), which describes the process from temporary to permanent migrant, first as a student and then to a highly skilled labour migrant. Related to this concept, Findlay (2011) highlights a false dichotomy that exists between labour migration and other migration, notably students. Other scholars take up this line, producing empirical research demonstrating that some engage in ‘life planning’, with decisions on student mobility often being embedded in an individual’s life-course aspirations and plans for migration over the longer run (Gough, 1999; Kamara & Gambold, 2011; Shields, 2013). However, Rizvi instead suggests that international education produces in students “a global imagination in which the notions of mobility, transculturalism, and diaspora are especially significant” (2001, p. 222). This is linked to the immigration theory related to the “culture of migration” which says that once someone has migrated, they are more likely to migrate again (Massey, 1986). Either way, if the motivating factor for international study is economic, regardless of whether the intention to work and settle is decided prior to coming or during their stay, prospective international students will select a host destination that facilitates their economic goals and will look to the work and settlement opportunities post-graduation as a factor in their decision-making. 2.2 International students, interests, and policymaking A basic assumption in this study is that higher education institutions, and their associations, act as an interest group to advance their preferences to government. An interest group is defined as an organized structure, having political interest, which is not seeking political office, often described as having “private status” or “informality” (Beyers, Eising, & Maloney, 2008). A distinction is often made between interest groups pursuing their own economic 29 interests and civil society groups which represent public interests. In this case, it is argued that higher education organizations represent their members as an interest group to advance their interests, specifically, to receive government assistance to attract more international students to their institutions through both increased government investment and preferential regulations. Lobbying is conceptualized as an exchange relationship between interest groups and government. This exchange of “goods” is often in the form of information, voter support or economic power (Baumgartner et al., 2009). However, lobbying is not only an individual endeavor, but typically a complex collective process of multiple interest groups, often with competing interests, who are trying to affect political outcomes. Interest groups are considered successful if they are influential in shaping political decisions in line with their preferences (Dür, 2008). A necessary condition for influence is when political decisions align with a group’s policy preferences. The types of organizations, the policymaking system, and institutions, along with the presence of supporting and opposing interests, will impact the influence of interest groups (Eising, 2016). Having started with the history and theories related to the internationalization of higher education, and the different theories of why students choose to cross borders to study from both an immigration and an education perspective this next section explores the political economy literature around interests and policy making. First, it is important to be clear what is meant by policy. Policy in this study is understood to be a law, regulation, procedure, administrative action, incentive, or voluntary practice of governments and other institutions (Lowi, 1972). “Policy making” is the process of formulating policies, particularly those of government. A “policy community” is a network of government agencies, lobbyists, practitioners, experts, and parliamentary committees engaged in professional discussions about policy formation (Rich, 30 2004). Finally, “policy makers” include both bureaucrats and elected officials with responsibility to create and implement various policy mechanisms. What determines interest group influence is one of the central puzzles of politics (Klüver, 2013). Special interests and their ability to influence policy outcomes are based on how receptive political institutions must be to political pressures in getting policy approved (Immergut, 1992). From a political economy perspective, immigration politics and policy are fundamentally about interests (Freeman, 2009). Wilson (1980) argues that there are four types of politics depending on whether the benefits and costs of policies are concentrated or diffuse. A cost or benefit is described as concentrated when a specific group, usually one that is organized, is affected in a major way. Something is described as having diffuse benefits or costs when it affects a large unorganized group of people, often the public at large, and in only a small or diffuse way. If both the costs and benefits are concentrated, meaning there are distinct and organized groups who benefit or incur costs or are disadvantaged interest group politics is said to take place. The politics of environmental protection typically features environmental groups or civil society groups pitted against business interests and is an example of interest group politics. If costs are concentrated and benefits are diffuse, Wilson predicts entrepreneurial politics. Attempts by government to reduce social security benefits often takes the form of entrepreneurial politics. Organized interests representing those who are retired or near to retirement will fight to stop any reduction in benefits while those that might benefit, younger workers, are not typically organized around this issue. If both costs and benefits are diffuse, it is described as majoritarian politics.. A timely example of this would be governments making vaccines available for free to the public. Finally, if benefits are concentrated and costs diffuse, client politics develop. Tax loopholes which benefit a specific group, or sometimes a specific industry can often take the form of client 31 politics since a tax benefit often shifts or relieves the tax burden from a group that benefits to others who must pay. Often the majority are not even aware of the costs being incurred or the benefit they may not be receiving. Those that benefit have incentive to lobby to both get and protect their tax break while others just pay their taxes. Typically, there are higher levels of conflict seen in interest group and entrepreneurial politics and lower conflict in majoritarian and client politics. A summary of Wilson’s typology is presented in Figure 2.1 below. Figure 2. 1 Wilson's (1980) typology of special interests Special interest group theorists looking at national immigration policy most often recognize business interests, labour interests, and interests of civil society, with a special focus on ethnic rights or human rights groups as the active players in lobbying governments for either greater expansion of immigration or greater restrictions (Baumgartner, 2009; Tichenor, 2002; Wilson, 1980; Wong, 2006). Freeman (1995) argues that the typical mode of immigration 32 politics in liberal democracies is client politics in which policy makers interact intensively and often out of public view with groups having direct interests in immigration. Client politics develops, according to the model, because the benefits of immigration tend to be concentrated while its costs are diffuse. This gives those who expect to gain from migration stronger incentives to organize than those who anticipate bearing its costs. Public interests are typically unorganized interests, meaning that opinions can be commonly held, but there is no coordination among individuals. Organized interests are often able to mobilize and communicate their message more directly to government. Different interests also have different preferences. Business interests lobby the government to expand immigration to facilitate easy accessibility to both low and high skilled labour to easily manage their labour supply and to keep wage levels down (Freeman, 1995). Business interests tend to support an expansionist position in terms of immigration policy. As an organized interest group, business is also often said to have disproportionate influence in shaping immigration policy (Lindblom, 1982; Tichenor, 2012; Wilson, 2003) suggesting that even though public preference is typically reductionist, a strong business lobby, especially with many avenues for interest group influence, can often successfully drive policy makers to more expansionist immigration policies. Other social interest groups may advocate for more liberal and expansionist policies and can also counter the preferences of the public related to immigration policy. Ethnic groups wishing for more liberal family reunification and less bureaucracy in processing can also effectively organize and influence government. However, the situation and balance of influence can change if the public’s salience and interest in the issues of immigration increase and the costs for the public become more highly concentrated. This could prompt the public to mobilize themselves through social movements or 33 respond by supporting political parties that will address their interests. When both the costs and benefits are concentrated between groups, then the situation becomes one of interest-group politics where each side now has a strong incentive to organize and exercise political influence (Wilson, 1980). The degree of success in influencing policy will depend on the institutions within which interests operate (Cornelius et al., 1994). In majoritarian parliamentary systems without intense interest by significant numbers of voters, leaders are apt to pay little attention to diffuse interests of the public because they do not need their support to govern. Instead, they are more likely to consult extensively with representatives of concentrated interests, especially business although policy gains can be reversed when there is a change in government (Vogel, 1993). Parliamentary systems characterized by proportional representation and coalition governments offer advocates of diffuse interests greater opportunities for access and responsiveness than those generally found in other types of parliaments (Vogel, 1993). A constitutional system based on the separation of powers creates not only important opportunities and risks for representation but on balance is likely to be responsive to organizations representing diffuse interests than parliamentary systems (Vogel, 1993). The greater the gap between the public’s preferences on immigration and current policy the greater the likelihood for an increased concentration of its diffuse interests and an eventual public backlash (Cornelius et al., 1994). In most cases though public interests will be in competition with business and social interests advocating for more expansionist policies (Rosenblum & Cornelius, 2012). While an analysis of interest group influence remains of crucial importance to the understanding of political processes there are difficulties in measuring influence. Three distinct challenges have been noted in the literature. First measuring influence is challenging because 34 there are many different channels of influence (Dür, 2008). Channels of influence can include both direct lobbying, indirect lobbying, as in the case of targeting different levels of government and outside lobbying to influence the public which in turn influences government. Given all the channels that can exist, it can become difficult for any single method to take all of them into account. A second challenge is how to include any counteractive lobbying in the measurement of influence. Other groups lobbying for alternative measures can also be amplified if public opinion is aligned with their positions. This means that in these scenarios public opinion would also need to be controlled for. Controlling for these other forces that influence policy outcomes can be difficult. Finally, influence might be present at different points in the policy process so taking account of the full policy cycle from agenda setting to implementation to identify influence is also difficult. The process-tracing method using a within case analysis helps to address several of these challenges. It is meant to articulate in detail the factors influencing a political decision and be able to explore rival hypotheses. The use of semi-structured interviews of decision-making elites involved in the political process provides insights that would otherwise not be available through document analysis or surveys. This assists in deriving a valid estimate of interest group influence for a specific policy choice. How are interests successful in influencing policy? Interests employ varying methods to get their preferences before government and tend to be context driven. There are several relevant theories to explain some of these tactics used by special interests including (1) the use of expert knowledge, (2) the use of lobbying coalitions and (3) using government officials as policy advocates. Each is described in the sections that follow. 35 2.2.1 Information as policy influence There is an extensive body of literature on the impacts of knowledge utilization on policy and the ways in which research influences decision-making. The propensity for ‘evidence-based policy’ often starts from a desire to understand how academically produced knowledge might have a greater impact on policy (Davies et al., 2000; Sanderson, 2002). While universities and researchers within academia are one set of “experts” there is a wide range and number of organizations that seek to advise or influence governments in their actions. Examples include interest groups, university researchers, independent ‘think-tanks’ and professional organizations (Rich, 2004). Expert knowledge refers to knowledge produced by research from individuals and institutions with recognized qualifications (Boswell, 2008). Instrumentalist theories related to expert knowledge are ones which regard information and ideas as a tool for solving practical problems. In policy making this translates into the use of information to inform and maximize policy outputs. Expert knowledge, is not however, exclusively used as a policy making tool. Christina Boswell (2008) identified other, more symbolic uses of expert knowledge. It can also be used to legitimize policy decisions or substantiate policy preferences. Legitimizing policy decisions through expert knowledge allows an administrative agency to demonstrate its capacity to mobilize resources to produce and apply knowledge. Substantiating knowledge is used to gain support for a preferred course of action. The use of data and statistics lends credibility to claims and can highlight the urgency of an issue, particularly in public communications. An organization that is well respected for its expertise may have more authority when it comes to making arguments about the advantages of its preferred policy. 36 Governments are often in need of policy-relevant information, and interest groups that can successfully provide information can also leverage it into political influence (Grossman & Helpman, 2001). Governments both request input into the policy process and receive information from special interests. Research-based institutions, including research within universities, generally hold a trusted place in policy input and formulation processes. As such, they have greater opportunity and access to key policymakers than other interests. Higher education institutions and their representatives are utilized by governments in Canada as both information sources and “experts” and therefore this special position may be able to influence a change in policy position in terms of immigration regulations for international students in ways that other interests, including those of business, could not. Perhaps one could argue that higher education interests were acting as “business interests” when they sought resources and regulatory changes for international students, however they were not, as businesses were, advocating for temporary foreign workers, or a labour supply, in the way business interests have traditionally lobbied governments. Their policy preferences were different from those of employers, and sometimes in competition with them, which means that they should be considered a distinct interest group in this policy arena. 2.2.2 Policy influence through coalitions Another relevant body of literature to the discussion of immigration policy change of international students is how lobbying coalitions can leverage their related interests to gain policy influence. Coalitions are not only common they are also perceived to be a critical tool for influencing public policy (Nelson & Yackee, 2012). Almost without exception, all lobbyists engage in some degree of networking which can range from information sharing to something 37 more coordinated, however, not all advocates pursue more formalized issue-specific coalition action. (Mahoney, 2007). Coalitions are agreements between two or more autonomous groups to collaborate in advocating for a common policy position (Baumgartner et al., 2009; Heany & Leifeld, 2018). The decision to form a coalition is based on whether the benefits of joining a coalition outweigh the costs (Hojnacki, 1997). Benefits would include cost and resource sharing and the ability to establish a united front. Costs would include the loss of autonomy during collective advocacy and risks of joining a controversial debate. Baumgartner et al. (2009) were the first to point out the importance of lobbying coalitions for interest group influence. They demonstrated that not only individual interest group properties, but also characteristics of lobbying coalitions need to be considered to understand interest group influence in the United States. Similarly, Klüver (2011) shows that lobbying coalitions play a crucial role for lobbying success in the European Union. Issue-specific coalitions play a major role in understanding interest group influence and policy change. Since decisionmakers are confronted with a range of interests when making policy decisions, the likelihood that specific interests will succeed will depend on the extent of the strength as well as the relative size of a coalition of interest groups fighting for the same policy goal. In Klüver’s (2013) work interest groups who share the same policy position act as de facto coalitions whether there is explicit coordination or not. This is expanded in the work of Junk (2019) who highlights the importance of “active” interaction activities in issue-specific coalitions for lobbying success. The three main benefits of active co-operation include: (1) the gathering of intelligence and information dissemination (Heaney & Lorenz, 2013; Hula, 1999), (2) strategy co-ordination (Baumgartner et al., 2009; Hula, 1999), and (3) signaling sector wide support to policymakers (Hula, 1999; Mahoney, 2007b; Nelson & Yackee, 2012). 38 Also, critical to lobbying success are the issue characteristics being advocated. Recent literature points to issue context as an important explanation of why some lobbying coalitions succeed and others do not. (Baumgartner et al., 2009; Mahoney, 2007, 2008). The policy environment, whether favourable or unfavourable can also determine success, with favourable issue contexts making it much easier to succeed. Salience of policy issues, coalition diversity, group consensus, relative size of coalitions as well as resource capabilities are other examples of such characteristics. In terms of issue salience, there are differing viewpoints. Mahoney (2007, 2008) reasons that the more salient an issue, the more actors are active on this issue and the more attentive the general public. Thus, interest groups should find it difficult to exert influence since policy makers cannot listen to one single advocate. It has been demonstrated however, that salience does not have a constant effect but a differential effect depending on the relative size of lobbying coalitions. Salience has a negative effect if interest groups are members of a lobbying coalition that is smaller than the opposing coalition working on the same policy issue. By contrast, salience has a positive effect if interest groups belong to the larger coalition on a policy issue (Klüver, 2011). Related to salience, the degree of conflict over an issue was also expected to affect the ability to influence policy making in a similar way: the higher the degree of conflict (interest group politics according to Wilson’s work), the more opposing groups are trying to lobby the decision‐ makers and the harder it is to shift the policy output in any one direction. Phinney’s (2017) theory of diverse coalitions argues that a coalition gains influence through its diversity, which is defined as differences in the interests that a group represents. When different types of groups work together, the heterogeneity of their voices and the costs 39 associated with collaborating enhance the credibility of the information they provide. These diverse coalitions emerge on issues characterized by high levels of salience, uncertainty, and strong opponents. Group consensus, coalition size and composition are also characteristics noted in the literature. Nelson and Yackee (2012) suggest coalitions are influential when they provide a unified message to policymakers and that larger coalitions are on average more influential than smaller ones. Resources on interest group influence is another well cited characteristic in interest group research where greater resources translate into greater access and influence. Resources mentioned in the literature include money, legitimacy, political support, and knowledge and sometimes also information (Hall & Deardorff, 2006; Mahoney, 2007, 2008; Baumgartner et al., 2009; Eising, 2012). It is worth noting however that Mahoney (2007, 2008) and Baumgartner et al. (2009) did not find any clear relationship between resources and lobbying success in their empirical research on lobbying groups in the United States. I hypothesize that the presence of an issues-based coalition of higher education organizations that represented issues related to international student marketing and recruitment contributed to the successful influence of the sector by having their policy preferences on immigration pathways for international students profiled to government in a coordinated way. The signal that the different higher education/tertiary education sectors were co-operating to provide coordinated advocacy on policies and programs to support the growth of Canadian international education efforts became an important turning point in moving advocacy issues related to international students and international student marketing forward. 40 2.2.3 Government officials as allies in advocacy Building coalitions to advance interests is about demonstrating support through alliances with different but like-minded organizations. Within the literature on interests, a case is also made for interests developing alliances and creating advocates from within government. Policy advocacy can and very often does come from actors within government. Mahoney and Baumgartner (2015) discuss the circumstances under which government officials become policy advocates for a given policy position and explain that they respond to the likelihood of success when lobbying resources are mobilized and prominent officials at high levels are also supporting the policy position. DeGregorio (1997) speaks about the need for outside “advocates” to work with inside “champions” to push policy change forward. When policy goals are shared there will be offers from advocacy groups to help government officials with information and other resources to make it easier for those within government to take on this type of leadership role (Hall & Deardorff, 2006). The political objective of this strategy is to assist natural allies in government to achieve their own, aligned objectives. Since special interests focus on relatively few issues they will have greater issue-relevant expertise which can be shared. One large-scale American study interviewed 300 lobbyists and government officials to understand the policy process and makes the point that governmental actors, rather than being neutral players, were themselves policy advocates and would work with those who shared similar viewpoints and lobby others in directing specific policy outcomes. Since the provision of higher education is a provincial responsibility in Canada there is no organized national level coordination of education. There exists only an intergovernmental body, the Council of Ministers of Education (CMEC), which consults and cooperates with 41 national organizations and the federal government in areas of mutual interest. Most interactions of HEIs in the more traditional education funding and policy making arenas take place at the provincial level, given this jurisdictional responsibility. This makes access and the ability to influence federal political representatives difficult for individual higher education institutions, particularly when trying to promote their interests related to immigration. Encouraging provincial and federal level government alliances in this context takes on a high degree of importance. Paquet (2015) highlights the increase in immigration activism at the subnational level in Canada from 1990-2010, attributing it to bureaucratic entrepreneurs. Interestingly this timing coincides with the increase in advocacy for immigration policy change from the tertiary education sector as well. There were increasingly louder and more persistent calls for greater governmental support and an easing of regulations to make it easier and more attractive for international students to come to Canada. Given that the provision of post-secondary education is the responsibility of provinces, it is certainly conceivable that their interests and preferences are successfully reflected in both provincial and federal immigration regimes. Through their national associations it is hypothesized that federal champions within government acted as allies in promoting the interests of the sector to other key areas of government. In addition, HEIs also communicated their interests through their provincial government representatives (both elected officials and bureaucrats) to become “allies” in lobbying the Canadian federal government for immigration change and this aligned well with provincial immigration policy preferences that were developing simultaneously. 42 2.3 Alternative explanations There are other possible explanations which might account for the substantive immigration policy change with respect to international students. Circling back to the literature on globalization an argument could be made that the changes were simply a natural evolution of the increasing economic interconnectedness between nation states. The movement of people, like the movement of goods, is facilitated without any other policy influence. More students wanted to come to study in Canada and immigration policy, like trade policy globally was liberalized to facilitate this movement. Policy changes then, are just a part of an inevitable liberalization trend driven by global economic pressures (OECD, 2008). This position argues that policy change was merely a contemporary response to the ease and expansion of various technologies and faster forms of communication and information flows which enabled the increasing demand of students to travel across borders to study. This might explain an increased demand for higher education opportunities across borders but does not sufficiently explain the impetus for selective immigration policy change. Policy change might be better explained by the demographic changes and birth rate declines threatening economic growth and existing social welfare systems and that changes making it easier for international students to migrate was a government policy decision to address a larger policy challenge. Since the mid-1990s, Canada’s population growth has averaged 1% per year, however two thirds of this minimal growth is attributed to international migration (Martel, 2015). Natural population increases, based on the birthrate within the population is considered low at 1.6 children per woman and is expected to decrease due to population aging. International immigration plays an important role in maintaining current population growth. While immigration policy looks at demographic trends carefully and uses this 43 to set its annual immigration targets, this explanation also does not fully account for why international students were afforded more incentives and concessions than other highly skilled temporary worker categories over the same time. Also, if government was only responding to demographic needs, then one would expect to see more permanent residence programs implemented, rather than ones related to international students, which is considered a temporary classification. Demographic trends did make it easier to advance the interests for more migration pathways for international students where none had existed in the past, but I argue it is also an incomplete explanation for the policy change that took place. More compelling are the arguments provided from the theories of policy diffusion and policy transfer. Policy diffusion is described as a process where “policy choices in one country affect those made in a second country” (Simmons et al., 2006, p. 781). Policy transfer is a process by which “knowledge about policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in one political setting is used in the development of policies in another political setting” (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2006, p.5). The literatures share conceptual overlap and are generally complimentary to one another (Marsh & Sharma, 2009) and argue that public policy is shaped not only within nation states but between nation states as well as supranational influences (Carroll & Common, 2013). Within these two broad frameworks there are four different ways the literature of policy diffusion and transfer are described (Dobbin et al., 2007). The first is through policy learning as a way for governments to learn from others and produce more efficient and effective policy outcomes (Rose, 1991). The second is through a competition model where there is a “race to the bottom” approach where governments consider the policies of other countries in creating their own to create a competitive advantage. The third line of research is based on emulation (also known as mimicry) where states copy models, for mostly symbolic reason, to 44 gain legitimacy or to belong to an international norm-based community and fourth, coercion where the requirements of powerful national states or supranational organizations might compel states to adopt policies as a condition of support, aid, or membership. In one of the few comparative policy pieces on the topic, Geddie (2015) argues that the policy development path for international student policies and initiatives in Canada and the UK between 2000 to 2010 is the result of policy competition. This echoes the competition-based policy diffusion model where a policy that gives one state a competitive edge leads others to follow suit. Geddie points out that Canada emulated policy adjustments not only in the UK but in other traditional immigrant-receiving states such as Australia and New Zealand to compete in terms of relative attractiveness. She notes that the policies introduced in competitor states re-set the bar which “caused Canada to follow suit and adjust its own policies to become at least as, or more, attractive than other states in the eyes of prospective international students/migrants” (p.244). There is evidence that policy transfer did take place as a response to competition and that Canadian government officials considered the policies of other nations when revising their own policies. The Geddie piece acknowledges the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) as “a new policy actor” agitating for immigration policy changes when this was not typically their role. It acknowledges that there were substantial differences in the programs adopted between the two countries and suggests the influence of more fixed and contextual local politics as factors. This indicates that there is perhaps a more nuanced explanation beyond cross national policy diffusion to explain these extensive changes. Higher education institutions and their organizations were not mentioned as a major player, with the focus instead on government departments playing the role of advocate. This research will 45 demonstrate that HEIs through their national organizations actively lobbied DFAIT for assistance in advocacy within other departments of the federal government. HEIs and their organizations courted key officials within DFAIT as allies to seek assistance in effecting policy change and securing greater government investment to support the growing sector. Policy transfer took place after the issue gained salience in the right policy spheres. The theory of interests driving policy change therefore still holds however the policy diffusion theory is a worthy alternative theory which will also be tested in the analysis. 46 Chapter 3: Education, movement, and migration of international students 3.1 Historical overview of international education in Canada A brief historical overview of international education will help to show the significant changes that have taken place in institutional priorities over time. Many of these trends are not specific to Canada but reflect a world-wide trend in higher education in the developed world. These changes have helped to shift the interest and motivations in attracting international students to Canadian campuses and lay the groundwork for understanding why HEIs became increasingly interested in lobbying for international student immigration pathways from the mid- 1990s onwards. An inward nation-building focus marked the late 19th century and only a small degree of international mobility took place with limited cooperation and exchange in research. Export of academic systems from European colonial powers to other parts of the world represented the extent of knowledge sharing (Kehm & Teichler, 2007). In the twentieth century, there were four major phases that could describe the international dimension of higher education (de Wit, 2002). The first phase, just after WWI, focused on peace building and development of mutual understanding across nations (Altbach &Teichler, 2001). National organizations were founded to promote cooperation including the Institute for International Education (IIE) in 1919, the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) in 1925, the British Council in 1934 and the Fulbright Program in 1948. In particular, the United States expanded its international exchange and cooperation efforts not only for mutual understanding, but to maintain and expand their spheres of influence internationally (de Wit, 2002). At the same time, Canada also established an international portfolio but distinguished itself by not establishing a central organization in the 47 support of international academic relations, but instead situating the task of international diplomacy within the federal department of foreign affairs. In terms of international academic relations, a “Canadian Studies Program” was established with international development funds which were accessible to academic institutions. To a large extent, the priorities of government funding programs influenced the international engagement strategies of Canadian institutions. At the institutional level, however, the international dimension in higher education was still considered relatively marginal to a university’s core mission (deWit, 2002). In terms of international student recruitment, institutions were relatively passive, participating in government sponsored programs as a contribution to national development goals and peace building exchange. The numbers of students coming to Canadian university campuses was small and there was no interest or engagement of HEIs in immigration issues. The second phase began at the end of WWII and continued until the end of the 1970s marked by an increasing focus on developing countries. A largely voluntary technical assistance network quickly developed into nationally funded development initiatives that included academic capacity building and training. In 1960 the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAIT) initiated the External Aid Office and development assistance became an increasingly important part of Canadian foreign policy and cultural diplomacy became the norm. Canadian universities participated in projects and accessed funding to carry out a range of institutional strengthening and training activities internationally, though access to funding was not exclusive to higher education institutions. The Canadian government’s funding priorities included support for a small number of international students from developing countries with the intention that those receiving credentials would return to their home country. By the late 1970s and into the 1980s the foreign policy priorities of government shifted from capacity building to enhancing greater 48 understanding of Canada and its image oversees. This had the effect of also shifting the focus of higher education institutions from a development perspective to one with a greater focus on short term international study mobility from both a receiving and sending perspective. By the mid-1980s promotion of international exchange continued to grow and the term “internationalization” in higher education was first used. Students were encouraged to spend time at partner institutions as part of their academic studies but there were still no formal “pathways” to immigration and students were still not encouraged to stay after the completion of their studies. In the early 1990s a third phase saw the continuing decline of technical assistance projects and an increase in international research investment. International student mobility continued to expand but increasingly self-funded rather than government sponsored students were applying to predominantly English-speaking countries for credentials (Chan, 2012). The end of the 1990s and into the millennium features a more systematic approach to internationalization and an integration of internationalization into the overall strategy of institutions of higher education (Teichler, 2012). This phase also marks a significant turning point in the approach of HEIs to international students. Rather than passively accepting applications from international students, HEIs began to actively recruit undergraduate international students and undertook a more refined approach in the recruitment of international graduate students. This was in response to provincial policies reducing overall subsidies for public post-secondary institutions and encouraging institutions to seek other revenue streams (Trilokekar & Kizilbash, 2013). This transformed international students into an economic opportunity and marked the beginning of the marketization of higher education at a scale not previously seen. In the late 2000s those international students who had once been expected and, in many cases, required to return to their home countries after study, were now not only being 49 recruited to study in Canada but to stay, work and immigrate. Government officials now recognized them as “ideal immigrants” (Scott et al., 2015). As policies have changed so too has the imaginary of international students within the Canadian context. From a charity and aid perspective congruent with foreign policy in the 1950s-70s; to a source of competition in the 1980s to one of economic, or “cash” benefits from the 1990s into the mid-2000s (Stein & Andreotti, 2016). Trilokekar (2016) expands this model into the present day as international students are seen not only as “cash” but also “citizen” as the economic priorities are now also intertwined with political priorities once again. Clear preferential pathways to immigration are an important consideration of international students when choosing a destination (ICEF, 2016). When these were implemented by government the attractiveness of Canada as a study destination increased and contributed to year over year increases in international student enrolments once the changes were implemented in 2008. The Canadian Bureau of International Education’s (CBIE) International Student Survey indicates that 60% of international students studying in Canada plan to apply for permanent residence making it clear that the presence of a migration pathway is of interest to those selecting Canada to undertake their studies (CBIE, 2018). The shifting concept of “ideal immigrant” and the visa and immigration pathways that favour international students over other temporary foreign worker categories and others seeking permanent residency are ways in which Canada’s higher education institutions have influenced policy over time. 3.2 Motivations for international student mobility Immigration pathways are not the only factor in deciding in which country to study, however. Access to robust and well-paying differential labour markets and differentials in education capacity including institutional prestige and facilities are also considered to be key 50 determinants (Weiser, 2016) along with non-economic factors including a country’s political stability, safety, environment, and quality of life (UNESCO, 2010). The perceived quality of instruction abroad and the perceived value of host institutions are other criteria for international students when selecting their country of destination (Abbott & Silles, 2016). Currently, key study destinations in both short and long-term student mobility are predominantly focused on English-speaking countries which have experienced sustained international student growth and continue to hold a dominant space in the international student mobility landscape. (Bhandari & Blumenthal, 2011; Waters, 2006). Outbound student mobility from these destinations however is conspicuously limited in comparison and there is growing concern about the low numbers of outbound students from these English-speaking countries (Doyle et al., 2010). Like the mobility flows they describe, current research has grown significantly over the past twenty years with a focus primarily on mobility within the European Union, the western world and on incoming foreign students to major English-speaking countries (Gürüz, 2008; Prazeres, 2013). As the higher education sector shifts into the role of a regional and national economic driver and a growing part of the world-wide migration industry (Gammeltoft-Hansen & Sorensen, 2013), there has been research and commentary on the efficacy of this transformation, but not into the policy mechanisms that made this change possible. The push and pull factors related to economic migration in general begins to explain why these migration incentives exist, but not how higher education is directly or indirectly involved. An interdisciplinary approach is needed to explain the characteristics of higher education institutions in the Canadian landscape that have facilitated their ability to position themselves as both expert advisors and a special interest which have successfully contributed to immigration policy change. As these substantive changes which have taken place are considered 51 with regards to international student mobility in Canada, it becomes important to also reflect on the global trends which have been taking place over the same time frame. 3.3 Global international student mobility trends Increasing numbers of students studying transnationally is part of a larger global trend. In 1990 there were 1.3 million students enrolled in tertiary education outside their country of citizenship (OECD, 2019). By 1999 that had modestly increased to 1.6 million. By 2005, however, that number had increased by 61% from 1999 numbers to 2.7 million students. This growth rate continues its upward trend and in 2017, the number of international students is 5.3 million, which represents a 307% or three-fold increase since 1990 (OECD, 2019). The OECD monitors and publishes statistics on the movement of international students in both the 37 OECD member countries and non-OECD countries. It shows an increasing share of international students choosing non-OECD countries (Figure 3.1) however English-speaking countries continue to attract the most significant numbers of international students in tertiary education. In 2017, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand accounted for 56% of the mobile students across the OECD and partner countries (OECD, 2019). Students from Asia comprise the largest group of tertiary level mobile students, and more than two-thirds travel to only a few destinations which include Australia, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Tertiary students from Europe are also extremely mobile but the large majority stay within the European Union and account for 42% of intra-EU movement. At the world level, 80 per cent of all tertiary students are in degree programs, nearly all of them in universities, although the ratio varies by country. Among international students the proportion studying for an undergraduate degree credential is higher than for all other programs. 52 Figure 3. 1 Number of international foreign students enrolled in OECD and Non-OECD countries 1998-2017 Source: OECD/UIS/Eurostat (2019). Other non-OECD countries and years prior to 2013: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. The United States is the top destination country for international students however growth in international students entering the United States has slowed in the Trump era. The Institute of International Education (IEE) data show that between 2015-16 and 2016-17, total international students in the United States increased by 3.4 percent, compared to increases in the previous three years of 8.1, 10.0 and 7.4 percent. Despite large numbers of international students selecting the US as a study destination, the US has also seen a steady decline in market share over time. In 1970 American colleges and universities enrolled 36.7 percent of students studying outside their home country. By 2001, they enrolled 28 percent, and by 2017, 22 percent (IEE, 53 2019). Canada is likely to be a principal beneficiary of the slowdown in growth of international students entering the United States. After the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada also host significant numbers (OECD, 2019). The United Kingdom has seen a general flattening of demand since 2012 and an erosion of its market share over the same time. It remains the second most popular destination for international students in 2018/2019 but both Canada and Australia are closing the gap (Figure 3.2). Canada had just one third of the UK’s international student enrolment in 2011 but reached nearly half of the UK level in 2015, and Canadian enrolment increased by another 10.6 percent in 2016 while the UK’s enrolment was falling (Marginson, 2018). Australia saw a decline in enrolments 2012 but has since seen steady increases, like Canada’s, reaching 420,501 in 2019 (Project Atlas, 2019). Australia’s international education market is identified as one of five “super growth sectors” and receives strong support for its ongoing expansion by its national government which has a target of 720,000 students by 2025. 54 Figure 3. 2 Total number of higher education international students in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom 2013-2019 Source: Project Atlas, 2019 While English speaking destinations represent the greatest inbound flows, new non-English speaking destinations have made significant inroads to increasing their share and numbers of inbound international students. Russia has seen an increasing trend since 2016, when it was reported that 282,921 international students participated in a tertiary education program to 334,497 students in 2019, an 18% increase over that three-year period. It is roughly tied with France in terms of market share of international students and plans on expanding the number of international students in 2025 to 710,000 students, the majority of whom come from the former 55 Soviet Republics that now make up the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) (Project Atlas, 2019). China has notably increased its international student efforts as well. In 1995, there were less than 37,000 international students studying in China and the country was nowhere to be found on the global table of leading destinations. In 2019 the Ministry of Education reported that 492,185 international students studied at higher education institutions, a 24% increase since 2016. Nearly six in ten foreign students in China come from other Asian countries, but the composition of sending countries is changing with China drawing much of its recent growth from emerging markets in Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Africa. The growing reputation of China’s leading institutions, the expanding scholarship opportunities, along with the affordability of a Chinese education are factors cited for its sharp increase as a host destination as well as a significant sending one (Wen & Hu, 2019). Rounding out the top receiving destinations are France, Germany, and Japan. International enrolments in France are flattening, resembling a trend closer to the UK. France has a stated goal to build its international student base to 20% of total higher education enrolment by 2025. This would mean enrolling about 470,000 international students based on current levels. It primarily draws international students from the continent of Africa and within the EU. Germany and Japan continue to post strong and sustained growth in their international student enrolments as well. Within the past few years alone, Germany’s international recruitment efforts have been boosted by a no-tuition policy for international students, improved opportunities for work during studies and after graduation, and the continuing expansion of English-taught programs within German universities. China remains the most important source of international students studying in Germany along with India and Russia. For Japan, China and Vietnam continue to be the 56 major senders of international students along with growth in enrolments from Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and Myanmar. The top ten source markets for Japan are all within the Asian region. The Japanese government provides subsidized company internships, help with finding jobs on graduation, additional Japanese language courses, and more streamlined processes for work visas to international students as part of their recruitment efforts. A summary of the top receiving country total enrolments, including both degree seeking and short-term visiting and exchange in 2019 is found in Figure 3.3. Figure 3. 3 Total international student enrolments in 2019 by top destination countries Source: Project Atlas (2019) The movement of international students continues to grow, albeit more slowly, and is being drawn from an increasingly diverse pool of sending destinations. Competition for 57 international students has recently increased with new and significant players setting targets and making concerted efforts to attract international students through recruitment, scholarships, enhanced education quality and capacity, and offering English-taught degrees, even in non-English speaking countries. There are also emerging regional study destinations such as China, Russia, and Germany whose native languages figure prominently in the global economy. The global trends in international student mobility are an important factor influencing the ability of its higher education institutions to attract international students. For a better understanding of how the market and trends have evolved in Canada the next section will look at Canadian student mobility trends over time. 3.4 Canadian international student mobility trends A March 1986 publication on foreign students by the Council of Ministers of Education (CMEC) describes Canadian post-secondary institutions of attempting little organized recruitment of foreign students. A few institutions had advertised in foreign newspapers and a handful had sent representatives abroad. Most of the international student mobility during this time came from government sponsored or donor agencies funding international student participation. Admission requirements for foreign students were varied however most either had restrictions on applicants outside the province generally or gave preference for in-province applicants first, then other Canadians followed by foreign students (CMEC, 1986). In 2007 Canada was considered an “evolving destination” along with Japan and New Zealand after experiencing international student enrolment declines and considered a “less significant destination for transnational higher education” (Virbik & Lasandowski, 2007, p. 6) While still attracting a modest number of international students, Canada continued to be 58 significantly eclipsed by major players which included the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, as well Germany and France. By 2013, Canada was being described as a “new player” that had emerged onto the international education market, increasing its market share to 5% in 2011 (OECD, 2013) as some of the most popular destinations including the US, the United Kingdom and Germany enrolments declined over the same time. Between 2015 and 2016, there was a substantial increase of 14.4% in international student enrolments, most of which was attributed to an increase in long-term students from India studying at the college level (Kuhnin, 2017). By 2016 international students in Canada accounted for 168,860 direct and indirect jobs, contributed 12.8 billion dollars towards GDP revenue and 2.8 billion dollars in tax revenue (Kuhnin, 2017). International students also represent an increasing percentage of all tertiary students in Canada. In 1998 the percentage of internationally mobile students to all tertiary level students was 3.8% (OECD, 2000). In 2013, 11% of all tertiary students in Canada were international, increasing to 13% in 2017 (OECD, 2019). By 2019, that percentage had increased to 21.4% of all tertiary students in Canada (Project Atlas, 2019). Canada now hosts the second largest share of international students compared with its domestic population worldwide, with only Australia having a higher percentage of total higher education students as international at 28% (Project Atlas, 2019). International student enrolment trends by number of study permits issued shows steady increases from 2008 onwards (Figure 3.4). 59 Figure 3. 4 Number of international students in Canada with new study permits 1998-2019 Source: IRCC Open Data Portal 3.5 Emerging trends There are both sustained and emerging trends worthy of mention in relation to both academic mobility and immigration pathways for international students. First and foremost, the number of people moving across borders to study, particularly at the tertiary level, has seen a sustained and significant increase since the late 1990s. The increase was fueled by the development in communications, ease and cost of air travel, and information technology advancements (Tremblay, 2005). At its essence, it simply became easier to study internationally. There was also sustained economic growth and increasing demand from large markets in Asia, specifically China and India, a result of high demand with insufficient domestic capacity in higher education along with the perceived advantage an overseas education could provide and the economic means to enable international study (OECD, 2019). 60 While these push factors increased academic mobility demand, there were also pull factors at play driving the increase in numbers. As mentioned previously, in the late 1990s the higher education institutions of some OECD countries began concerted efforts to recruit international students. Whether from a competitive or human resource economics standpoint (or both) several countries relaxed some of their immigration policies to attract skilled workers, which also included students in many cases. This was motivated by immediate and forecasted labour shortages in host countries. As students became more internationally mobile and the economic benefit of international students in host countries was recognized, countries not previously considered active receiving destinations increased their interest in recruitment. This has created an increasingly competitive landscape and intensified recruitment at both the institutional and state levels (Hènard, Diamond & Roseveare, 2012). The interest and pre-occupation of various forms of institutional higher education rankings is one phenomenon that helps drive this comparability of institutions for quality and reputation (Perkins & Neumayer, 2014). It is not yet clear what these additional destination markets will mean for international student mobility beyond more intense recruitment, but the nature of competition is shifting with enrolment more widely distributed among a larger field of destinations (International Consultants for Education Fairs (ICEF), 2011). These emerging trends may drive further demand as lower cost options enter the market for international students. It may shift the current demand to other host destinations, and begin to alter market share within the sector, or it may motivate some destinations to make it more attractive to study through educational offerings (online programs, dual or double degrees, innovative curricula), financial incentives (scholarships), changes to admission criteria at the 61 institutional level or immigration incentives (work permits, ease of transitioning to permanent residency) at the state level. Indeed, while there are many motivations for studying internationally, using international study as a pathway to immigration is an increasingly important driver. State led immigration policy, as well as recruitment are becoming increasingly intertwined with institutionally led initiatives in those jurisdictions with migration related incentives. Yet, while this was and continues to be true in some host countries, the populist and anti-immigrant movement in many regions has had an impact on internationally mobile students and the national policies that support their arrival. While generally thought of as positive, there have been greater controls and oversight put in place in several countries which have the effect of discouraging some students from using study as part of a two-step migration process. These emerging trends have resulted in a very dynamic environment for international student mobility. 62 Chapter 4: Changes in Canadian international student immigration policy 1990-2017 4.1 Immigration policy change and international student immigration pathways Those unfamiliar with some of the contemporary changes to immigration policy in Canada will be surprised at the range, extent and liberalization that has taken place in recent history. Many of these changes are major departures from past policy and have resulted in new and expanding immigration programs. Providing a brief overview of these broader trends is important to situate the phenomena of international student immigration pathways. Recalling the historical limitations to the rules surrounding study and work, as well as migration, this chapter describes the relevant legislative and regulatory changes that took place since the 1990s related to the issuing of visas to study and work during studies and after graduation. It provides background on the investments and key activities undertaken by federal and provincial jurisdictions related to international student recruitment to demonstrate that while some of the changes are of a more fundamental nature, impacting all immigration streams and categories, there were some very targeted programs and investments which directly impacted international students and influenced international student flows into the country. Some of these programs are profiled in greater detail and include the Student Partners Program (SPP), the launch of the EduCanada brand and the Post Graduate Work Permit program (PGWPP). While there were growing opportunities in general for those with labour market experience in Canada to participate in what is describe as “two-step migration” or “immigration pathways”, special attention is paid to the impacts of new immigration pathways that are either advantageous or 63 purposefully targeted at international student graduates including the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) and the Canadian Experience Class and the Express Entry framework. To begin, a brief overview is provided of some general immigration trends along with an explanation of the major immigration legislative changes occurring at the time. The new legislative and program changes will set the scene for a discussion of how these changes came about. 4.2 Immigration legislation in Canada impacting international students Canada has been a net immigration country since the turn of the twentieth century. Over 20 percent of the Canadian population is made up of foreign-born permanent residents and over half of Canada’s annual population growth is a result of newly arrived immigration (IRCC, 2015) and represents one of the highest ratios for industrialized Western countries (OECD, 2017). Canada admits new permanent residents under four main categories; economic; family; protected persons and refugees; and humanitarian. In 2018, 58 percent of new permanent residents were admitted through the economic stream, by far the largest category. This is followed by 27 percent through family sponsorship, 14 percent through protected persons and refugees, and 1 percent through humanitarian or other (IRCC, 2019).3 While levels have fluctuated, during the 1970s family class immigration comprised 36 percent of total immigration and in the years from 1980-86 this grew to more than 43 percent of all immigration to Canada (Samuel, 1988). This expansion in the family category in the early 1980s began to decline as a greater emphasis on skilled migration began and continued into the 1990s as demand for skilled 3 There is also 1.1% of immigrants that fall under a category of “Other” which includes humanitarian and compassionate, public policy and other immigrants not included elsewhere. 64 workers grew, resulting in the proportion of immigrants being accepted through the economic class to rise dramatically. While sustained economic growth and labour demand in the late 1990s resulted in an increase in migration of highly skilled individuals, especially in science and technology (Ellermann, 2020; Tremblay, 2005), labour market integration proved difficult for many (Picot & Sweetman, 2012). High proportions of migrant professionals were able to secure only low skilled work. By the late 1990s immigrants from the skilled economic class were more likely to enter into low-income situations and be in the “chronic low income” category compared with their family class counterparts with 41% of those struggling economically despite having university degrees from abroad (CIC, 2012). In comparison research indicated there was a statistically significant labour market advantage of a Canadian diploma or degree over a foreign degree for both recent and established immigrants (Picot, Feng & Coulombe, 2007). In response, legislation was introduced in 2001 to support several initiatives and government programs to advance greater recognition of foreign credentials. When the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) replaced the 1976 Immigration Act in 2002, it marked a critical juncture for immigration policy in Canada with its preference for younger workers with either trade certificates or higher education credentials (Challinor, 2011). IRPA is Canada’s main statute in the field of immigration policy. As a framework legislation, IRPA does not prescribe the details of immigration programs or procedures. Instead, details are established through regulations. This means that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations also forms an important policy instrument. While some regulation changes are subject to parliamentary oversight, IRPA also authorizes the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to issue Ministerial Instructions to immigration officers. Ministerial Instructions are not subject to the same requirements of 65 consultation and publishing that legislation or regulations require allowing administrative changes to proceed much faster (Ellermann, 2020). It has also allowed IRCC greater flexibility to implement changes and launch pilot programs. This is relevant to the discussion of policy change with respect to international students since many of the changes were made through Ministerial Instruction as well as IRPA regulations. A summary of the Ministerial Instruction provisions in IRPA are found in Appendix A. These trends, particularly the shift in emphasis to economic class immigration, are important precursors to the pathways that were developed in Canada for international students beginning in the mid-2000s. Prior to 2002 international students were admitted into the country with a temporary student visa and were not thought of as a targeted source of immigration. In fact, potential international students were considered ineligible for a student visa if it was suspected that they had “dual intent,” defined in this case as an interest other than studying (like immigrating) for coming to Canada. There were few incentives and slow processing times for those who were eligible to apply for existing immigration streams. International students and visas that allow them to stay in Canada on a temporary basis are part of the larger temporary foreign worker population. Temporary foreign workers are foreign nationals engaged in work or study activities who are authorized to enter and remain in Canada for a limited period and are an important feature of Canada’s labour market. Canada has two distinct categories of temporary labour migration (Kachulis & Perez-Leclerc, 2019). The next section provides details on these two programs and the pathways that exist to enable temporary foreign workers to immigrate. International students are included in this temporary foreign worker program regime, so their specific two-step and three-step migration pathway programs are featured in the discussion. 66 4.2.1 Overview of Temporary Labour Migration Programs in Canada Temporary foreign workers (TFW) gain access to the Canadian labour market through two distinct programs: the temporary foreign worker program (TFWP) and the international mobility program (IMP). The TFWP consists of several major streams with diverse requirements, policies, and procedures but its purpose is to fill specific labour market gaps. For this reason, all programs in the TWFP require employers to obtain a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) through Employment and Social Development Canada (EDSC) to ensure that hiring a foreign worker will not have an adverse effect on the Canadian labour market, and that efforts to find Canadians or permanent residents have taken place before foreign workers can be hired. Both high and low wage streams are included in the TFWP along with industry specific programs including those for agriculture and caregivers. Beyond the requirements for a positive LMIA there are regulations limiting the time workers can stay in Canada, a cap on the proportion of foreign workers in each workplace, along with other employer requirements (Elgersma, 2015). Workers in the TFWP are provided an employer-specific work permit which indicates the name and place of employment along with the duration. The number of TFWP permits granted increased substantially until 2014 when reforms to the program were implemented but since 2017 there has once again been an upward trend even though most reforms have remained in place (IRCC, 2020). The second temporary foreign worker program is the IMP which includes work permit streams that do not require an LMIA process. This category covers a wide array of employment arrangements including those covered through international agreements, intra-company transfers, youth work-exchange programs, and study permits with work eligibility. It also includes spouses of many (but not all) IMP work permit holders (Prokopenko & Hou, 2018). Unlike the TFWP, 67 most IMP workers have open work permits which authorizes work for any employer in Canada since the aim of the program is to advance Canada’s economic and cultural interests generally as opposed to filling specific labour market gaps (GOC, 2014). The majority of workers admitted through the IMP are highly skilled, high wage earners and there are more than three times as many IMP work permits as TFWP work permits coming into effect each year (Table 4.1). In 2019 there were 307,265 work permits granted under the IMP (IRCC, 2020) compared with 98,380 under the TFWP. International student graduates comprise the single largest and fastest growing component of the IMP who are granted work for up to three years upon the completion of their studies (IRCC, 2019; OECD, 2019; Kachulis & Perez-Leclerc, 2020). Table 4. 1 Temporary Foreign Worker program (TWFP) and International Mobility Program (IMP) Work Permit Holders by year permit became effective, 2011-2019 Source: IRCC Temporary Residents Data Although their visa status is initially temporary, foreign workers have increasingly become an important pool from which permanent residents are selected (Eden, Hou & Picot, 2020). This creates a situation in which temporary work or study status is obtained first, and then those with temporary status apply for permanent residency as a second step. In the case of international students who come to Canada on a study permit, this could also be a three-step process from study to temporary work status to permanent residence. This trend of two and three step immigration has been expanding since the early 2000s and in 2018 almost one half of all 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019TFWP 111,799 116,373 117,542 94,682 72,965 78,450 78,475 84,040 98,390 IMP 160,509 174,403 194,168 196,512 176,280 207,570 222,790 253,970 307,265 Total 272,288 290,776 311,710 291,194 249,245 286,020 301,265 338,010 405,655 68 economic migration came from prior temporary experience within Canada (IRCC, 2020). The pathway programs facilitating this trend are an important part of the policy change leading to the major expansion of international student enrolments and subsequently effecting the profile of those immigrating to Canada. In the next section, some of the relevant pathways for international students are highlighted. 4.2.2 Immigration pathways and temporary foreign worker programs “Two-step” migration is where economic-class immigrants first enter Canada with temporary status as a worker or a student and then convert their status to permanent resident through one of several avenues. Since the late 1990s, pathways to move from temporary to permanent status have significantly expanded. Advantages cited by proponents of the two-step migration process argue that it improves outcomes for migrants and the host society with the ability to “try out” potential immigrants before providing them with more permanent status. Temporary work and study are also linked to better integration outcomes both socially and within the labour market (Hou & Bonikowska, 2018; Sweetman & Warman, 2014; Hawthorne, 2010). Another advantage is that in order to attract “the best and the brightest” a clear pathway from temporary to permanent residence becomes a major recruitment tool that helps to attract foreign students and workers as they consider where to move and settle (Papademetriou, Benton & Hooper, 2019). There are, however, also risks associated with the two-step immigration process. Studies have identified a risk and growing tension between the uncapped intake of temporary categories, such as students, where higher education institutions choose the number of fee-paying students, and the capped permanent visa programs of government (Gregory, 2014). Uncapped temporary programs also run the risk of being used more as a means to permanent 69 residence than an end in itself (Crossman, Hou & Picot, 2020). Increasing temporary labour supply from uncapped pathway programs may also put a downward effect on domestic wages and increase labour competition. While labour market shortages may exist which temporary foreign workers can help address, it may also result in an underinvestment in domestic skill development and training (Papametriou & Hooper, 2019). Expansion of two-step immigration selection is driven in part by significant changes in the types of programs used to select economic immigrants (Hou, Crossman & Picot, 2020). In particular, the introduction of the Canadian Experience Class and the Provincial Nominee Programs which focus on the selection of permanent residents based on their potential ability to do well in the Canadian labour market contributed to this expansion. The number of economic immigrants who had Canadian work experience prior to landing grew from 8% in 2000 to 46% in 2018. This is true of all applicants, but for principal applicants the share is even higher starting at 12% in 2000 and rising to 59% in 2018 (Hou, Crossman & Picot, 2020). So, two and three step migration has now become a significant part of Canada’s immigration landscape and international students are major winners in this new policy framework. Details about each program and other changes to two and three step migration for international students are reviewed in the following sections to highlight these policy changes. 4.2.3 International student migration pathways There were several key initiatives and programs implemented in the mid-2000s which facilitated multi-step pathways for international students with an interest in immigrating to Canada. One of the earliest policy changes was the introduction of the Post Graduate Work Permit (PGWP) which allowed international students to work after graduation for a period of one year. This was not yet a formal immigration pathway but did assist international students in 70 gaining work experience and in so doing provided opportunity for a possible employer sponsored work permit extension or application for permanent residence through the Federal Skilled Worker Program (FSWP) which was the category name for the major economic immigration class. International students still would be required, like other FSWP applicants, to leave Canada and apply internationally to settle permanently in Canada. Then in 2008, the uncapped Canadian Experience Class (CEC) was introduced to facilitate permanent residence for those with Canadian work experience (CIC, 2014). There were two streams launched in 2008, one for those with work experience generally, and one specifically for international student graduates. This marked, for the first time, an explicit immigration pathway for international students studying at the post-secondary level in Canada. The constraint of not declaring a dual intent was removed, and at the same time, the PGWP was extended to three years across the country without restrictions on the type of employment or requirement of a job offer. Shortly after, in 2009, the Student Partners Program (SPP) was introduced which streamlined and greatly improved visa application approvals for international students going to Canadian colleges to study. "The Government of Canada wants more foreign students to choose Canada and we want to help them succeed," said then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Diane Finley. "Our ability to retain international graduates with Canadian qualifications, work experience and familiarity with Canadian society, will help increase our competitiveness and benefit Canada as a whole” (CIC, 2008). This signaled a shift from using traditional economic class streams to creating an open, preferential, and dedicated pathway for Canadian international student graduates. Moreover, this policy change also was framed in language indicating the intention of the federal government to use this immigration pathways to recruit international students to study in Canada (not just encouraging those that came to stay) 71 creating a strong “pull factor” for this immigration category cohort. In addition to creating the pathway, there was also direct financial investment from the Government of Canada in the recruitment of international students. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) was given 3 million dollars in 2008 to launch a Canada Education brand called Education in/au Canada which worked with key stakeholders and their associations (universities, colleges, language schools, K-12) to enhance the profile of international study in Canada. Concurrently there were initiatives put in place to address the administrative backlog of permanent residence applications through increased budgets and process changes, improving the responsiveness of issuing study permits on the front end. As investment and liberalization of immigration policy with respect to international students was expanding, there was a requisite tightening of requirements of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP). New requirements included a time limit for temporary foreign workers’ stay in Canada, a more stringent assessment of the genuineness of the job offer from Canadian employers, and a ban on employers for abuses including offering working conditions or wages significantly different than what was promised (CIC, 2009). In 2013 there was an even more significant overhaul of the Temporary Foreign Workers Program (TFWP). In this round there were specific requirements to pay prevailing wages and only have temporary foreign workers be a certain percentage of a company’s workforce among the new provisions and drew harsh criticism from business interests at the time but remains largely in place today. From 2008, Canada has seen strong and steady growth in international student enrolments, outpacing all other OECD countries and capturing market share (OECD, 2014). Early successes encouraged the federal government to convene an advisory panel in 2011 to make recommendations on the development of an International Education Strategy for Canada. 72 The seven-member panel was primarily made up of representatives of the university and college sector, and headed by Amit Chakma, President and Vice Chancellor of Western University. The panel travelled across the country in 2012 and held open public and by invitation meetings with a range of education, business, and citizen stakeholders. The recommendations provided to government were largely incorporated into Canada’s International Education Strategy launched in 2014. The document acknowledges the role that the Government of Canada plays in fostering international co-operation in higher education and elevated international education to a priority sector (GOC, 2014). The strategy highlights the benefits of increasing international student enrolments which include addressing skilled labour shortages, relieving demographic pressures, and helping to ensure long term labour force vitality. It references a Citizenship and Immigration Canada report that states that within the next decade, immigration is expected to account for 100 percent of net growth in the workforce, up from 75 percent in 2014 and that “a robust international education strategy will help secure Canada’s long- term prosperity and economic success” (GOC, 2014, p. 9). The Canadian government set a goal of increasing the number of international students studying in Canada from 239,131 in 2011 to more than 450,000 in 2022 (without displacing Canadian students) (GOC, 2014, p.11). This target was surpassed ahead of schedule in 2018. The government also committed $65 million over two years to support international student recruitment, scholarships, work training and immigration pathways (GOC, 2014). A more recent policy change affecting international student pathways to permanent residence was the introduction of the Express Entry System in January 2015. Express Entry is a new electronic application management system that prioritizes applications to permanent residence through a comprehensive ranking system as part of the Canadian Experience Class 73 program. Prior to Express Entry applications for permanent residence in Canada were processed on a first come-first-served basis. Under the new system, applicants are placed in a pool, ranked and only the top candidates are invited to proceed to the next step in the permanent residence approval process. The ranking system is based on several factors, but is heavily weighted to education, Canadian work experience, and a full-time job offer from a Canadian employer (CIC, 2015). There were concerns within the education sector when the program was launched that recent international student graduates would find it difficult to qualify. First because full time employment at an appropriate skill level was difficult to secure and second because there were no additional points allocated for completing education in Canada. In 2016 changes were made to the Express Entry system to include additional points for those with Canadian education experience. In summary, there has been a sustained focus of not just accepting but attracting high skilled migration particularly since the early 1990s but international students being recognized as a potential source of skilled migration only gained popularity since the early 2000s. The mid to late 2000s saw several specific policy changes directed at increasing Canada’s attractiveness as a destination for international students through longer temporary work authorizations and immigration pathways while at the same time restrictions increased for the predominantly lower skilled Temporary Foreign Workers Program which offered limited migration pathways. This brief overview demonstrates that there was an inclination within government to attract high skilled workers in general that preceded interest in international students specifically. However international students were not just seen simply as “another” source of skilled worker but progressively as a “preferred” source of skilled worker and immigrant. To support this, claim the next two sections will look in greater detail at the programs and policies implemented 74 to make it easier for international students to come to Canada, and then subsequently work and immigrate on completion of their studies. 4.3 Changes to student visa processing and government investment in international student recruitment Government policy response supporting the recruitment of international students to study in Canada has been extensive and cross-jurisdictional. These initiatives meant to encourage international students to consider Canada as a study destination and make it easier to obtain a study permit. Historically international students from developing countries were supported by the Canadian government as one of the major components of its foreign policy objectives with access to Canadian higher education meant to assist in building skill capacity within developing nations. When the funding for these capacity-building activities was cut in the late 1970s, the number of international students coming to Canada to study saw a requisite decline. The topic of international students coming to Canadian campuses was revived in the mid-1980s by a Commission of Canadian Studies report which noted the absence of policy and recommended the federal government show leadership through policy development on differential fees, granting of rights to work, and greater pan-Canadian coordination. The report recommendations were not however, widely embraced at the time. With a better understanding of the larger trends and programs implemented I look to expand and provide greater detail on some of the important initiatives specific to international students mentioned in the previous section. Still situating them chronologically but now dividing them into two distinct categories. The first category includes the changes related to international student recruitment and granting international student visas. The next section highlights in 75 greater detail the launch of a pan-Canadian brand for international education, the Student Partners Program (SPP) and the quality assurance measure of Designated Learning Institutions (DLI). Each of these programs focused on positioning Canada as an attractive study destination, recruitment of students and streamlining the study visa process. The second category of policy change has to do with recruiting students as immigrants through post- graduation work programs and attractive immigration pathways. Additional details about the launch of the Canadian Experience Class immigration pathway, the Provincial Nominee Program sub streams for international students and selection through the Express Entry system are highlighted. 4.3.1 EduCanada: Launching of a Canada brand It may seem like a trivial element, but the launching of a national brand for international student recruitment was not a simple policy shift. To achieve this required significant federal-provincial collaboration on international education that had not been achieved in any significant way before. Interest in hosting fee-paying international students was evident in policy documents of the Federal-Provincial Consultative Committee on Education-Related International Activities (FPCCERIA) however throughout the 1980s outcomes were mostly limited to collecting and communicating provincial capacities and programs, which worked independently of one another. In 1991, the Asia Pacific Division within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) opened an education office in Taiwan. In 1994 the Department of Foreign DFAIT published a paper recommending the creation of a national marketing strategy related to international students. The provinces however, were not fully onboard citing concern for the impact it might have on the access of post-secondary spaces for Canadian students. Regardless, in 1995 eight Canadian Educational Centers (CEC) were opened in the Asia Pacific region 76 through the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada (APFC). Five years of funding was provided for international student marketing activities through an agreement between APFC, DFAIT, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). When funding for the CEC offices began to be withdrawn beginning in 2001 the move drew criticism from the higher education sector which believed the government should be doing more, not less to support the sectors’ interests in attracting international students and partnerships. Nevertheless, funding from government was terminated in 2004. By 2009, after attempting to operate through fees from higher education institutions directly, operations of the CEC network were suspended. In 2007 the federal budget included C$1 million annually for 2 years to develop an education brand and marketing campaign for Canada. On September 22, 2008, the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) announced the launch of a national marketing strategy developed jointly between federal, provincial, and territorial governments to promote Canadian education abroad. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade was the lead federal agency working on the EduCanada brand. A federal and provincial/territorial Brand Working Group collaborated for a period of about 18 months to recommend the brand for education in Canada to Ministers of Education and to the Minister of International Trade. CMEC and the federal government also undertook extensive consultation with stakeholders during brand development. The EduCanada logo is now used extensively at education promotion events organized by the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service and appears on branding materials of provincial governments as well as Canadian universities, colleges, CEGEPs, language schools and kindergarten to grade 12 schools. CMEC and DFAIT jointly established a Brand Use Eligibility 77 Policy4 which defines a pan-Canadian baseline for which institutions and organizations can be eligible to use the brand. The use of the brand is dependent on institutions meeting education quality assurance measures. Provinces and territories annually submit a list of institutional and non-governmental organizations that are brand eligible to CMEC. To be brand authorized an institution is approved by their province or territory, undertakes brand training, and signs an agreement on brand use. The launch of a Canadian Education Brand and international education marketing strategy was a significant step forward in the recruitment of international students to Canada. In 2016 the EduCanada Brand underwent a refresh of their logo and outward communications strategy and continues to be an important face of international student recruitment for Canada. Investment in the program has also seen impressive growth since its 2008 launch. The number of Canadian embassies, high commissions and consulates around the world implementing education-related promotional activities grew from 28 in 2008 to 108 in 2015. The Government of Canada has supported more than 240 activities related to the education sector abroad in 2016 (GOC, 2016). 4.3.2 Student Partners Program opens the door to Canadian colleges While a more coordinated approach to international student marketing through the EduCanada brand raised the profile of Canada as a study destination, the mid-2000s saw high visa refusal rates in many key markets where higher education institutions were trying to recruit. 4 Brand Use Eligibility Policy is found on the EduCanada website: https://www.extranet-eduCanada.ca/Styleguide/english/#page/BBAA680A-883A-4C0A-AA62FE98D11572A3 78 This was particularly true of India during this time. In collaboration with Colleges and Institutes Canada (named Association of Community Colleges of Canada (ACCC) prior to their name change), the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi launched a pilot Student Partners Program (SPP) in 2008 to expedite the student visa process and ensure higher approval rates of student visa applications while maintaining program integrity (CICan, 2019). Members of Colleges and Institutes Canada (CICan) worked closely with Canadian visa offices in India to ensure student compliance and used this new administrative framework to provide feedback and reporting to visa offices. It was extremely successful in expanding the number of international students coming to Canada to study within the college sector and soon expanded to other countries including China in 2010, followed by the Philippines and Vietnam (IRCC, 2018). The Student Partners Program preceded the launch of a more consistent application of expedited student visa processing launched on June 9, 2018. The new Student Direct Stream requires students to provide financial guarantees and biometrics to streamline student visa processing. The number of countries quickly expanded to also include Pakistan, Senegal, and Morocco (IRCC, 2020). The Student Partners Program was credited with the immense growth of international students from India studying at Canadian colleges. From its program launch in 2008 to 2016 CICan member institutions saw a ten-fold increase of students coming from India (CICan, 2019). In 2017 there were 86,900 Indian students enrolled in Canadian colleges. The expansion of the program to other countries is also a major factor in the college sector expansion of international students in general. Of the 370,710 international students in Canada in 2017, 151,380 were enrolled in a college or institute (IRCC, 2019). Study permit applications for colleges and institutes were 43% of total demand in 2017, up from 35% in 2015. By comparison, study permit 79 applications to universities represented 30% of demand in 2017, down from 35% in 2015 (IRCC, 2019). The collaboration through a national organization such as CICan directly with visa and immigration offices overseas to coordinate a pan-Canadian approach was a major shift in policy and practice. In many respects, the launch of the 2008 Student Partners Program was a precursor to another major regulatory shift that ushered in the concept of “pre-screened” or “pre-approved” post-secondary institutions to improve visa processing while maintaining quality assurance and visa program integrity. The next section reviews additional regulatory changes in 2014 that expanded the attractiveness of study in Canada even further. 4.3.3 Designated Learning Institutions and Off Campus Work Program On June 1, 2014, Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) implemented new federal regulations of study permits for international students with the aim of strengthening the integrity of Canada’s immigration program. First, study-permit holders were now required to actively pursue their studies and study permits would expire after 90 days of completion of studies. These efforts mitigated those who came in on a study visa but did not actually pursue studies. Second, study permits would only be issued for institutions who were recognized as a “Designated Learning Institution (DLI).” This was a quality assurance measure to reduce the number of questionable private educational providers. All K-12 schools in Canada were automatically granted DLI status and at the post-secondary level, provinces provided a list to IRCC. All public post-secondary institutions are DLIs. Private post-secondary institutions must meet quality assurance standards to receive the designation. To maintain DLI status, there are reporting requirements to IRCC on students with study permits studying at their institutions. This is significant since it marked the first-time educational institutions were required to share 80 information on international students directly with the federal government. Now in order to receive a study permit, prospective international students need a letter of acceptance from a Designated Learning Institution, and those institutions are required to report on whether international students enrolled in their institutions are attending and making progress or have completed their studies. A third major change was when the federal government approved that all international students with a valid study permit (received through a DLI) could work off campus up to 20 hours per week during academic sessions and work full time when courses were not in session without requiring an additional work visa. This change means that study permits now directly and automatically grant access to work authorization as well. The only exception is that those in English or French language or general interest programs are not eligible for off campus work. Finally, foreign nationals in Canada as a visitor could also change their status to student from within Canada. Previously applicants were required to leave to apply and re-enter when the study permit was granted. This is significant because, while those in language programs are not granted off campus work authorization, if they qualify after language instruction to a designated learning institution for programming, they will be able to apply for a study permit while still in Canada. This facilitates a different form of pathway, one in which foreign learners can begin as short-term language students, where a stay of less than six months does not require a study permit, to potentially moving to a study visa if accepted into a DLI for an academic program. 4.3.4 Provincial support of international student recruitment initiatives Agreement to develop a pan-Canadian brand for international education marketing was a significant step forward in advancing Canada’s position in international student recruitment. Visa 81 processing improvements and expanded work provisions during studies increased Canada’s attractiveness as a study destination. These primarily federal policy changes were happening while provinces were also increasing their support for international student recruitment in their own jurisdictions. The most notable of these was the August 5, 2010, Council of the Federation (COTF) Premiers request to Ministers of Education, through the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) to work with provincial and territorial Ministers of Immigration to develop an international education marketing action plan which should identify areas for investment and opportunities for federal-provincial collaboration on marketing. Premiers agreed to work with the federal government to address key barriers in attracting international students (COTF, 2010). In June 2011 Provincial and Territorial Ministers of Education and Immigration provided a response to the Council of the Federation with an international education marketing action plan entitled “Bringing Education in Canada to the World, Bringing the World to Canada.” The plan predates the work of the federal International Education Advisory Committee recommendations in August 2012 and the release of Canada’s International Education Strategy release in October 2013. The marketing plan outlined actions to increase the number of international students studying in Canada, to increase Canada’s market share of the international student market as well as increase the number of international students choosing to remain in Canada as permanent residents after graduation (CMEC, 2011). Several provincial jurisdictions during this time were also creating specific strategies for recruiting more international students. Some provinces already had international education divisions within government though not necessarily with a focus on international student 82 recruitment objectives and many also had articulated international education strategies prior to the 2013 federal strategy launch. For instance, Alberta launched an international education strategy in 2001, Manitoba in 2009 and British Columbia in May 2012. Other provinces like Saskatchewan and Ontario followed the federal international strategy with their own in 2014. If the objective was to increase the number of international students to enhance export revenue then these combined efforts and investments fulfilled this mandate well. The creation of the EduCanada brand, along with its guidelines on which institutions and organizations could use the brand opened the door to a quality assurance regime which allowed those with a designated learning institution standing to access certain expedited student visa processing and off campus work entitlements. While owned and administered federally, the recommendation to be a DLI came from provinces. From these key efforts there were clear and steady increases in the number of international students coming to Canada to study. They highlight changes to the study visa program, which is a temporary visa to reside in Canada. They do not directly speak to the development of a clear immigration pathway or policy change for immigration per se, however, the next section will explore in more detail the post-graduation work and immigration pathways also put in place. These focus on having international student graduates stay in Canada after the completion of their studies. Chapter 6 will look at a range of documents, media sources and elite interview data to piece together how these programs were initiated and by whom. 4.4 Changes to post-study authorizations and immigration pathways for international student graduates It is helpful to situate key immigration policy changes targeted at international students to note at what point international student recruitment began becoming not just study focused but 83 immigrant focused. Recall that in the early 2000s if a non-Canadian wanted to study at a post- secondary institution in Canada for more than 6 months they needed to prove their intention to come for study purposes only or risk being denied study permit on the grounds of “dual intent.” Work authorization was limited to part time on-campus work only and after graduation students had three months to leave the country. Obtaining a work permit required a written job offer from an employer who was willing to submit the paperwork and demonstrate that no eligible Canadian citizen or permanent resident could be found for the position and that the work offered was related to the students’ field of study. Application for permanent residence needed to be made outside of Canada with an approval process that could take many years to complete. Despite a robust skilled worker immigration program, international students were not targeted specifically as immigrants in the Canadian system. This approach changed substantially with the introduction of several regulatory changes. Specifically, the expansion of the Post Graduate Work Permit, the Canadian Experience Class, and the evolution of the Provincial Nominee Program. Through the implementation of these programs Canada used immigration policies to encourage international students to both remain in Canada after graduation and made it easier to apply for permanent residence. The next sections these programs are explored in detail. 4.4.1 Post Graduate Work Program In 2005, the Post Graduate Work Permit Program (PGWPP) was introduced allowing international student graduates to remain for one year with a job offer in Canada’s major cities (Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver) or two years elsewhere in the country to work in their related field of study. A measure which aimed at encouraging graduates to stay but with added incentives to disperse outside of major city centers. Significant amendments to the PGWPP were 84 made only two years later in April 2008. There were no longer restrictions on the type of employment, meaning new graduates were able to work in any occupation and no longer needed an offer of employment to apply for a work permit. The duration of the work permit was extended to three years across the country with no geographical restrictions if graduates had received a minimum two- year credential from a recognized (DLI) institution. Graduates in a program between eight months and less than two years would be granted a work permit for the length of their studies.5 There were some exceptions to those who could access the PGWPP. Students participating in the Canadian Commonwealth Scholarship Program or the Government of Canada Awards Program as well as international students who were studying English or French language or on a study exchange from a foreign institution were not eligible for off- campus work. These changes were made with the intention of “making Canada a more attractive destination of study” (CIC, 2008) and to increase the number of international students accessing the program at the completion of their studies. The operational bulletin (58) related to these changes indicates that these measures were meant to increase the pool of qualified candidates for eventual immigration through the Canadian Experience Class. Recent updates in 2019 extends the amount of time to apply for a post-graduate work permit from 90 to 180 days (6 months) and allows graduates to apply for the off-campus work permit both within and outside of Canada (IRCC, 2019). The PGWPP three-year work authorization is the most generous post graduate work policy of all receiving countries of international students (Geddes, 2018). After 2008 5 Citizenship and Immigration Canada Operational Bulletin 058 Recent changes to the Post Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) Program. https://www.Canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/bulletins-2008/058-april-22-2008.html 85 international student enrolments began growing year over year, largely fueled by the generous post-study work opportunities and clear immigration pathways. The PGWPP allows international students to gain work experience in Canada, which counts towards a future application for permanent residency in the country. Within the points based skilled immigration categories, additional points are now awarded for those who have completed post-secondary studies in Canada, as well as those with Canadian work experience. This greatly enhances the chances of international student graduates to be selected for permanent residence. 4.4.2 Canadian Experience Class In 2008, the Canadian government also introduced a new Canadian Experience Class immigration program that facilitated, for the first time, temporary migrant workers to apply to transfer to permanent residency and eventual citizenship while they were still in Canada. Operating similarly to the existing points-based system for economic immigration, the Canadian Experience Class is distinct because it rewards both study and work experience in Canada. It is targeted at high skilled workers in professional, managerial, and technical occupation categories. It is different from other immigration streams because it creates a pathway from temporary foreign worker to permanent resident when traditionally these had been treated separately and seen to serve different objectives. It was meant to reduce long processing times and increase Canada’s labour market responsiveness and global competitiveness in attracting and retaining highly skilled workers and international graduates (CIC, 2015). The 2009 Auditor General Report referred to studies ordered by CIC looking at the outcomes of skilled workers with Canadian experience, and concluded that, as a result of this work, CIC believed there to be "a need for an effective bridge between temporary and permanent resident status.” 86 The program was originally comprised of two streams (a student and a worker stream) but underwent regulatory changes in 2013 which harmonized the two streams. A program cap of 12,000 applications annually was instituted along with caps related to sub-categories. A requirement to prove language competency was also added. Currently, all Canadian Experience Class applicants are required to have 12 months of Canadian work experience, within the 36 months prior to applying, in a National Occupational Classification (NOC) level 0, A or B occupation, as well as meet the language requirements associated with their respective occupational levels. When the program was launched in 2008, the majority (76.7%) of the applications received were made under the student stream (CIC, 2015), but the proportion of applications submitted under the worker stream did increase to represent about half the Canadian Experience Class applications by 2012. After the 2013 regulatory changes that merged the two streams, there was still evidence that international graduates were continuing to apply but at a declining rate (47.3%). Since the program launch in 2008 to 2016, 55% of all immigrants coming through this stream had Canadian educational experience (Longitudinal Immigration Database (IMDB), 2018). The Canadian Experience Class was one of several initiatives during the mid to late 2000s meant to facilitate the retention of highly skilled temporary workers and international students which are considered "a key talent pool" (CIC, 2010). Evidence suggested that skilled workers with Canadian work or Canadian work and study experience had better economic outcomes than those without this experience (Picot & Sweetman, 2005). Further consideration of the literature found evidence of higher returns to Canadian qualifications in the labour market (Reitz, 2007). 87 4.4.3 Provincial Nominee Programs Canada’s provincial nominee programs (PNP) were established with the recognition that immigration is a constitutionally shared responsibility of both provinces and the federal government. The first federal-provincial agreements were signed by British Columbia, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan in 1998 then followed by New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador (1999), Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island in 2002 and Ontario in 2007. Both territories also have territorial nomination agreements. Quebec is the only jurisdiction without a nominee agreement because it has a separate agreement that gives it the sole responsibility to select all its economic class immigrants. PNP programs enable provinces and territories to address regional skills shortages across a range of skill and education levels. It is also seen as an effective means of dispersing immigration more evenly across the country given that recent immigrants settle disproportionately in Canada’s three largest cities, Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. Each provincial nominee program can create multiple streams, each with its own eligibility criteria. There are over 60 different immigration streams across the various nominee programs (Carter, Pandey & Townsend, 2010). The nominee programs do not limit the movement of a successful nominee between provinces since this would violate the mobility rights of new immigrants provided under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ensuring those that apply to provincial programs plan to stay and work in those regions is left to individual jurisdictions that maximize the likelihood that immigrants will settle in the nominating province. The number of immigrants coming through the PNP programs has grown significantly although different jurisdictions use the program for different stated objectives. A total of 247,796 provincial nominees (including spouses and dependents) were admitted to Canada between 2010 88 and 2015, representing 25% of the total economic class for that time period (IRCC, 2018). The majority of nominees had previously held a work permit (64%) and/or had received a study permit (23%) in Canada (IRCC, 2018). Some provinces like BC, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, use the program as a regional labour and economic migration lever and others like Nova Scotia and more recently all the maritime provinces, as a population enhancement tool (IRCC, 2017). While not originally focused on international student graduates as PNP stream candidates, by 2010 there were four provinces that had a PNP stream for international students (Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia). By 2020 all provinces had either dedicated streams, sub streams or pilot programs that provided a PNP pathway to those who had studied in the province at the post-secondary level or held a post graduate work permit from a Canadian institution or both (author’s research of current PNP programs). Appendix B summarizes the different approaches used by different provinces. This means that not only is there a federal level immigration pathway recognizing, rewarding, and recruiting international students to stay in Canada in the Canadian Experience Class, there are also the varying Provincial Nominee Programs with specialized streams for international students, many of which are available for expedited processing through the Express Entry system. Provincial nominee programs are playing an increasingly important role in attracting and retaining international students (She and Wotherspoon, 2013). 4.4.4 Express entry In January 2015, Canada introduced the Express Entry system to manage applications for permanent residency under the Canadian Experience Class, the Federal Skilled Worker Program, the Federal Skilled Trades Program, and some Provincial Nominee Programs. International 89 students who have graduated from a Canadian institution are placed in a “pool” with other groups of skilled workers and prospective immigrants. Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) then uses a standardized scoring scheme (the “Comprehensive Ranking System”) to determine which applicants to the pool will receive an Invitation to Apply (ITA) for permanent residency. Those who receive an ITA may then go on to complete the application process through one of the immigration streams. Express Entry is not an immigration stream itself but an application management system with the objective of expediting applications for Canadian permanent residence for eligible skilled foreign workers. Express Entry requires students to submit an online profile detailing their basic information as well as their education and employment experience. All profiles are then ranked according to a scoring system that allocates points for each type of qualification or requirement. It looks at English or French proficiency, education, Canadian work experience, and other factors leading to success in Canada (IRCC, 2020). Candidates can earn up to 1200 points, with points broken down per section of the online application. Express Entry profiles earn a big boost in scoring if they have either a job offer or a nomination from a province or territory (Provincial Nominee). At its launch, the Express Entry system drew criticism from international students and advocates because the program essentially pools all skilled workers together for selection without providing any recognition of those that have studied in Canada. Less than two year later, on November 19, 2016, changes were implemented to award 15 points for completion of a one-year or two-year program and 30 points for undergraduate or post graduate degree studies at a Canadian institution. The changes also significantly reduced the points awarded for a job offer 90 from 600 points to 200 points for offers for senior management positions; all other job offers receive 50 points. A 2016 IRCC media release notes, “With these changes, more former international students will be able to transition to permanent residence using the Express Entry system. Former international students are a key source of candidates in Express Entry because of their age, education, skills, and experience. In addition to the time already spent in Canada, integrating into Canadian society permanently will be easier because they will have established social networks and familiarized themselves with life in Canada.” There was an expectation that applications under the Express Entry system of former international students would increase from 30% to 40% with the implemented changes as a result of the additional points for Canadian study experience. This is because the changes provide them with a higher rank in the pool of candidates being selected for an invitation to apply for permanent residence. While Express Entry is not an immigration stream itself, the points based streamlined system has also evolved to ensure that international students have some distinct advantages over other skilled immigrants applying for permanent residency. It marked the first time that there was formal recognition of Canadian study credentials in the assessment of permanent residency applications. 4.5 Summary Over the past 30 years there has been an increase in the number of immigrants admitted to Canada under its economic category. Over this same time the number of temporary foreign workers has also increased substantially. Prior to the early 2000s this temporary foreign workforce had few opportunities for direct immigration, however the introduction of the 91 Canadian Experience Class and subsequently several of the provincial nominee programs, both part of the economic immigration category, facilitated new two-step immigration pathways for foreign workers already in Canada. The liberalization of immigration pathways for international students is a major part of this trend and a departure from past practice which restricted their opportunity to migrate. International students make for an interesting case not only because they comprise a growing percentage of both temporary foreign workers and permanent immigration resulting from new policy implementation but also because the numbers of international students coming to Canada continues to increase due to recruitment from higher education institutions and the investment and policy of government. 92 Chapter 5: How to measure influence: a process tracing approach 5.1 Introduction Policy making is a complex, multi-stakeholder undertaking. It is contextual and driven by political institutions which lay out rules for how policies, regulations and laws are made and implemented. Organized groups, known as interest groups, do not seek political office but do have political interests and are an important part of the policy making process (Beyers, Eising, & Maloney, 2008). How interest groups influence the outcomes of political decision making, the degree of their success and the tactics they use to be successful, is important to our understanding of how decisions are made within political processes (Dür, 2008). Interest groups are said to influence political outcomes when they can shape political decisions in line with their group preferences (Nagel, 1975). A basic assumption in this study is that higher education institutions, and their organizations, act as an interest group to advance their preferences to government. The study looks at the higher education sector’s ability to effect policy change related to making Canada an attractive destination to international students by seeking investment from government sources in recruiting international students and providing them with generous and streamlined pathways to work rights and long-term immigration pathways. In Chapter 3, I highlighted the extent of policy change that has taken place in this policy arena. In this Chapter, I describe the methodologies I use to establish that interest group influence from the higher education sector is present and the degree to which their efforts can be considered “successful,” meaning how closely they match the preferences of the sector related to immigration policy change. 93 5.2 Process tracing methodology Process tracing is a qualitative analysis methodology. It is defined as a ‘systematic examination of evidence selected and analyzed in light of the research questions and hypotheses posed by the investigator’ (Collier, 2011, p.823). The main purpose of process tracing is to establish whether, and how, a potential cause or causes influence a specified change or set of changes. The strength of evidence linking potential causes to the changes is carried out through a series of tests. A key feature of process tracing is the development and testing of alternative ideas about how and why change might have happened (George & Bennett, 2005). Theory-testing, theory-building and explaining-outcome are three variations of process tracing. In this study I employ the explaining-outcome process tracing methodology to establish an explanation for why an outcome has been produced within a specific case (Beach & Pedersen, 2013). I combine this with establishing the degree of preference attainment (Dür, 2008) to measure interest group influence. Process tracing draws inferences through evidence and reasoning (Bennett & Checkel, 2015) to establish a relationship between a dependent and independent variable. 5.3 Key elements in process tracing There are four key elements to the process tracing methodology. First, the timing or sequence of the independent, dependent, and intervening variables is critical because it establishes the direction of the process or outcome being observed. A second key element is the use of a detailed case description (Collier, 2011) to help to identify specific pieces of evidence to use in the hypothesis testing. Third is the implementation of a consistent and systematic series of tests on different hypotheses across the full process and a fourth element is the comparative testing of a major rival hypotheses. Since the objective is to establish evidence that strengthens 94 the case for a specific hypothesis, providing evidence that weakens or disproves alternate theories also becomes a major part of the analysis. Each of these process tracing methodology features is highlighted in the next sections. 5.3.1 Why timing matters Paying particular attention of when events happen is a key component of the process tracing approach. This is because the timing of events, outcomes and activities assist in establishing the direction of the relationship between the variables being studied and clarify what observations are the causes and which are the effects or outcomes. In this process tracing case study, the timing of events take on particular importance for several reasons. First, it is somewhat obvious that higher education institutions are a stakeholder in the recruitment of international students to their campuses and that any kind of change that makes it easier or more difficult to recruit international students will be of interest and likely illicit a response. Higher education institutions have traditionally responded to preferences of government, particularly in the realm of international students and international development as Chapter 3 highlights. To establish that higher education institutions and their associations lobbied government for change prior to government signaling an interest in policy change, the timing of conversations and meetings become important to observe. If for instance government moved to provide international student graduates with post graduate work permits without evidence of HEI representatives lobbying government, this would weaken the argument that the HEI sector representatives were more directly influencing policy formation. Blatter and Haverland (2014, p. 66) agree that ‘process tracing should be a method in which time and temporality play a major role’. Timing is also relevant when looking at alternative or rival hypotheses. In what order events took place lends 95 credibility to explaining the policy-making process. While not the only kind of observation, it is a major feature of process tracing and is applied throughout the analysis in this case study. 5.3.2 How case description contributes to the process tracing approach Process tracing is considered a method of case study with a case study being defined as a qualitative approach that explores a bounded system (a case) through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information (Creswell, 2007). In this research, the case is the policy process related to international student immigration pathways within Canada from 1990 to 2017. As with case studies in general, careful and detailed description is also considered a foundation of process tracing (Mahoney, 2010). Process tracing methods differ from other small-n case study methods however, by the types and ways inferences are made through the testing of hypotheses and the way it systematically attempts to trace the mechanisms or steps of a process. Since sequencing or timing of events is often a key component of process tracing, the narrative form works well (Rubach, 2010) this regard, but it is insufficient in allowing a researcher to capture all the observational evidence that can provide a convincing explanation of the process. For this reason, process tracing case studies often are presented in steps (Beach & Pedersen, 2013) and which also look at different hypotheses separately and this means that both in method and in presentation, process tracing looks different from a traditional case study. I find that depending on the evidence and the observations which are drawn both a narrative and a stepwise approach are often required. This is reflected in the presentation of my results which follow a hybrid of sequential narration and the stepwise testing of individual hypotheses. The drawback is that some may feel there is repetition in how the results are presented; however, the nature of the relevant observations (CPOs) of this case makes this necessary so that it can 96 facilitate many opportunities for testing. The process of how those tests is carried out is further described in the next section. 5.3.3 Testing hypotheses in process tracing In its pure form, process tracing is based around a set of formal tests which are applied to all the different possible explanations for how a particular change might have occurred in order to confirm some explanations and/or eliminate others. Within process tracing these different explanations are known as hypotheses. Hypotheses are defined here as a proposed relationship between two phenomena (Van Evera, 1997). In process tracing, the pieces of evidence that either strengthen or weaken a theory are called “causal process observations” (CPOs) (Collier, Brady & Seawright, 2010; Mahoney, 2010). These CPOs are the pieces of evidence that are used to draw inferences with the aim of focusing on the observations where theories diverge. For instance, do they diverge on actor preferences or institutional constraints? Or do they diverge in the sequencing of when events happened? CPOs are selected in a deliberate way to highlight where theories differ. 5.3.3.1 Types of evidence/CPOs There are several different types of CPOs that are used in process tracing and theory testing. CPOs are the building blocks used when looking at a process systematically and in the case of this research, process tracing is used to explore policy shifts and the role of different policy players in policy change. CPOs can take the form of stated goals, positions or beliefs, constraints and in the timing of events (A. Jacobs, personal communication, 2015). The table below (5.1) is a framework of CPO types and was used as the basis for documenting relevant CPOs in the 97 application of the process tracing approach. A summary of the main CPOs which apply specifically to my research results are highlighted in Chapter 6 and detailed in Appendix G. Table 5. 1 Major types of Causal Process Observations (CPOs) used in Process Tracing Type of CPO Description Examples Predicted behaviour Evidence that actors make choices and behave as a theory predicts. Actions of actors are in line with what a theory expects them to do. Preferences Observations or evidence about preferred alternatives from specific actors’ statements (public or private) or through their behaviour. Actor statements in private Actor statements in public Actor behaviour Sequence and timing of events The timing and sequence of when different events take place is consistent with how the theory or model predicts Evidence that the outcome follows the cause or treatment. Evidence of a second choice or preference selected only after a preferred choice has failed or is constrained. There is temporal proximity of causes and outcomes. Considerations Evidence of actors explaining actions through particular goals, beliefs, costs, or benefits. Actor statement in private Actor behaviour Conditions which will motivate actor preferences Operational constraints Observation of constraints on actors’ ability to achieve outcomes that the theory says they prefer. Actors attempt an action but fail because of limitations of resources. Actors achieve an action by undertaking something costly or difficult. 98 Observing a change in outcome as resource levels change. Institutional constraints Observation of constraints on actors’ ability to achieve outcomes that the theory says they prefer. Actors attempt an action but fail in the face of constraining rules. Actors achieve an action predicted by the theory to achieve something costly or difficult. Actor statements acknowledge constraints. Inclusion or exclusion of actors from decision-making venues. Evidence from outside of the case that rules constrain or do not constrain. Observing a change in outcome as resource levels change. Incentive structures Evidence that the costs and benefits to strategies undertaken are in line with the assumptions of the theory. Market price of relevant inputs/outputs Evidence of costs and benefits actors have paid or received in the past under similar conditions. Motivations of other actors to reward or punish based on actor preferences. Information and beliefs Evidence that actors know, have information about or believe what the theory says they know or Evidence of the availability of information. 99 believe about the constraints they face. Evidence of the transmission of information or ideas. Evidence of actors receiving key information. Observing an alignment of behaviour or actor preferences with exposure to information. Actor existence Are the actors who must be present for the theory to hold in existence. Evidence of existence Source: Adapted from course notes of Alan M. Jacobs, Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia (personal communication as instruction resources, 2015) The CPOs in my research use this framework to think about the data in terms of evidence available to either strengthen or weaken both the proposed and alternative theories being presented and to systematically look at the data collected. Results are not simply summarized through reporting on all the results of data collection, but as a means of establishing if my proposed theory will hold based on the evidence revealed through the data collected. It is meant to communicate the research results in a way that selects pieces of evidence that move the argument for or against a certain theory forward. In process tracing there is a deliberate search for the observations that provide an explanation for a process. This does not mean however, that only observations that favour a stated hypothesis are presented, but whether predicted evidence is in fact present. It becomes the researcher’s role to evaluate if there is sufficient evidence for any claims being made. While this is a well-established methodology in political science, it is acknowledged that it is less established in other disciplines; however, it is a compelling method to look at policy outcomes and the role of various actors in policy formation. Once CPOs have been drawn from the data collection process, the next step in process tracing is to use these CPOs to establish the 100 extent to which these observations, both individually and in aggregate, are able to convincingly establish a plausible explanation of a process, event, or outcome. This step is done by taking the CPOs and applying tests to establish whether these pieces of evidence are either necessary and/or sufficient for explaining a theory or refuting alternative explanations. The next section looks in more detail at these tests, what each of them means and how they are used collectively in the process tracing approach. 5.3.3.2 Types of process tracing tests A theory is a general statement that describes and explains the causes or effects of phenomena and are made up of hypotheses, explanations, and conditions (Van Evera, 2016). When a piece of evidence is analyzed, it is assessed through evidence-based tests and is classified according to whether passing the test is necessary and/or sufficient for accepting the inference or explanation. The criteria of whether a test “passes” or “fails” will largely depend on the specific type of observation being tested, however at its most basic level, a test is said to pass if there is evidence of something that is expected to be observed is in fact observed. For instance, for the claim that HEI associations played a role in influencing immigration policy to hold, one would expect to observe that HEI associations had representatives providing input at key policy making junctures. For this test to “pass” and therefore increase the likelihood that the hypothesis has merit, evidence of the presence of HEI association representatives in policy discussions would need to be observed. If they were absent, the test of their presence “fails.” The tests help to establish, in varying degrees, whether the evidence increases or decreases the likelihood that a hypothesis has explanatory power. It is important to note, that some tests are easier to pass than others and the process tracing methodology has a way of categorizing the difficulty of a test. A test is said to be strong if it is certain and distinct. Certainty describes the degree to which the 101 outcome is observed in the way the hypothesis predicts. If the prediction fails, it weakens the hypothesis’ explanation of how the events occurred. A test is also said to be strong if it establishes an outcome that is distinct from other possible outcomes. Distinctiveness is about whether an observation is likely under alternative theories. Observing a distinct outcome or observation that cannot be explained by several different theories, but rather supports a particular theory is also considered a strong test. This logic fundamentally underscores the basic use of the concepts of necessary and sufficient conditions which describe relationships between two variables. It forms the basis for the testing framework used within the process tracing approach. A necessary condition is defined as one where variable x is a necessary condition for variable y and means that without x you will not have y. It does not however, suggest that the presence of x guarantees the presence of y. An example of a necessary condition is the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere as a necessary condition for human life. You need oxygen for human life but having oxygen in the air does not guarantee human life. A sufficient condition is one in which the presence of x guarantees the presence of y, or said another way, that x is a sufficient condition for y means that if x is present then there will be y. An example of a sufficient condition is if rain falls from the sky, it is a sufficient condition for the ground to be wet. However, this statement does not mean that y exists only or exclusively when x is present. For example, turning on a fire hydrant may also make the ground wet. These two conditional statements of necessary and sufficient are used to apply tests and assess hypotheses about processes or events. Drawing from Van Evera (2016), Bennett (2010) and Collier’s (2011) work on process tracing, there are four tests that are used on collected data and are summarized in Figure 5.2 which is followed by an explanation of each test. The tests use the necessary and sufficient conditions and the concept of relative strength of a test using certainty and distinctiveness as criteria. 102 Table 5. 2 Necessary and sufficient condition tests used in process tracing 1. Neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition (Straw-in-the-wind test) If a given hypothesis can pass this test it can confirm its possibility but on its own is not decisive. Failing this test weakens the hypothesis but does not disprove it. This test is said to provide neither a necessary nor a sufficient criterion for accepting or rejecting a hypothesis. This means the cause (independent variable) can sometimes lead to the outcome (dependent variable), and sometimes the outcome can happen without the cause. Of the four tests this is considered the weakest and is considered to have low certainty and low distinctiveness. However, if a given hypothesis can pass multiple straw-in-the-wind tests it may, in aggregate, provide strong confirming evidence. An example of a Straw-in-the-wind test adapted from Beach and Pedersen (2013) and Collier (2011) is about Mary who is suspected of shooting John: 103 Hypothesis: Mary shot John because she discovered he was having an affair. Evidence/CPO: Looking for evidence that an affair was taking place. A hotel receipt, text messages, others who saw him with someone else. Passing the test: If some evidence can be found, it supports the hypothesis, and there is an increase in confidence that the hypothesis holds. It is not enough on its own to conclusively prove or disprove other hypotheses of who shot John. Failing the test: If there is no evidence that John was having an affair this will slightly raise doubts about the hypothesis, but on its own is not enough to rule it out. Other evidence is required. 2. Necessary but not sufficient condition (Hoop test) This test is said to have high certainty and is necessary to confirm a hypothesis. It is considered a more demanding test, because if this test fails it will disprove the hypothesis but passing this test does not confirm it. It demonstrates a necessary criterion but not a sufficient one. Passing a hoop test provides stronger evidence for a hypothesis than a straw-in-the-wind test and is often used to exclude alternative hypotheses. Continuing with the example of John and Mary here is what a hoop test looks like: Example hypothesis: Mary shot John. Evidence/CPO: Mary claims she was alone on the night of the murder and therefore lacks a good alibi. 104 Passing the test: Lacking a good alibi does not prove or even support the hypothesis that Mary shot John but it does not undermine the existing hypothesis either. She still could have shot John. Failing the test: If Mary had a strong alibi, like she was at a family gathering where many people were present, and this could be confirmed, then confidence is increased that Mary did not shoot John disconfirming the existing hypothesis. 3. Sufficient but not necessary condition (Smoking-gun test) The smoking-gun test provides a sufficient but not necessary outcome and is considered to have a high level of distinctiveness, meaning that it would be difficult to draw any conclusion other than the one offered by the hypothesis being presented. If the observation does not pass this test, it does not eliminate it, but passing the test will strongly support the given hypothesis. While it is somewhat cliché, there is a reason it is called the smoking gun test as the example provided below stays true to its name: Hypothesis: Mary shot John. Evidence/CPO: Mary was found holding a smoking gun that had been recently fired while standing over John’s body. Passing the test: Confidence that Mary did indeed shoot John significantly increases with this piece of evidence. Failing the test: The absence of this piece of evidence does not significantly undermine the hypothesis that Mary shot John. It does not disprove the hypothesis. 105 4. Both a necessary and a sufficient condition exists (Double decisive test) This test is considered both necessary and sufficient by confirming one hypothesis and eliminating all others. This test is difficult to achieve through a singular CPO, but in combination several CPO tests can yield this outcome collectively. The double decisive test is considered the most demanding test containing both high certainty and high distinctiveness. Returning to the John and Mary for an example: Hypothesis: Mary shot John. Evidence/CPO: Mary was caught on a high-resolution, tamper proof CCTV camera deliberately shooting John. Passing the test: There is strong evidence and a high degree of confidence that the hypothesis is correct and that all other alternative hypotheses are false. Mary did indeed shoot John. Failing the test: This is dependent on the nature of the test. If someone else was seen shooting John on CCTV it would of course, disconfirm the hypothesis that Mary shot him. However, if there simply were no video images of the shooting, this failed test would neither increase nor decrease the confidence in the current hypothesis. These process tracing tests provide the framework for looking at the data critically and with the ability to say whether a piece of evidence (CPO) is necessary (hoop; doubly decisive), sufficient (smoking-gun; doubly decisive) or neither (straw-in-wind) (Collier, 2011). This method emphasizes both the strength of the evidence presented along with the frequency and diversity of data supporting each hypothesis. 106 5.3.4 Testing a rival alternate theory A fourth key feature of process tracing is the integration of a rival or alternate theory into the analysis of the process under investigation. Identifying and testing CPOs allows rival theories to be analyzed concurrently to ones proposed by the researcher and can contribute to the degree of confidence that some theories are better at explaining a political process than others. As a result, process tracing is an appropriate choice of methodology when an existing theory is being challenged as there is in this research study. Current research attributes the policy changes related to international students and immigration pathways are a result of the Canadian government looking to other national governments and responding with competitive policies in response. I use the process tracing approach to explore both this and a competing theory of internal lobbying from HEIs. 5.4 Assessing the Degree of Preference Attainment Process tracing allows for an in-depth and systematic analysis of a process. In terms of interest group influence research, it allows a researcher to determine if a particular group did or did not influence a particular political outcome or process. What process tracing does not do however, is provide any way of establishing the degree of policy influence or success where success is defined as how closely the preferred outcomes expressed by the actors match the actual policy outcomes (Bunea, 2013; Klüver, 2013; Helboe-Pedersen, 2013). The smaller the gap between the preferences and the outcome of the decision-making process, the greater policy influence or lobbying success. This conceptualization mirrors a preference attainment approach, which is a mainstream theoretical approach to detect and measure interest group influence 107 (Pritoni, 2017). In this method, the outcomes of political processes are compared with the stated preferences of actors. At its most basic, the idea is that the distance between an outcome and an actor’s preferences reflects the influence of the actor. In more complex approaches, researchers try to control for other forces moving outcomes closer to or further away from an actor’s ideal or preferred point. Several scholars (Mahoney, 2007; McKay, 2011; Dür et al., 2015) argue that the degree of preference attainment is a good measure of interest group “success” rather than “influence” given the complex nature of the policy process and the difficulty in being able to articulate influence as a concept as well as the challenge in creating a meaningful measure for “influence”. As stated previously, measuring interest group influence or success is recognized as a challenge for several reasons. First, it may be difficult to determine what the preferences of actors are and what their ideal points might be. In other words, measuring influence is difficult if it is unclear what an actor or collective group sees as the preferred outcome. Second, stated preferences may not always reflect true or ideal preferences of a lobby group. The best way for actors to push the outcome towards their ideal point may not necessarily be to lobby for that specific point. According to Ward (2004) lobbying actors may exaggerate their ideal preferences and if stated lobbying positions may not reflect actual preferences, so it becomes difficult to measure to what extent preferences are in line with any outcomes. (Dür and De Bièvre, 2007). To address this, several different sources of both publicly available data is collected and compared, along with information from elite interview data in order to triangulate what the actual policy preferences of the higher education sector were to mitigate these inherent risks. Another potential challenge is in how to go about isolating the influence of a single group in the policy process. There may in fact be several actors working for the same desired outcome. 108 This could lead to an overestimation of the influence of specific actors (Mahoney, 2007). This is one of the motivations for recognizing the public higher education sector as a collective group in this study and identifying additional actors whose preferences were enough in alignment to form a coalition to advance their collective interests. Another challenge to prescribing a score or value to a group’s lobbying success is the possibility that the alignment of preferences and outcomes may simply be attributed to luck rather than influence (Klüver, 2013) or there may be other groups attempting to push the outcome in different directions, which may result in an underestimation of success (Dür & De Bièvre 2007; Dür 2008). Despite these challenges, I believe there is still merit in moving beyond results that are limited to only whether there was influence or not and attempt to quantify some degree or scale of success. 5.4.1 Measuring preference attainment There are several methods of measuring of preference attainment. McKay (2012) in her study of the effects of lobbyists’ resources on their policy success operationalizes preference attainment on a dichotomous scale, ascribing a code of 1 if a policy supported became law or was opposed and failed to become law and a code of 0 for any other outcome. Mahoney (2007) and Bunea (2013) used an ordinal scale with three levels, and others placed outcomes on a 0-100 scale (Dür, Bernhagen & Marshall, 2015). All but the dichotomous measure allows for some differentiation of levels of attainment. In my research I use a scale from negative one (-1) to positive one (+1) with zero as the median point. A score of negative one would be a policy preference opposite to what was desired and a score of positive one would be a policy preference in perfect alignment with policy outcomes. A score of zero is considered a neutral policy 109 outcome. Preference attainment is focused on four major policy areas: federal investment in international recruitment; visa processing improvements and programs; work authorizations for international students and graduates; and immigration pathways. Within each of these policy areas there were specific requests made by the HEI sector. These sub points are averaged to create a somewhat simplistic but nevertheless indicative representation of interest group preference attainment. The preference attainment scores are all coded manually based on knowledge of the policy process. In complex cases such as this one, coding is considered an appropriate approach. It can be a useful approach to measure policy positions of interest groups because it gives better insight into the nuances of interest group preferences (Bunea & Ibenskas 2017). A rubric outlining how points were assigned to create a policy attainment score in each of the policy areas is found in Appendix H1 and summarized in Chapter 6. It is important to note that the actual score or number attributed to the degree of preference attainment in the four policy areas is not intended to be an exact number or grade but instead provides a representation of the degree of preference attainment. The value is meant as an indicator of degree of how closely preferences match outcomes. For instance, a score of .7 communicates that the interest group had relatively good success in having their preferences reflected in policy on a scale of preference attainment. 5.5 Data collection Lobbying records, government reports and documents, reports and policy positions of higher education associations, newspaper and media reporting along with elite interviews are all sources of data for the study. Looking at publicly available documents is another essential “piece of the puzzle” in understanding the extent of both the nature of higher education policy 110 preferences and of government’s response or inclusion of stakeholder policy preferences in their policy formation. It is used in combination with other data sources and serves as a source of triangulation (Eisner, 1991) which is helpful in process tracing. Public documents related to the legislative and regulatory changes and government investment related to international student marketing, international student visa processing and access to work and pathways to immigration in Canada for international student graduates all contribute to building a detailed case study and to conduct a range of process tracing tests. Details about each of these sources is presented below. 5.5.1 Lobbying records The Office of the Commission of Lobbying of Canada maintains a public registry of lobbyists. The registry provides information on the activities of lobbyists with federal public office holders which includes federal government employees and members of the House of Commons, the Senate, and their staff. The Commission defines lobbying to be communication with a federal public office holder about policies, programs, or legislation by someone who receives payment to do so in their professional role. It makes the distinction between in-house lobbyists employed by organizations and consultant lobbyists who communicate on behalf of clients or hold a position on a board of directors (GOC, 2020). The Lobbying Act requires the registration of paid lobbyists and disclosure about the nature and subject matter of lobbying activities. 111 I collected data from the Lobbying Registry on formal lobbying activities related to international students and immigration. First active and inactive6 registrations from January 1, 1996 (when data was made available) to December 31, 2017, are drawn with “international students” as a key word. The registry also allows for a subject matter search. The search specifies “immigration” as the subject matter. Registrations provide information about an organization or consultant lobbying government on behalf of a client as well as the subject area being discussed with officials. There were 456 registrations reported from 29 organizations with the subject of immigration and international students. The 29 organizations include both associations representing many members (13) and individual higher education institutions (16). There are also monthly communication reports each consultant or organization provides which outlines more specifically what meetings or communications took place, when, with whom, and the subject matter including any relevant regulations or pieces of legislation that was discussed. There are 66 monthly reports with information on meeting details on the topic of international students and immigration over the same time period. The Registry lists only the most senior paid officer of an organization in its reports. This representative may or may not have participated in the meeting because the Lobbyists Registration Regulations do not require that the names of in-house lobbyists who participated in the meeting be disclosed. For this reason, the information collected includes: (1) which organization had a meeting, (2) when the meeting took place, (3) who the senior representative of the organization was, and (4) whom within government the representative met and (5) general 6 All active lobbyists and their affiliated organizations are required to register with the Canadian Lobbying Registry. A registration is said to be inactive when it has an end date which is a communication that the individual or organization no longer engages in lobbying activities with the federal government. 112 subject area being discussed. The registry provides reporting from 1996 when amendments to the 1989 Act were put in place to make lobbying records more accessible, meaningful, and comprehensive (GOC, 2020). On July 2, 2008, the new Lobbying Act and regulations came into force which expanded the definition of what was considered lobbying. In the new legislation senior positions in the public service working for or in the offices for Ministers of the Crown or Ministers of the State were included as a new category of public office holder. This meant that meetings with deputy ministers, associate and assistant deputy ministers and several other senior positions now also required disclosure of meetings taking place and the subject matter of those meetings. As a result of the expansion of the definition of what meetings qualified as lobbying, there was also an expansion of the number of meetings being reported after 2008. This makes it difficult to compare or draw conclusions related to the frequency of meetings in general over time, but it does provide a lot of additional detail about meetings after the new legislation was implemented. For this reason, there are some challenges in the comparability of the extent intensity of lobbying based on legislative changes and regulatory practices, but it still serves as an important piece of evidence of the lobbying activity of the higher education sector by providing information on what if any meetings took place and who the meetings were with and the subject matter of the meetings which took place. It is also helpful in identifying the timing of events, since meeting dates are included in the monthly lobbing reports. A summary of the lobbying records is found in Appendix C. 5.5.2 Public documents Documents published from 1990 through until 2019 collected in this study include: (1) higher education association reports and policy briefs; (2) key provincial and national 113 government reports including those with a strategic planning focus, government operational bulletins and those with an evaluation focus; (3) and intergovernmental reports. International students or the international education sector are the main topic of some of the documents, with reference to either the recruitment of international students or the economic contributions they provide to institutions and communities. Other reports have their focus in the demand for labour, and labour market outcomes of new immigrants or immigration interests or priorities. Government documents include federal reports and publications from Statistics Canada, IRCC, Global Affairs Canada, along with reports from the Council of the Federation of Premiers and the Council of Ministers of Education. In addition, in the final chapter, which is an Epilogue that considers the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, additional public and government documents are included up until May 2021. Collection of documents on international students and/or immigration pathways are used in several different ways. First, the publication date of different documents is noted to establish a more general chronology of events, meetings and publications that are part of this particular policy discourse. What was the order of when things happened? For instance, are documents published from higher education associations calling on government to adopt immigration policies to make it easier to recruit international students before departmental government reports or after? Different published documents have also been reviewed to identify stakeholders and the communication of specific policy recommendations. The recommendations are grouped into four different categories based on the kind of policy change request. The first are requests for federal investment of international student recruitment and the promotion of the sector. This includes support for branding, a coordinated national presence at key international student recruitment events and other recruitment activities. Another category is related to the administration, 114 regulations, and processing of visas for international students including things like speed of processing, access to processing centers and requirements for student visa approvals. A third category is related to a range of work authorization regulations related to international students and international student graduates and the final category is related to policy recommendations for immigration pathways for international students. Looking at the sequence and timing as well as stakeholder presence and inputs provide CPOs which are used in the process tracing hypothesis testing and policy positions in the four categories are collected for use in the degree of preference attainment of higher education institutions. 5.5.3 Media reporting In addition to a range of published documents, the study also reviews Canadian media reporting from 1990 to 2017 using the Canadian Newsstream database which includes more than 360 local and national newspapers, magazines, and news wire records. Media reporting data is collected as a potential source of CPOs for use in the process tracing approach to determine if there are any pieces of evidence that could add to the understanding of the policy change process. An initial search looked simply at the frequency of the topic of international/foreign students and the secondary search terms of “recruit”, “immigration” and “ideal immigrant” to uncover if there was any evidence about when and to what degree the public discourse on international students as immigrants began to appear. Key search terms “international student” or “foreign student” were used in conjunction with three separate searches. The first was to include the term “recruit” as a root along with the key “international student” search term. This was meant to identify subject matter related to actively trying to attract international students to Canadian campuses. Next a search with “international student” or “foreign student” but this time 115 with the term “immigrant” as a root search term (which would include other terms like immigration, immigrating, etc.). Again, this is to establish timing about when discourse in the media linking international student and immigration began to appear and whether it differed in timing or frequency with recruiting international students more generally. Finally, a similar search over the same 1990-2017 period, but with “ideal immigrant” as the secondary search term. This specific term is part of an imaginary that is now often attributed to international students. Each of these searches are broken down by year to establish general trends (see Appendix D1). Media reporting data is also used to better understand the nature of the topics being reported that reference international or foreign students. For this part of the data collection, the Newsstream database is used to search all newspaper, magazine, wire feeds, and blogs, from 2006 through to 2014. This time frame was selected because it is when the major policy changes took place (see Chapter 3). Given that I am interested in seeing if there is any evidence that might explain the policy process that might be gleaned from media reports, placing an emphasis on when policy making was happening seems a sound approach. Every article which references international students or foreign students which also contained at minimum an abstract was read and placed into four different pre-defined categories describing the content of the articles: economic; immigration; both economic and immigration; and neither economic nor immigration. The “economic” category is selected when an article refers to international students as a form of revenue generation, references the amount of money international students bring to an institution, city, or region; discusses targets or recruitment of international students (increasing the number of international students) in relation to institutional budgeting or includes references in which international students are referred to as a sector or compared with different export sectors. In 116 comparison, articles are placed in the “immigration” category when international or foreign students are referred to in terms of sources of temporary or permanent labour, as a source of maintaining or growing city or regional populations, when there are references to immigration pathways or programs that allow international students to stay on after graduation or keeping international students in the regions in which they study. When both these categories are present in articles, they are placed in the “both economic and immigration” category. Finally, those articles that reference international students neither in economic nor immigration contexts are placed in a category named “neither” and were then excluded from the analysis. Many articles describing international student programs including cultural events, festivals, and homestay activities are included in this category. News items which talked about crime, awards, or other activities are also placed in this category. No distinction was made whether the article featured international students positively or negatively when placing them in categories. The objective was to observe if there were any trends in the timing or scale of the general content of the media being reported over the time that policy change was taking place. In total there were 1,418 news and media articles reviewed. A summary of the results is presented in Appendix D2. The articles that reference either international students or foreign students that are categorized as “economic” or “immigration” or “both economic and immigration” were then reviewed to identify who, if anyone was being quoted and their affiliation. Affiliation categories include spokespeople or people quoted from higher education institutions (HEIs), higher education associations, provincial government, federal government, non-governmental associations, business, citizens, and international students themselves or student groups/associations. Of the 1418 articles reviewed, there were 533 that were in the “neither 117 economic nor immigration” content category which were excluded analysis, leaving 885 for the period 2006 to 2014. A summary of the results is included in Appendix D3. 5.5.4 Elite interviews Archival research is augmented by semi-structured elite interviews and is commonly used in process tracing where respondents are selected based on what they might know to help the investigator to understand a process under investigation. When using the term “elite” it does not necessarily mean someone of high social, economic, or political standing but a person who is chosen by name or position for a particular reason, rather than randomly or anonymously (Hochschild, 2009). Elite interviews in this research study include individuals who hold or held senior positions in post-secondary education associations along with its board members; senior representatives in universities and colleges across Canada; and former and current provincial and federal politicians and bureaucrats. More importantly, interviewees will have held relevant positions at the time of the immigration policy changes taking place and ideally be able to provide first-hand, primary source insight into the policy making process. Elite interviewees are used to offer a potentially more direct measure of how events took place and may allow for additional context beyond written accounts. When combined with other methods of qualitative data collection, they can also provide an effective approach in reconstructing less-visible sequences and processes leading to specific outcomes and they can provide information not recorded elsewhere (Davies, 2001; Tansey, 2007). A semi-structured format is used to provide adequate scope for meaningful and descriptive answers and to encourage those with in-depth knowledge of the historical context to share their insights (Aberbach & Rockman, 2002). Open-ended questions provide a greater opportunity for respondents to organize their answers within 118 their own frameworks and improves the appropriateness, or validity, of the choice of measurement instrument. "For projects where depth, context, or the historical record is at the heart of data collection, elite interviewing using broad, open-ended questioning might be the best choice." (Berry, 2002, p. 679) Since the focus of this research relates to a particular policy arena, the population of relevant actors is considered narrow (Mosely, 2013). Interviewees are selected based on their direct involvement in policy formation, in the case of those from government or those with a direct interest in lobbying government. To ensure balance in the information gathered, different groups of actors within this population are placed in stakeholder categories. The population or sample frame for the elite interviews are all the people occupying senior management positions in their organizations who provided or received input on international student immigration preferences. Potential interviewees were identified in four ways. First, through historical documents that identified or named individuals who were part of the discourse on international students and immigration policy. Examples include those in key positions within advisory groups or having made presentations to Senate committees, or who were making statements within the media on behalf of their organizations. A second means of identifying interviewees was through the provincial and national associations which may have had an interest in the policy arena and identifying who were the representatives of these organizations when policy change was occurring. A third method was through the recommendations of people who had knowledge of those directly involved in certain parts of the advocacy or policy formation process. This sometimes came from interview sources or who are considered secondary sources of information who had exposure to the discussions but were not necessarily part of the policy discussions themselves. Finally, interviewees were identified through researcher knowledge 119 about those in leadership positions during the time of policy formation. These would include university and college presidents who were active and attentive to issues related to the recruitment of international students and those who had access to key stakeholders in government through their professional positions. In all cases, interview candidates were selected based on their knowledge and degree of engagement with the subject matter, and their own individual roles in the communication of preferences of the HEI sector to government or receiving information from HEIs as representatives of government. The research identifies two major categories of interviewees. The first category includes those in government holding either political office or senior bureaucrats working within the policy arena. The second category includes interviewees representing the HEI sector both from national level associations representing higher education institutions and senior administration of individual HEIs who also played a role or had insight into this specific policy arena. These stakeholder groups are not broken down further due to the risks associated with the identification of interviewees. For example, since there are only five different national associations, with three of these representing the interests of public higher education institutions specifically, one having public HEIs as part of their membership along with private institutions and one representing the K-12 sector, the size of each group is too small to ensure that comments are not easily attributable back to specific interviewees. Many interviewees spoke with candor and specificity during the interview and provided a great deal of insight into the policy process. In fact, at times given the detail contained in the responses, it became clear that there was a risk of individuals being identified based on their direct quotes given the distinct positions that some of those interviewed held. Whenever possible, direct quotes are used to highlight responses in relation to 120 the process tracing approach although in some circumstances these are paraphrased or summarized to protect the anonymity of the interviewee. When the elite interviews were conducted, some interviewees suggested other potential interviewees. This snowballing technique was not intentional and not actively solicited during interviews, however these suggestions and introductions did result in facilitating additional interviews and valuable insights from key stakeholders. These third-party recommendations resulted in four additional interviews not previously identified. In each of the four cases, the prospective participants were contacted by those who made the recommendation and the research ethics approved invitation letter requesting an interview was shared with them by the people who had recommended them. In two of the cases, the new contacts responded directly to me by email, and in the third and fourth case, permission was granted for me to contact them. There were 32 elite interviews completed with 60% (19) coming from the HEI sector and 40% (13) from government. Interviews were conducted until saturation. At saturation, each new interview within and across networks reveals no new information about a political or policymaking process (Guest, Bruce & Johnson, 2006). The interview questions posed to policy elites included five open ended questions. The questions differed slightly for stakeholders who were lobbying government versus those within government. For individuals representing HEIs and their associations questions focused on what the preferences of the sector were and what strategies, if any they engaged in to attempt to influence government. Questions about ease of access and responses from different levels of government were also asked. Government representatives were asked similar questions, but a question was included for interviewees to comment on how they perceived the role of HEIs and 121 their associations in the formulation of changes in regulation and legislation. Interview questions for the different stakeholders are found in Appendices E1 and E2. Of the 32 interviews, 14 were conducted in person, 18 were conducted by phone. I received permission to record conversations in 23 cases. Recorded conversations were transcribed using audio transcription to convert audio files directly to text, and to separate the text based on the speaker. For the remaining 9 interviews, responses were captured either through hand-written or typed notetaking. A table of anonymized interviewees is summarized in Appendix F. 5.5.4.1 Access and researcher positionality The literature on elite interview methodology often references the challenges in approaching, gaining access, and conducting interviews with elites (Berry, 2002; Tansey, 2007). Different factors can influence access and what a respondent is willing to share, including the positionality of the researcher, or the position of the researcher in the context of the study and in relation to the interview participant group (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014). Positionality is often referenced in terms of a researcher having either an insider or outsider relationship to the community engaged in the inquiry where having an insider status might glean advantages including access, rapport, and impact (Herr & Anderson, 2005). My positionality in relation to the research is one that can be considered as having insider status. As an international educator and administrator working in the higher education sector for more than two decades, I had a deep understanding of the context and impact of policy change at the implementation level. My work also afforded me opportunities to meet and interact professionally with several interviewees prior to approaching them to participate in a research interview. I was known by the majority of those 122 whom I approached, and for those whom I did not know, I had intermediaries who could provide introductions. As a result, the ability to access elites for this research did not prove to be a particular challenge. My positionality also enabled a high degree of trust and candidness generally in the interview process itself which proved helpful in gaining insights into the perspectives of those interviewed. I am acutely conscious however of how my position might have influenced how processes and outcomes were reported. The use of a semi-structured, open-ended set of interview questions assisted me in staying on track and providing space for each interviewee to answer to the degree they wished without leading prompts and by adhering to the timeframe I requested to the best of my ability, I kept the conversation moving and focused. Despite these precautions, I use the data collected from elite interviews as only one of many different sources of evidence to explore this policy making process. 5.6 Application of the process tracing and preference attainment methodologies to data collection The process tracing within case analysis approach is appropriate for describing and explaining processes associated with a variety of phenomena at the individual, group, and organization levels (Woodside & Wilson, 2003). In process tracing the sequence and timing of observations and events is key to making claims about the role of higher education institutions on the immigration policy process. In this analysis, careful attention is paid to when discussions, events and documents took place or are released to the public and which people are providing or making recommendations and when. This helps to establish the direction of the information and relationship. If conversations can be confirmed, and studies or reports are released prior to government changes emanating from HEIs then inferring a degree of influence might be 123 possible. If policy positions of HEIs are communicated after immigration policy shifts and not prior, then observations will undermine or disprove the stated theory. I test several hypotheses using detailed evidence about the context, mechanisms, and sequences within this single case through in-depth interviews with government officials, politicians, and higher education leaders along with primary documents, lobbying records, and news articles. These tests will specifically look at access to decision makers, the responses of decision-makers to the influence attempts, the reflection of ideas launched by HEIs compared to the policy outcomes implemented, and the degree to which preferences are reflected in key outcomes and the temporal coincidence between activities (Cowle,1995; Dür, 2008). Of the three different types of process tracing outlined by Beach and Pederson (2013), I utilize an outcomes-based approach using both deductive and inductive reasoning with the goal of providing a causal explanation through inference. I develop case-specific CPOs for my theory that higher education institutions acted as special interest to improve the speed and acceptance rates for international student visa processing and the creation of immigration pathways to make Canada an attractive destination of study compared with other jurisdictions. There are three hypotheses I put forward to explain how this is achieved: 1. HEIs used information and expert knowledge as policy influence. 2. HEIs, through their national associations, advanced their policy interests through participation in a coalition. 3. HEIs and their national associations utilised government officials as allies in their advocacy measures at both the provincial and federal levels. As a rival hypothesis to higher education institutions special interest group actions, I put forward that government, rather than responding to internal, national, or special interests responded 124 directly to other nation states’ international student recruitment and immigration policies through a policy diffusion approach focused on competition. As a first step, the outcomes-based process tracing approach establishes interest group influence on policy change. Based on the data collected, I develop case specific CPOs, or pieces of evidence using the framework of CPO types that are featured in Table 5.1. many of which are included in chapter six, but a full listing can be found in Appendix G. The next step is to determine the degree of influence. To achieve this, the policy outcomes are compared with the policy preferences of HEIs to establish the degree to which higher education institutions attained their policy preferences. This combination of methodologies is used by several scholars studying interest group influence including Schneider and Balz (2005) who used degree of preference attainment and a comparative case study approach and Dür and De Bièvre (2007) who combined process-tracing and surveys of interest groups on trade policy influence of non-governmental actors in Europe. Drawing on the evolution of investment and policy change of the federal government in Canada covered in chapter three for the policy outputs and interview data and policy documents from higher education institutions and associations for the policy preferences of the higher education sector, I compare preferences and outputs. I look at the following four dimensions of policy change: 1. Federal investment in international student recruitment 2. Student visa processing 3. Work authorizations 4. Immigration pathways for international students 125 On each of these dimensions the preferences are compared with outputs and placed on a continuous scale between negative one (-1) and positive one (1), where zero is the median point. Relative placement on the scale was determined using a rubric based on the alignment of preferences and policy outcomes. The rubric is found in Appendix H1. A list of documents and interviews used in the scoring process are listed in Appendix H2. The document analysis focuses on the relevant written sections or full document rather than word or phrase counts. Similar scoring from text excerpts is also done with elite interviews by higher education association leadership and those responsible for articulating the preferences of the higher education sector to the federal government. The combination of elite interviews and the range of documents and records collected provides ample data to trace the policy implementation process and draw conclusions about what critical factors were driving change. It will become apparent that higher education institutions, while not traditionally involved in immigration policy advocacy previously, made concerted efforts to engage with government actors. They worked as a coordinated sector to leverage their special interest position by building a coalition that represented not just higher education, but the K-12 system and English language programs as well. They provided expert advice, conducted research, and pointed to both economic and competitive factors that created an imaginary of international students as “ideal immigrants” which became part of the government rhetoric. While other factors led to the messaging being well timed and government receptive, the public higher education sector was a critical part of the transformation of Canada becoming a major player in international student recruitment and the comparatively expansive and generous immigration pathways for international students, during and post-graduation. 126 5.7 Study Limitations Process tracing provides the ability to explain individual parts of a mechanism or process and to systematically identify whether certain processes are in fact present. It does not, however facilitate generalization across different cases nor for that matter is it meant to. In outcome explaining process tracing the objective is to confirm or disconfirm theory or theories within a single-case study but not for a broader population. In the case of international student immigration pathways and policy outcomes there are several reasons why a deeper understanding of the policy process is relevant for future policy formation both within different levels of government and amongst HEIs. Where it lacks in generalizability or external validity it instead provides an in-depth analysis of phenomena in context and supports the development of historical perspectives, along with providing a high degree of internal validity, or the extent to which a piece of evidence supports a claim about an outcome or effect (Gagnon, 2010). The study provides an empirically rich, context specific account which contributes to theory building in interest group influence research in spite of its limitations on generalizability. There are potentially other concerns related to the selection and analysis of elite interviews. Interviewees were not randomly selected but chosen because of their specific role or position at a specific point in time related to the policy arena being studied. This is both deliberate and necessary for the purpose of the research but also prevents making any universal claims. Even more importantly, as one colleague pointed out when I discussed my research, there is a concern of bias from elite interviewees, who might exaggerate (or play down) either their involvement or that of their organizations, something that may be equally true of both HEI stakeholders and government representatives. Researchers themselves are also sources of potential bias both during the interview process and in the analysis of interview transcripts, 127 potentially selecting a narrative through quotes that suit their own assumptions or theories. I think these are legitimate concerns which I attempted to address in two major ways. First, elite interviews were only one of many different sources of data used in this research, knowing not just that exaggeration might produce a source of bias, but that people’s recall about the process, people and events may also affect their responses. Avoiding an over-reliance on any single source of information and the triangulation of multiple sources helps to reduce the risk of bias and improve research validity and credibility (Heale & Forbes, 2013). Finally, it has been mentioned previously that process tracing does not provide any way to measure the degree of influence. To address this shortfall, I also assess the degree of preference attainment in combination with the outcomes-based process tracing methodology thus strengthening validity through theory triangulation as well. It is also recognized that observations are drawn from information that is accessible and means that data that is not available or in existence any longer which is not part of the study may impose a systematic error which might also skew results. For this, elite interviews which compliments the document analysis helps to mitigate these potential error results. 5.7.1 The challenges of trying to simplify something immensely complex The rich detail that came from using a within-case qualitative design also yielded some unanticipated study limitations. Despite having a good understanding and knowledge of the case context prior to conducting the research, there are some themes that emerged that really warranted further study, but the data collected were either insufficient to draw any convincing inferences or because the additional detail did not speak directly to the research question posed. 128 These have a place in the recommendations for further study in Chapter 7, but they also deserve some mention here. First, the interviews revealed a rich interplay of discussions between provinces, and between federal levels of government and the provinces, and between different departments within federal government. This is in addition to the descriptions of how HEIs were consulted, and how they jockeyed to get their interests heard. Some details of this are shared in Chapter 6 but it is important to note that the elite interviews did not include representation from all provincial governments and the questions asked of government representatives were the same for both federal and provincial counterparts. These are limitations in the study design that prevent any general observations to be made, but it does shed information on the policy process as a whole and the complexity of the discussions. In hindsight it would have been advantageous if there had been some differentiation in the questions asked of the different levels of government. Another limitation done purposefully but which still has an impact on the research is that higher education institutions and their associations are treated as a unit of analysis, as a single sector. This was done for the sake of simplifying what was anticipated to be similar interests. However, elite interviews revealed that there was also a lot of jockeying between universities and colleges and that they did not always work together and that there was a perception among some of those interviewed that there were distinct winners, namely the colleges, that benefitted the most from some of the investments and changes in policy. “When the feds started finally talking about a national strategy there was a lot of jockeying of position between the associations for a dominance of place,” explained one interviewee. Another participant said that part of the impetus for the move towards a consortium approach was to ensure some sector associations/subsectors were not marginalized. “CBIE led 129 the consortium discussions to prevent them from getting marginalized in the discussions which were unfolding and to position themselves with the ability to broker with the other associations.” Another respondent pointed out that in general “unis had less complaints than colleges” as well since they were having fewer issues with visa processing at the time. So, like the complexity of the discussions between provinces and amongst provinces and the federal government, there appears there were similar differences and discussions between the different non-governmental associations and between associations and the federal government both individually and collectively, but while the some of those interviewed alluded to this, the questions posed did not systematically explore this theme, so there are only incomplete glimpses of this positioning. Comments like “the college and vocational institutions had major lobby power in Ontario” from one participant and “the CEGEPs were always asking but never getting what they wanted,” from another also signals that not all sub sectors had equal influence in different jurisdictions. There were also comments like “the major research universities did not bother going through the provinces and mostly seem to do what they wanted…going directly to the feds,” also speaks to possible issues of relative access to decision makers where it was easier for some to “bend the ear of power” than others. These nuances related to different levels of higher education providers is not explicitly addressed in the results, and again in hindsight perhaps the questions asked of the interviewees could have been different in order to consistently ask about the different positioning and preferences between the various interests.. There is also an absence of private higher education institutions included in the study. As a result, this is a within-case analysis of the public higher education institutions as a sector. They were the ones with representation, legitimacy and ultimately access to elite decision makers and it was their interests that are captured. Quality assurance measures which provided automatic 130 approval as designated learning institutions to public institutions was by no means an oversight or mistake. Public higher education institutions wish at all costs to maintain the integrity of their education brand and that of Canada’s brand of high-quality education with the subtext being that private institutions are not of the same quality as public ones. So, while there are winners, and some winning more than others, there are also losers, or those excluded or requiring additional certification to be included from many of the most generous policy changes. Some interviewee comments touch on this but this was not a line of inquiry I anticipated so there were no questions or prompts in this regard. The unsolicited comments from those interviewed highlight the differentiation that was happening. “Private providers were keen to be involved in all of it” said one participant speaking about the EduCanada brand and work authorization benefits for international students. “They [the private institutions] managed to get in on the brand…but not the work privileges that they had wanted,” said another. “The privates… there was differential treatment for sure” and there was a lot of concern about the “company that [public institutions] would need to keep if two-year private colleges had the same access to the brand and work authorizations,” shared one HEI representative. “It was an issue of quality control….no one wanted to lose control of the situation…it needed to be managed pre-emptively to avoid a catastrophe,” commented one government representative on the challenge of how to incorporate private institutions into a quality assurance framework. One participant commented on the impacts to those in the private sector: When the PGWP was taken away from the private language schools they were apoplectic because this lost them a lot of students and I am sure IRCC had very valid reasons for doing it, but it upset a lot of private language providers and probably did cause a downturn in 131 their enrolments because students no longer had work opportunities after their programs were completed. In summary, there is soundness and justification in the decision to apply a process-tracing combined with a degree of preference attainment approach to the question of policy change and the role of higher education institutions in it. However, there are limitations both in the design and in capturing those things that do not improve or detract from the confidence of a defined hypothesis explaining policy outcomes. Greater differentiation of the questions asked to different stakeholders both within government and various HEI groups may also have been able to capture even greater nuance of the policy process.. 132 Chapter 6: Possible explanations of the policy shift in student migration in Canada At its heart, this study is meant to account for the fundament shift in international student immigration policy in Canada in the past 20 years. Who were the major stakeholders and what were their interactions and strategies to bring about policy change? My key hypothesis is that higher education institutions and their professional associations were influential in shaping policy changes in relation to the admission of international students. Three major approaches to this influence or policy success are tested based on interest group theories. The use of expert knowledge to influence policy, formal and informal lobbying through higher education institutions (HEIs) national associations who also formed a sector-wide coalition and finally higher education sector influence through government allies. A rival hypothesis is that the policy change was a response to other governments’ international student recruitment and immigration policies that result in a competitive policy diffusion approach across borders. The proposition that policy change was prompted by policy diffusion from other nations, particularly Australia, is a strong rival hypothesis. There are examples of the justification for change as a “response to competition” in order to “attract” international students to Canada. Government officials and higher education sector leaders alike invoke this economic frame in public statements and reiterate this as a factor in elite interviews. A major narrative regarding international student flows is about market size, market growth and market share. Inherent in this discussion is how other governments are doing in comparison, who are market laggards and leaders, who is gaining or losing market share and what makes them distinct in the international 133 education “market.” Paying attention to what your “competitors” are doing is an essential part of doing business if your business is to increase the number of international students coming to your country. There is evidence in the media, government documents, government leader statements and higher education institutions and their associations all invoking “responding to competition from other countries” as a justification for policy change. This policy change, interestingly, is not just related to government investment and support for coordinated international marketing efforts. It is also invoked when justifying immigration policy shifts, most of which have been predominantly expansive for both temporary rights to study and work and the development of pathways for permanent immigration and citizenship. It might be expedient to stop there and be content with this as an explanation. In fact, some scholars have done exactly that and explained any major policy dissimilarities between Canada and other countries as “policy mobilities” (Geddes, 2010) that are related to the influences of domestic rather than international forces including institutional frameworks such as constitutional division of power, governance, and funding. Even when domestic forces are cited, the role of HEIs seems to be largely discounted. The alternative hypothesis of policy diffusion is strong because it is so widely referenced. This means it passes several hoop tests and can therefore not be discounted. Later in the chapter the rival hypothesis is once again examined, but first evidence of lobbying activity from the Canadian higher education sector is explored, including its timing and messaging. If no real lobby activity is present or it is largely reactionary to policy interests within government or instead responding to competition elsewhere, then the rival hypothesis is strengthened. If there is convincing evidence of lobby activity, with documented preferences stated by the representatives of HEIs and their associations which precede policy this establishes a legitimate argument that HEIs had a hand in shaping the policy discourse. A detailed look at 134 the interplay between provincial and federal representatives and federal departments and stakeholders is then undertaken, including HEIs to understand some of the driving forces and challenges of this policy arena. This leverages the strength of within case analysis to understand in greater detail key events as they unfold. This is also relevant because if the rival hypothesis is strengthened by evidence, then once again, there is an expectation to observe discussion regarding the responses to competitive forces mostly within government. Understanding the degree to which there is participation, communication, and advocacy of HEIs in these governmental meetings will again establish the opportunity HEIs may have had to advocate their policy position. The next section breaks down the research findings further to provide evidence of the kind of tactics which HEIs and their associations employed to have their interests heard before returning to the rival competition-based policy diffusion hypothesis to test its validity and offer a different explanation of this narrative in the policy discourse. The chapter concludes with a preference attainment summary about the degree to which policy outcomes met the policy preferences of higher education sector as communicated by their leadership. 6.1 Lobbying activity and the role of higher education associations Did domestic forces have a role in the immigration policy shift or as the rival hypothesis suggests was it predominantly a factor of a policy diffusion response? At a basic level, the extent and timing of lobbying on issues related to international students within Canada needs to be determined. I do this by using different sources including formal lobbying records, a range of documents including submissions to government, media sources, government documents and accounts from various stakeholders through elite interviews. Specifically, evidence of HEIs requesting resources and changes in policy or regulation from the federal government to make it 135 easier to attract international fee-paying students is sought. While focusing on these specific interests, I also recognize that discussion of foreign students at Canadian universities began long before the late 1990s. As mentioned in Chapter 1, students moving across borders is not new. They have been welcomed and supported by both institutions and government as part of peace building, cultural diplomacy, foreign aid and development goals. These requests from HEIs for assistance to attract fee-paying international students is however of a different nature and as such deserves a careful review. It marks a shift in which HEIs begin to articulate their goals and strategies through an entrepreneurial, economic lens in line with globalization styled reforms (Zadja, 2015). This section summarizes the lobbying activity and the specific recommendations the HEIs and their associations were requesting and when, how and to whom those requests were being formally made. One of the first clear signals of interest in pursuing this economic focus is found in a formal submission dated March 2, 2001, to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration Canada regarding Bill C-11. The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC now Universities Canada) recommended that the proposed Immigration and Refugee Protection Act place a stronger emphasis on “facilitating the recruiting of international students as a major objective” (p.1). The paper goes on to make four specific recommendations which include (1) international students be allowed to work part time off campus during the school term and over holidays (2) that a student visa system is developed that differentiates by education subsector (3) that medical testing requirements and reporting to process international students visa applications be expedited and (4) that visitors to Canada be allowed to change their visa status from visitor to international student from within Canada’s borders. 136 The proposed Bill C-11 legislation to amend the Canada Immigration Act was of stated interest because Canadian universities wished to internationalize their campuses, and the economic benefits from international students were important to both institutions and communities. A strong appeal was then made by AUCC that Canada is “falling behind” when it comes to international student recruitment. The AUCC submission to the standing committee identified the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and France as Canada’s main international competitors who all had a government-wide approach to international student recruitment. In contrast, Canada was lacking any kind of coordinated federal approach. The document refers to research AUCC conducted in partnership with the Canadian Education Centre Network (CEC) comparing Canadian immigration policies and practices affecting international students and cites several examples of the policies, procedures, and regulations in place in those other countries to “remove barriers to student flows into the country” (p.2). With each recommendation presented, the AUCC submission highlights that different jurisdictions were already doing something similar, hence reinforcing this idea that Canada needed to “catch up” to competitors. The closing remarks reinforce AUCC’s overall position: In conclusion we would like to reiterate how important international students are to Canada. In general, international education is a strong priority for AUCC member institutions and international student recruitment is seen as an integral part of this. The federal government needs to take a strategic approach to international education and international student recruitment. As part of this government-wide approach, one key priority needs to be increasing resources for CIC’s processing of international students and 137 changing the way in which CIC sets policies and practices in order to help Canada be a player in the international education market. (p.5) This document establishes several key things. First, that AUCC used a competition lens to advocate for policy change they wished to see in Canada and made direct recommendations for including immigration policy and regulations that mirrored other competitor nations. The comparative research on policies were performed by AUCC and CEC to support the claims that Canada was not in step with other competitor nations. Next, the timing of this document is significant. It pre-dates any substantive policy changes related to expediting international student visa processing, government investment in international student recruitment, and immigration pathways for international students. It is a successfully passed hoop test that indicates advocacy prior to policy. Higher education interests used competition from other nations as an argument in their advocacy for policy change. While this does not rule out the possibility that a policy response was prompted by the policies of other national jurisdictions, it does demonstrate its use as a special interest tactic. Bill C-11 was assented into law on June 28, 2002, as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The recommendations put forward by AUCC to the Senate Standing Committee were not explicitly present in the new Act at the time (these would come through regulations associated with the new Act), but the Association had clearly signaled the interests of the Canadian university sector in its submission. Formal lobbying continued both for AUCC and other associations representing the higher education sector and its interests, most notably the Association of Community Colleges of Canada (ACCC) but also other education associations and individual higher education institutions. Lobbying registrations available through the Office 138 of the Commissioner of Lobbying Canada from 1996 onwards support this claim. On July 2, 2008, the Lobbying Act came into force requiring additional registration requirements and monthly reporting of meetings with public office holders. These records provide a valuable source of information not only on the topics of interest to the higher education sector, but in many instances who within government they were meeting with and the general nature of the discussion. Perhaps even more importantly, it also documents the date range of what topics are of interest and when specific meetings took place in monthly reports. The Lobby Registry confirms that there were several national education associations and higher education institutions lobbying the federal government on the subject matter of immigration related to international students. From the period between January 1st,1996 and December 31st, 2017, there were 456 registrations with the phase “international students” and the subject matter as “immigration.” There were an additional 159 registrations with the phrase “foreign students” and the subject matter as “immigration.” Both terms were included to reflect the terms commonly used over the time period of the study. Of the total 615 registrations, 473 or 77% of these were from national higher education associations. An additional 140 registrations were made by public post-secondary institutions, predominantly universities and account for 22.7%. This confirms that higher education institutions and their associations were undertaking lobbying activities related to the topic of immigration as it relates to international students. The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) was the most active of the associations and the one which showed the earliest interest in immigration issues. AUCC (which changed its name to Universities Canada in 2015) is a national not-for-profit, non-governmental association established in 1911 which advances the interests of the Canadian university community. The earliest documented evidence of immigration related issues 139 appearing in the registry is in the AUCC registration of April 1- October 2, 1997, when the lobbying objective documented was to “speed up the process for issuing student visas to foreign students” (p. 1). From 1997 to 2000 the key areas of interest for AUCC were the federal government’s approach to marketing higher education abroad and the government’s policy on international education. In 2001 this expanded beyond speed of visa processing to the government’s approach to issuing visas to foreign students. In line with its submission to the Standing Committee on Immigration, AUCC also listed “comparison of immigration policies of key countries active in foreign student recruitment” in its July 2000 lobby registration (p.1). Beginning in March of 2004, AUCC signaled its interests in lobbying the government on their approach to issuing study permits to foreign students and off campus work regulations. This establishes that AUCC was advocating for policy change ahead of any proposed changes to international student visa processing improvements or expanded work rights implemented by the federal government since the Post Graduate Work Permit Program was introduced in 2005. Notable federal investment and policy change on immigration began from 2007-2008. In 2007 the federal budget included funding to establish a brand for marketing Canadian education overseas with the brand being rolled out in 2008. However, as one HEI sector participant observed, “at the same time they were starting to promote us and promote education in Canada and we start getting the rising interest we come up again the hit the immigration wall.” The idea of CIC not being interested in listening to stakeholder interests was echoed by others as well: That is when we played the role of starting to raise the contradictions because now they [Global Affairs and IRCC] talk to each other much more but then, frankly, with the mentality of maintaining that bunker the wall was pretty strong. Meanwhile the folks on 140 the second floor said "oh we will help promote you" at some point you guys want to promote us… that is great…but we said this is not going to work and in fact it will be worse for Canada's reputation if we promote and then they are not getting visas or it takes so long to provide them [students] with a visa that they are going to go elsewhere. (HEI interviewee) Only two years after introducing the Post Graduate Work Permit Program for international students, major revisions and extensions to work authorizations were implemented in 2008. A pilot project that facilitated streamlined student visa processing for students from India for the Canadian college sector was launched the same year. In 2008 the Canadian Experience Class Student Stream was also created providing a distinct and integrated pathway for international students who completed a degree in Canada to immigrate. The scope and depth of these changes would require support from several areas of government. Not only would Citizenship and Immigration Canada have been essential, but the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) would play a significant role: “We [IRCC] had to fundamentally change the way we do things, the way we think about things and engage more than we had in the past…that was new.” Another key player would be the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada (CMEC) who would jointly coordinate a federal education marketing brand with DFAIT. What evidence is there from the formal lobbying records to support that higher education institutions and their associations were making their preferences known? While there are no specific meetings documented through monthly reports in the Lobbying Registry until after July 2008, Lobbying Registrations show that the AUCC continued to press for government policy and investment on marketing higher education abroad along with additional changes to the issuing of study permits 141 to foreign students and off campus work regulations into 2007. Interestingly, the Association of Community Colleges of Canada (ACCC) a national organization representing community colleges, technical institutes and CEGEPs to government and industry had the topic of international students and immigration appear in their formally documented lobbying registration for the first time in their July 5, 2005, registration. By 2007 registration statements indicate their intention to press for “increasing the level of government support for Immigration Programs and Services within Canada and overseas.” Until 2005, it was only the AUCC who had been calling on investment and policy change. That ACCC (now known as Colleges and Institutes Canada), as the college counterpart of AUCC, called for similar policy change is an important development. It meant that most of the public higher education sector was advocating for similar investment, visa processing, and immigration programs by 2005. It further reinforces that these advocacy efforts pre-date the changes made by the federal government in this policy arena. After the announcement that a pan-Canadian education brand would be launched Pari Johnston, Director of International Relations with the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, said, "The brand is something we have long advocated, to assist our members' efforts in recruiting top talent from abroad. We look forward to seeing how the federal government will build on this with a strong marketing campaign" (Tamburri, 2008, October 6, para. 13). The Globe and Mail reported that “until 2008, Canada restricted international students to working in jobs connected to their field. But lobbying from the postsecondary sector and concern about the employment outcomes of recent immigrants led to an expansion of the PGWP” (Chiose, 2016, April 7, para. 14). Within the higher education sector interview responses conducted for this research, the question if they or their organization ever directly lobbied government on policy change with respect to international students was asked. Of those interviewed 89% confirmed 142 directly participating in lobbying and advocacy for government changes, improvements, and investment whether through formal lobbying channels, participating in stakeholder consultations organized by government or making their interests known to provincial representatives. Those in government positions were asked if they had been a recipient of lobbying from the sector. Here the results are somewhat different depending on the position held. Of all the government sector responses, 72% indicated being directly lobbied, although many saw it more as a part of the consultation process and used words like “feedback” or “input” or “consultation.” Some of those interviewed differentiated whether outreach was initiated by government or the sector. There appeared to be three ways that the HEIs or their associations had an opportunity to have their interests heard. First was through a consultation process organized through provinces in which provinces provided mediated feedback back to federal level counterparts: As it evolved each province did their own consultations with their higher education sectors and they did that ...you know…twenty seven different ways…with all the different groups depending on the different folks around the table talking about immigration and all the different pieces. That was one stream of stakeholder engagement… (Government participant) This was consistent with comments from HEI institutional leaders who spoke of “invitations to participate in roundtables” they received or to “provide feedback into consultations on a national strategy on international education.” The federal government also used the non-governmental associations as more direct way to communicate with the sector: 143 At the federal level…because it was very difficult for the feds to meaningfully engage with the sectors they wanted to speak to directly and not go through the provinces, there was engagement through…so non-government associations…ones like Universities Canada…then AUCC was obvious, ones like ACCC now CICan… those were easy and obvious ones …..which allowed more direct dialogue between the federal government and the sector so the feds did not have to go through or work directly with provinces. It appears that direct federal input by individual higher education institutions was minimal however, unless access was part of representing association interests as part of work on an association’s Board of Directors or in committees specific to international education: ….you have senior people in Universities Canada and CICan in Ottawa where they have direct access to the politicians and the policy makers…but in terms of an individual university or college…I would say they had limited access…but I would say it depends on the relationships forged in places like Ottawa. (HEI participant) Another government participant commented that the Premiers liked the CMEC response and strategy recommendations provided on international education and felt it “captured the thinking (which was an achievement) of all on board… in our own ways but the sector all ran off and went to talk to Ottawa anyways.” This general description appears in line with other feedback received from the HEI sector interviewees. “We would advocate here and we would advocate there, but in terms of immigration we probably had better direct ties with Ottawa and with IRCC.” Said another, “we wanted to be part of any conversation related to international students at the time…we wanted 144 government to know what was going on and the challenges we faced.” As one senior federal representative said, “they (HEIs) are always pressing to have more students.” Others mentioned that it was difficult to understand “where ideas came from” since there were many people pushing for greater coordination and immigration policy changes both from the sector and within specific provinces and other federal government departments. In many respects, the interview question “was there lobbying/did you lobby” is a straw-in-the-wind test which confirms the possibility but on its own is not decisive. It also means failing this test may weaken but not disprove the hypothesis. However, combining lobbying records, interview responses and evidence of quotes reported in the limited media on the topic, provides a collective picture of systematic advocacy which pre-dates policy change or government investment and coordination. This strengthens the case for HEIs influencing policy change. The stated interests of the higher education sector and their advocacy efforts do not end with the changes implemented in 2007-2008. Between 2009 and 2017, international student recruitment and immigration policies continued to be present in the lobby registrations of associations as well as several higher education institutions. From 2009 until 2015 ACCC (CICan) continued to advocate for the harmonization and simplification of immigration policies. From the period of October 1, 2009, to November 8, 2017, they held meetings with senior representatives of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), today known as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), 24 times; with 11 of those meetings being held with either the Minister or Deputy Minister. Universities Canada had 37 meetings from October 2, 2008, to October 4, 2017, that identified immigration in the subject matter with 19 of those with the Minister, or Deputy Minister of either CIC/IRCC or DFAIT/Global Affairs Canada or a 145 senior office holder in the Prime Minister’s Office. Between 2010 and 2015, there were several other associations, including Languages Canada, Polytechnics Canada, and the Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE) as well as 13 higher education institutions reporting immigration related advocacy in their federal lobbying registrations. Policy interests included issues related to temporary work permits, and the creation of new immigration regulations with respect to helping universities attract foreign students and facilitating their arrival in Canada. The lobbying records again confirm a sustained and concerted effort on behalf of the higher education sector writ large. It also demonstrates that Universities Canada and CICan, were able to gain access to senior levels of government who had the ability to enact the level of change that universities and colleges were calling for. Elite interviews support this evidence. "Really the universities and colleges were lobbying the government to focus on international education" stated one government interviewee. “The feedback we received from the sector through different consultations…yes…it was really important” stated another government representative. One participant noted that while sector lobbying might have played a role, the fact that the sector had grown, had created a certain level of interest may also have played a role in getting the government to pay more attention: I don’t know if IRCC.. the government would have..uhm…we…wouldn’t have had the critical mass of international students coming to Canada without the sectors deep engagement and I think when IRCC noticed that it was international students that were populating the PNP program and a lot of their energy administratively…. that sort of affected the change to pay more attention to the sector…I don’t know if it is a direct result 146 of the lobbying of the sector or the growth of the sector so that IRCC had to pay attention to it. This lobbying activity establishes that higher education institutions and the national associations representing them federally had an interest in and an opportunity to access decision makers within government. It demonstrates that their interests were not initially in response to proposed policy put forward by government but in advocacy for major policy change. This weakens the argument that government was responding directly to policy developed in other national jurisdictions. If this were the case the expectation would be for higher education institutions to responds to government policy change, particularly as programs were being established. Lobbying records place specific advocacy issues on immigration related to international students well before program or policy change took effect. Once policy change was initiated there was a sustained lobby across the sector for greater liberalization, harmonization, and preferential pathways for international students in support of their recruitment to Canadian higher education institutions. 6.2 Lobbying and media reporting In addition to looking at lobbying records and a range of published documents, along with interviews, media reporting in Canada is also examined in the attempt to look for clues about how and when policies took place and who was saying what and when they were saying it. There are direct quotes from national news sources incorporated into different sections which did inform the research and augmented the process tracing account as reinforcing evidence of different stakeholders’ positions, but trends in the frequency of media reporting, and the frames 147 of the media coverage were generally inconclusive. Using the Newsstream database to search Canadian news and magazine publications from 1990 to 2017 on both the terms “international student” and “foreign student” shows a steady increasing trend in reporting in general on both these search terms over time but no large differences in the degree to which one term is used more than another (Figure 6.1). When a search combines international or foreign students and the root word “recruit” (to include keywords of recruit, recruitment and recruiting, etc.) or the root “immigr” (to include words such as immigrant, immigration, and immigrating, etc.), the number of references somewhat follows the trend of international or foreign students, in the way that it increases, but the number of references is lower. At its highest level there are 391 references to international or foreign students and immigration in 2017 compared with 12 references in 1990. Surprisingly, there are even fewer for the term “recruitment” with only 2 references in both 1992 and 1994 up to a high of 161 in 2017 (Appendix D1). Figure 6. 1 Media references for search terms “international students” and “foreign students” 148 What is drawn from this analysis is the relatively low overall numbers of media reporting using these key terms. Another component in the analysis of media reporting looks at the content of the articles that reference either international or foreign students and key words related to recruitment and immigration. In the content I was looking for references to international students in either economic terms that included discussion about their economic impact either as a source of tuition revenue or in reference to indicators of spending or contribution as an export activity or source of labour. I also looked for content related to immigration that referenced international students as potential or new immigrants; intention or opportunity to work or stay in Canada; or reference of international students as ideal or desirable immigrants. In some articles both these two frames were used and were noted as containing both an economic and immigration frame. There were also articles that did not reference either of these frames. These articles predominantly include reporting on international students taking part in cultural activities or featuring a student as part of an academic or homestay program. The content analysis covers the time frame from 2006 to 2014 when major policy changes relevant to this study were taking effect. These are summarized in Figure 6.2. 149 Figure 6. 2 Frequency on economic and immigration frames used in media sources 2006-2017 The results show a modest amount of reporting on either frame, but the economic frame is referenced more frequently than an immigration frame and often combined with an economic frame rather that only in reference to immigration. Also somewhat surprising is that key policy change for the sector is not particularly well covered in the media, except for perhaps in the increases in reporting from 2012 to 2014 when the first national strategy for international education was launched. Even when looking at who was being featured in the articles, there are no dominant spokespeople but instead a broad range of people speaking about international students. Key political leaders are represented but no single person is featured more than seven times from 2006-2014. HEI association representatives are also featured but usually in the context of commenting on new policy announcements from government. As a result, the times government and the HEI associations are quoted are similar. Individual HEI institution representatives are more likely to provide commentary at the regional level, but many times the 150 reporting featuring these frames use quotes from international or domestic students, those in teaching roles or community members (Figure 6.3). Figure 6. 3 Count of number of spokespeople by speaker type referencing international or foreign students 2006-2014 What does this mean from a CPO or process tracing test perspective? The relatively low salience of the media coverage and the absence of direct lobbying activity in the media suggests that this is not a mechanism that was used to convince political actors to consider the interests of the HEI sector in relation to international student recruitment or immigration. It is in fact, a hoop test for the existence of what Wilson (1980) describes as “client politics” in which the benefits of international student recruitment and immigration tend to be concentrated while its costs are diffuse. Freeman (1995) argues that the typical mode of immigration politics in liberal democracies is client politics in which policy makers interact intensively and often out of public 151 view with groups having direct interests in immigration which gives those who expect to gain from migration stronger incentives to organize than those who bear its costs. In the case of HEI interests related to international students this appears to hold true as well. 6.3 Breaking the jurisdictional logjam on international student recruitment That higher education interests were active in calling for change is notable for another reason. International education represents an intersection of two distinct policy areas, foreign policy, and higher education. Within the Canadian context this means that this is a policy area that falls between the cracks of federal-provincial and interdepartmental jurisdictions (Trilokekar & Jones, 2007). One of the challenges with successfully moving this agenda forward is that different levels of government must have the political will to coordinate across departments and jurisdictions. Within various levels of government there is evidence there were recommendations to do so but which did not yield concrete results. For example, a 1986 report from the Federal-Provincial Consultative Committee on Education-Related International Activities (FPCCERIA) of the Council of Ministers of Education in Canada (CMEC) recommended provinces work with the federal government in the development of a national policy for foreign students including simplifying visa processing. At the time however, CMEC’s position was that provinces already had established processes in cooperation with institutions in their jurisdictions and a national policy was not necessary. Elite interviews confirmed this view and that higher education institutions had not yet voiced a strong position for greater coordination. This makes sense since major international student recruitment efforts and the stated incentive to attract more fee- paying international students became of interest to most Canadian universities in the 1990s. In 1994, DFAIT published a policy paper titled, ‘The International Dimension of Higher Education 152 in Canada: Collaborative Policy Framework’ following extensive interdepartmental consultations as well as consultations with higher education constituencies and the provinces (DFAIT, 1994). This document also recommended a national marketing strategy. Getting the buy-in from provinces proved elusive once again, citing concerns about institutional capacity for Canadian students. In 1995, the Canadian Educational Centers Network (CEC) was launched through funding by three federal departments: the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), DFAIT and CIC. The higher education sector was critical of the model because it was also fee for service for institutions to use. Funding for the network was withdrawn in 2004. On October 16, 2002, federal, provincial, and territorial ministers met for the first time to discuss immigration, which is an area of shared jurisdiction. Even in this inaugural meeting expediting the entry of foreign students, including transition to permanent residence was identified as an area for future discussion (FMRI, 2002). This inaugural meeting would evolve into the Forum of Ministers Responsible for Immigration (FMRI) which now defines and implements common goals for inter-jurisdictional cooperation for immigration in Canada. In these initial meetings, the importance of attracting skilled immigrants to “address Canada’s demographic changes and labour market needs” was affirmed (FMRI, 2004). This forum is notable because it means that from 2002 onwards there was a formal mechanism for the provinces to discuss issues of immigration with federal counterparts. On November 4, 2005, the FMRI adopted a strategic direction on immigration that committed to greater promptness and efficiency of service to clients, a focus on promotion and recruitment of skilled immigrants along with the adoption of retention and regionalization immigration strategies. This strategic direction opens the door to future federal-provincial discussion on immigration. Critically, 2008 saw the launch of the Canadian Experience Class with a dedicated international student stream and the 153 extension of the Post Graduate Work Permit to three years. Federally the Student Partners Program pilot in India was also rolled out to great success. There remained however, a “jurisdictional logjam” in coordinating any kind of pan-Canadian education marketing approach until 2007 when DFAIT was able to coordinate with FPCCERIA and provincial interests, along with consultations with the university sector following a $1 million federal investment to develop an education brand for Canada. Here again the sector had a role to play: I don’t know if it drove the [international branding] agenda but it supported the agenda…which is to say…when the feds finally decided to make something happen and engaged in the discussion to coordinate with the provinces…higher education provided the backstop to say yes…we really want you to do something for us, we have been saying this for a long time now and we are glad you are finally listening. (Government participant) Even with a clear mandate, launching the brand was not straightforward and required extensive consultation and negotiation to bring to fruition. Those interviewed who were involved in the process speak with pride of the success of the launch and describe it as the starting point in which there was a more general willingness to coordinate across jurisdictions in this policy arena. “It was a formative time for me as a public servant, I know it was incredibly stimulating work for others in government too,” said one interviewee. “I don’t think I ever had anything as intriguing or challenging or with as much scope for action,” shared an HEI participant. “We did some fun stuff that is still consequential and still abides…that is pretty cool,” said another. 154 Credit should be given to those in government that accomplished this breakthrough. David Turpin, President of the University of Victoria and Chair of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada's standing Advisory Committee on International Relations at the time of the launch of the Edu-Canada brand, called the marketing strategy "an important first step" in positioning Canada as a destination of choice for international students (University Affairs, 2008). The question that needs to be asked however is what produced the political will to make this happen across jurisdictional boundaries? Is there any evidence that would suggest that higher education institutions played a role in securing funding for the brand launch? Or did higher education institutions press their provincial representatives to coordinate with federal agencies? Alternatively, is there any evidence that those within certain (or multiple) government departments were championing the effort? Elite interviews confirm that the messaging from higher education institutions was becoming more coordinated and more pressing. Institutions were making their own investments in marketing and recruitment and wanted more support from government. These sources also cited the idea of “competitor nations” having an advantage because of the national coordination of their marketing efforts. Seeing the success other countries were having recruiting international students prompted the interest and urgency of higher education institutions in Canada for an inter-jurisdictional response: For years and years, we've been hearing this complaint about a fragmented approach and that Canada needs to be more savvy about how it talks about itself and the message it conveys," said Darcy Rollins, Director of International Education for the Manitoba government and co-chair of the federal-provincial committee working on the marketing 155 strategy. "We are working to reduce that fragmentation. (Tamburri, 2008, January 7, para. 4) Those interviewed from the university sector in particular spoke about people within DFAIT who were not just allies but instrumental in driving change after realizing the economic potential of the sector. These accounts differ from those of other scholars who have argued for the policy diffusion theory using a competitive lens who describe the relationship between universities and DFAIT as one of suspicion and lack of trust with associations like AUCC acting more as administrative arms of government funded initiatives rather than strong communities of policy influence (Trilokekar, 2010). Instead, the narrative shared was one of collectively trying to get movement on what was a complicated policy arena because of the overlapping responsibilities of different federal departments and the coordination of provincial-federal jurisdictions. There were different approaches employed according to those interviewed. According to one senior HEI sector leader: The approach was two-fold. Foreign Affairs got it first. They were looking at trade and could see the potential. Back then it wasn’t considered a trade item as it is now. It was clear it was a growing sector with a lot of positive effects. Economic benefits for all regions in Canada, it didn’t pollute, we had capacity and we were good at it. Along with their own analysis and highly active lobbying to make this known (government) people in the field got it. The challenge was that as promotion support was happening in the trade offices overseas, visa processing was taking a long time and the refusal rates, particularly at the college level, 156 were extremely high. As one HEI interviewee explained, “Applicants would have to wait for 2.5 months while they would have already received acceptances from the UK or the US so we started to raise this. It [the discussion] wasn’t happening at the federal level yet.” So already in the early to mid-2000s there was a dialogue started within key embassies. This culminated into the Student Partners Program, a “fast track” system of visa processing piloted first in India. What was evident from all the stakeholders involved in the branding initiative was that universities and colleges were an important agitator for change. Looking to their political networks for assistance, they were neither passive nor merely responsive to government initiatives. Foreign Affairs was interested because of the opportunity to expand exports, and within CIC there was a growing sentiment that instead of being gatekeepers they should facilitate the recruitment of the best and the brightest of international students to stay on as citizens. Both of these arguments were being arrived at in a similar time frame and we were pushing both from the outside. It did lead to better regulation and made it more attractive to come to Canada. (HEI sector participant) This was not an area however in which provinces were deeply involved at the outset as one HEI participant explained: They [the provinces] got into it [visa processing concerns] later and built upon the changes and made it more attractive to study and work in specific jurisdictions but that was much later. So, it was possible to influence but it had to come from an association…institutions themselves came to us. 157 The idea that national associations communicated directly with the federal government was echoed different ways by respondents: “The associations never talked to the provinces because…why would they? They would be eating their own members lunch if they did.” Of course, the national associations have been speaking to the feds for a long time and I guess that is where it splits in terms of what you would qualify institutions versus their associations…because the institutions…. they do speak to the feds…but it never used to be about international students…it usually involves research funding…it was only the associations that ever talked about international students federally… (Government interviewee) This was also the case in the orchestration of the EduCanada brand, and when seeking to advance immigration policy preferences. The higher education sector interviewees did consistently communicate the limited access and influence they had with Citizenship and Immigration Canada in the early stages of advocacy. Their policy preferences were supported within DFAIT however, which also undertook outreach. Through the FMRI, provinces and territories also gained greater voice in shaping immigration policy and strategy as well as greater autonomy to recommend immigrants from their jurisdictions through the Provincial Nominee Program. The launch of the EduCanada brand appears to have also served as a catalyst for more collaboration in international education promotion matters. In 2010, the Council of the Federation Premiers requested that CMEC look at the opportunities to work with the federal government to address key barriers in attracting international students (COTF, 2010). In June 2011, Provincial and Territorial Ministers of Education and Ministers of Immigration provided a 158 response to the Council of the Federation with an international education marketing action plan entitled “Bringing Education in Canada to the World, Bringing the World to Canada.” This provincial/territorial plan predates the work of the federal International Education Advisory Committee recommendations in August 2012 and the release of Canada’s International Education Strategy released in October 2013. It is here, at the provincial level, that explicit outcomes and recommendations strive to not only have a greater number of international students studying in Canada but increase Canada’s share of the international student market and see “a greater number of international students choosing to remain in Canada as permanent residents after graduation” (COTF, 2011, p.5) with the marketing plan enhancing both international education and immigration objectives. One of the five key objectives of the report includes the increased efficiency and transparency of permissions and processes for international students to study, work and stay after graduation in Canada. It recommends expanding the opportunities for students to work both off campus and after graduation. It called for the strengthening of the International Student Program and other student immigration initiatives and having annual immigration-level plans include numbers for students to stay permanently in Canada. It also called for ways to facilitate visa processing of students in key markets, modeled on the Student Partners Program pilot. These recommendations did find their way into regulations and policy in the years following. So perhaps one might argue that it was the COTF and provinces that moved this policy agenda forward on their own accord. Evidence suggests that strong advocacy of higher education stakeholders was a reasoning for a response: Stakeholders have consistently complained that the lack of coordinated action harms marketing efforts and, in the absence of a clear collective vision of how to proceed, they have called upon the federal government to exercise greater leadership in this area. (COTF, 2011, p. 10)In many 159 respects this document is a response to or perhaps even a pre-empting of increased federal leadership and a re-assertion that provinces and territories should lead the promotion of Canada’s education systems on the international scene. The higher education sector, by calling for federal leadership (and getting it), required the provinces to respond to calls for greater coordination. Aligned interests in this policy area are evident but with consistent calls for a pan-Canadian approach, the jurisdictional challenges to coordinate begin to be negotiated and dealt with. A consensus exists among both the federal and the provincial/territorial governments, as well as among Canadian international-education stakeholders, that . . . the time is right for more concerted action to promote education in Canada as a top choice for international students. (COTF, 2011, p. 20) Consultations with higher education institutions and their associations informed the development of the COTF document. FPCCERIA (a committee of CMEC) held a meeting on November 30, 2010 and invited national and provincial education stakeholders to provide input. Key themes of this consultation process included the need for leadership and coordination with a strong, visible brand promoted in various ways overseas. Stakeholders recommended increasing the efficiency of student visa processing and having clear immigration pathways after graduation. The document makes special mention of the Canadian Consortium of International Education Marketing (CCIEM) that came together in 2009 to coordinate the advocacy efforts of five national education organizations. CMEC also agreed to observe the meetings of the CCIEM steering committee when it was established. These higher education interests are mentioned 160 specifically in the response to the COTF, along with CMEC’s interests in maintaining provinces and territories as the lead in international education marketing initiatives. This evidence confirms that higher education interests were working on both provincial and federal fronts and relied on allies within government to also move their agenda forward. This supports the hypothesis that higher education institutions advocated different levels of government and participated in consultations and lobbying to advance their policy objectives. These advocacy efforts gained momentum however, only once the need for a cross jurisdictional approach was embraced by the different levels of government. To overcome this hurdle, higher education institutions looked to advocates within government to navigate the various departmental and jurisdictional collaborations. What follows in the chronology of events is interesting. After the COTF response and marketing plan recommendations are published in June of 2011, a federal advisory panel is named on October 13 reporting to the Ministers of International Trade and Finance. The mandate of the panel is to make recommendations on a strategy that will “maximize economic opportunities for Canada in the field of international education” which includes a focus on attracting international students to study in Canada. The advisory panel had six members. Five of those members were from the Canadian higher education sector, including three public post-secondary education presidents. Written submissions and roundtables were held across the country. The Advisory Panel met with over 130 representatives. It also held consultations with all provinces and CMEC. The Advisory Panel and the consultations were heavily weighted to the higher education sector. The panel made 14 recommendations in their August 14, 2012, report International Education: A Key Driver of Canada’s Future Prosperity. Given the high degree of representation of the higher education sector on the panel and the high level of engagement of 161 the sector in the consultation process these recommendations are taken as a collective policy position of the sector. Both the Advisory Panel Report and in the subsequent Canada’s International Education Strategy (2014-2019) released in 2013 make references to the international education marketing plan adopted by the Council of the Federation of Canada’s Premiers and to the importance of aligning efforts with those of the provinces and territories. So, while there is an international education marketing plan created by CMEC at the request of COTF in which HEIs were able to provide direct input, the federal government only months later requests an Advisory Panel made up of mostly HEI representatives to provide recommendations which are incorporated into a national strategy on international education. In both these initiatives HEIs are providing a great deal of input into policy recommendations and are part of the strategy formation. As a sector, they promoted the collaboration and engagement between federal, provincial/territorial and education associations and institutions. Those in the higher education sector were very much a part of both provincial and federal level discussions. Their presence and the extent of their participation in strategy formulation provides further evidence that opportunities existed to advance their interests. This is not to say that getting past the interjurisdictional tensions were not a challenge that required many levels of government to be amenable to. The fact that government representatives acknowledged that HEIs asked for greater coordination and more federal leadership which required responses from both provincial and federal governments and that those responses were able to yield results that were in line with the preferences of the higher education sector provides us with a successful smoking gun test. In other words, the hypothesis that higher education institutions were influential in advancing their interests is strongly supported by evidence that the sector not only asked for greater coordination, federal leadership, and specific policy reforms to make it easier to recruit international students, 162 but they were also an active part of key initiatives, had access to senior decision makers, and were recognized in the media providing advocacy. Having established that HEIs were successful in advancing their policy preferences, the next section discusses some of the major ways in which those interests were advanced. 6.4 Mechanisms of policy influence Having illustrated the temporal events that punctuated the development of related policies and evidence of the general presence and opportunity for lobbying of the higher education sector in this policy arena, I now look at ways in which policy influence is attained by searching for observable implications through a process tracing approach. Specifically, I look at three different hypotheses for the ways in which HEIs were successful in achieving their policy preferences. Based on the literature on interest groups highlighted in Chapter 1, I begin by determining if there is policy influence through expert knowledge and influence. Then, policy influence through coalitions is tested and finally the use of allies in advocacy. The objective is not to be exhaustive in identifying all the mechanisms which are present, but in establishing evidence of some of the tactics used, both to reinforce the presence of HEI influence and to explain how this was achieved. 6.4.1 Information and expert knowledge The higher education sector is not often cited in interest group research. However, academics and researchers are often cited as “experts” or providing “expert knowledge” across a range of policy outputs. Recalling Boswell’s 2008 work, expert knowledge refers to knowledge produced by research from individuals and institutions with recognized qualifications. The work of Grossman and Helpman’s (2011) noting that interest groups that can successfully provide 163 information can also leverage it into political influence. Essentially higher education institutions are uniquely positioned to provide information and they are frequently asked to contribute to the policy process for this reason. Does being an “expert” source of information provide any advantage when promoting self-benefitting policy interests? Are there any examples of where higher education institutions or their associations provide information but also act as a special interest? Did this information and their trusted role as “expert” generally grant them greater access or contribute to greater influence? There is already a great deal of documented evidence that higher education institutions and/or their associations contributed to provincial and federal government strategies related to international education and international student recruitment through consultations and membership in advisory committees and roundtables. This should be considered a “hoop test” where establishing that HEIs were part of the policy development process is necessary but not sufficient in confirming their use of providing expert knowledge for policy influence. From that launch point I look for evidence of reports or research done or commissioned by the higher education sector. Here there is some evidence of reports on international student recruitment, foreign students and higher education authored through associations. The AUCC produced reports on international student recruitment (2002), and internationalization (2000, 2007). AUCC also published internationalization surveys in 2006 and 2014 documenting the internationalization activities of their members and the 2014 document notes that “results of this survey can help inform federal and provincial governments’ policies and actions in the years ahead” (AUCC, 2014, p. 4). That this research and reporting was commissioned and was meant to provide information to government supports the hypothesis but is again just a necessary but not sufficient indication of successful policy influence through expert knowledge. 164 However, government officials who were interviewed referenced government in-house or commissioned research and refereed research done by individual academics as works they considered in their policy discussions, not necessarily those generated by HEI associations. Reports from Statistics Canada (2003, 2004, 2007) on income rates and immigrants, as well as comparative work on Canadian-born populations along with published works related to labour market outcomes of various economic immigration streams were cited instead. These reports indicated that skilled immigrants were often struggling in their successful economic integration as a result of credential recognition and/or language proficiency (Sweetman 2005, 2006). Commissioned works on labour market outcomes by CIC (Hawthorne, 2007), post-secondary capacity for international student enrollments by DFAIT (Illuminate Consulting Group, 2011), and the oft cited work on the economic impact of international education in Canada by Roslyn Kuhnin and Associates (2015, 2017) were the expert knowledge that was mentioned in both government representative interviews and in government communications. While this does not disprove that HEI expert information was not successful in policy influence for the HEI sector, official reports did not confirm them to be influential. The associations’ reports related to internationalization and international students often received government funding support or assistance with data access (AUCC, 2000; CBIE, 2018). These were however, providing more of a snapshot of institutional or international student perspectives rather than policy preferences or a call to action. This should be considered part of substantiating knowledge provided to government in order to gain support for an existing course of action. These reports and descriptive statistics on the economic benefits of international students lends credibility to public communications (Boswell, 2008). The CBIE also has a standing Immigration Advisory Committee which identifies systemic issues from an institutional perspective and works with 165 Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to attempt to resolve them. The committee serves as the communication liaison with the over 150 CBIE member institutions on immigration issues, and recommends more effective policies, procedures, and systems to meet the needs of international students and institutions. It provides recommendations on regulation wording and functional procedures and policies which have been adopted by IRCC. This is an effective means of providing information related to international students and their immigration status. It indicates there is a mechanism in which HEIs can provide feedback on the implementation of immigration regulations in practice. This example of information allows policy makers to ensure policy outputs are in line with what the policy was meant to achieve. These uses of expertise in these cases appears to be more instrumentalist where rather than being used as a policy making tool, it is used to solve practical problems and justify policy choices. Documents looking into where there was any preferential access related to a pre-existing “expert knowledge” position with government is also difficult to establish. Lobbying records show there was activity and access to both senior bureaucrats and politicians on a regular basis, but it is beyond the scope of this research to compare the lobbying records across different special interests such as those of business or civil society. This means that it is difficult to say from formal lobbying accounts if the higher education sector had any greater access than any other interest group. Government documents reference strong consultation and collaboration with the sector, but this certainly does not allow for any definitive statement on greater access. Interview data results are also mixed. Some provincial higher education association representatives indicated that access was limited, particularly to those at the federal level. Those at the association level federally felt their access was strong in some areas, but not all areas and indicated being very strategic with prioritizing messaging put before key political 166 representatives, suggesting access but with limits. There is a perception that Universities Canada and CICan representing public universities and colleges were the most influential and that this was related to their relative perceived “expert” positions compared with private institutions. However, evidence supporting this hypothesis remains inconclusive and can be neither confirmed nor fully discounted. Perhaps a better explanation is that public universities and colleges are supported through provincial funding and federal funding for teaching and research and work closely and in collaboration with different levels of government when appropriate. Consultation is more regularly sought since there is a public funding component to these relationships. Another possible explanation is that while government tries to cut funding for higher education, it encourages it to recruit international students at the same time. This access differs from those of business and civil society generally and provides at the very least, opportunity to have their interests heard. While there may be greater access to voice policy preferences, federal and provincial representatives source information and expert knowledge both from within government and outside academia as well as from the higher education sector directly. 6.4.2 Creation of lobbying coalitions Research on interest group influence highlights coalitions as an important tool for influencing public policy (Nelson & Yackee, 2012). Coalitions are formalized collaborations of autonomous groups advocating for a common policy position (Baumgartner et al., 2009). Signaling sector wide support to policy makers increases interest group success depending on the degree of consensus, size, and composition (Mahoney, 2008). I hypothesize that the presence of an issues-based coalition of education organizations representing issues related to international student marketing and recruitment contributed to the successful influence of the sector by having 167 their policy preferences on immigration pathways for international students communicated to government in a coordinated way. This issues-based coalition was established in June of 2010. The Canadian Consortium of International Education Marketing (CCIEM) was created through a memorandum of understanding between five national education associations, including the AUCC, ACCC, CBIE, Languages Canada and CAPS-I. The consortium represented most Canadian public education institutions engaged in international student marketing. Through the CCIEM, higher education professional associations in Canada worked as a coalition to advance their common national interests in obtaining government investment in attracting international students to Canada and providing preferential immigration pathways to international students. Its stated goal was to increase the share of students coming to Canada and support a “strategic, coordinated approach to existing international marketing efforts of Canadian institutions and work with other stakeholders closely to take the Canada brand to the next level” (CCIEM presentation, 2011). Part of its stated mandate was to work to facilitate study permits and visas for international students with a focus on collaborating with CIC to expand successful visa models such as the Student Partners Program and enhance international student immigration pathways. The creation of the CCIEM consortium signaled to government “that we could get our act together” and that “we could show a coordinated front” said interviewees from the sector. “They generated so much activity behind the scenes…again just the broad strokes that you can see…there was a lot of movement within the non-governmental sectors like the associations because they were all seeing that things were happening and this is when there were moves to create the consortium,” shared a government representative. 168 Most described the consortium as an important part of the story, but one that did not quite live up to expectations, at least in the ask that was made to government. CCIE partners requested that half of the money earmarked for international education marketing be given to CCIE to allow them to control some of the marketing overseas given their expertise and understanding the ways in which the education sector could best coordinate. It was, according to sector interviewees, something that was agreed to in principle at the ministerial level, however delays and re-announcements of funding along with ministerial staff changes meant that in the end, funding did not materialize and resources promised went to support within-government higher education initiatives instead of funding given to the sector associations. The CCIEM engaged in advocacy efforts related to federal budget investment in international education marketing and conducted meetings with Ministers and Deputy Ministers within CMEC, DFAIT and CIC (CCIEM presentation, 2011). CMEC and DFAIT were also invited observers to the monthly CCIEM Steering Committee meetings. The CCIEM was referred to as CCIE or the Canadian Consortium of International Education after 2012. In an evaluation conducted on the International Student Program in 2015 the engagement with the CCIE on policy development is carefully outlined: While on occasion local CIC offices provide information to Canadian educational institutions concerning the ISP, CIC does not typically engage directly with educational institutions regarding program management and policy development. Instead, CIC participates in quarterly meetings with the Consortium members that represent different sectors of education in Canada. CIC and Consortium interviewees noted that between 2009 and 2013 a large focus of these meetings was on developing the 2014 regulatory changes 169 for the ISP. CIC interviewees who could comment on engagement with educational institutions, as well as interviewees representing Consortium members, all felt that the mechanism supporting engagement between CIC and educational institutions (via Consortium organizations) has been collaborative and effective. (IRCC Evaluation Division, 2015, p.4) The existence of a coalition is an important hoop test as is the mandate and advocacy intentions communicated by the CCIE. The next step is to try to understand what influence, if any, the consortium-based approach had for the sector and its interests. When looking for evidence the timing of the creation of the coalition is important. Prior to its June 2010 launch, there was already some movement on policy within government. The introduction of the Post Graduate Work Permit Program in 2005 and its greater liberalization in 2008 were widely supported by the sector. The introduction of the Canadian Experience Class in 2008 with its international student pathway was another fundamental shift along with the Student Partners Program Pilot in 2009. Federal investment also took place in 2007 and as well as the launch of the Education au/in Canada brand (EduCanada) in 2008. These major policy changes had all been implemented prior to the CCIE being established. However, the scale and scope of policy liberalization continued well past these first initiatives. Government investment in international education grew to 5 million annually, the first International Education Strategy was launched and in 2014 new immigration regulations further enhanced the ease with which international students were able to study, work and immigrate to Canada. What role, if any did the CCIE have in moving the sector’s interest forward to government once established? 170 In government documents after 2010, CCIE is widely referenced, providing evidence it was recognized within government and suggesting a high level of communication and coordination with government agencies. The 2011 International Education Marketing Action Plan for Provinces and Territories highlights the CCIE and its federal government advocacy (COTF, 2011, p.18). The first International Education Strategy for Canada in 2014 listed a performance measurement to “create an embedded trade commissioner position” within the CCIE (GOC, 2014, p. 15). It also committed the Government of Canada to consulting regularly with the Canadian Consortium on International Education to coordinate efforts. In the 2015 International Student Program Evaluation report the CCIE is also mentioned, along with federal and territorial stakeholders in developing of a suite of regulatory amendments to strengthen program integrity (GOC, 2015, p. 2). The regulatory amendments which came into effect on June 1, 2014, introduced several key changes. First was that the issuing of study permits be limited to designated post-secondary learning institutions (DLIs). This was desired among the CCIE partners since the coalition represented the public education sector, who were de facto approved through their provinces/territories to qualify to become a DLI. Private institutions needed to apply and be approved individually as a quality assurance measure which was critical to the public post-secondary sector. Additional changes to work authorization of international students were also implemented. Prior to June 1, 2014, international students seeking to work off campus were required to apply for a work permit with several eligibility requirements for approval. New regulations allowed international students studying at a designated learning institution to work up to 20 hours per week during the school year and full time during regularly scheduled academic 171 breaks without the need to apply for a separate work permit7. Interviews with government representatives who were active during this period on the international education file indicate that the creation of the CCIE coalition was a signal that the education sector was speaking with one voice and that it was helpful that they were coordinating both with each other and with government agencies. “It made moving forward on recommendations much easier when they were supported across the sector.” said one government interviewee. “Rather than having to meet with all the associations separately, which we often did, it was helpful to have better coordination amongst them, it made moving forward on things much easier” shared another. CCIE worked to further visa processing streamlining, preferential immigration pathways and further solidify the presence of association leaders in stakeholder consultations. Differences in mandates and competitive positioning for government resources weakened the position of the CCIE over time leading to its demise in 2019. One HEI representative noted: Those in government loved the consortium…but it officially dissolved because there was no money and everybody has gone off in different directions so I think in the first instance the consortium was a good idea…. as the national associations felt they could get more money from the federal government on the table or into the sector by cooperating or speaking with one voice although, to be frank, they never cooperated or spoke with one voice and if you had thrown five dollars into a consortium meeting there would have been blood on the floor as they ran to get it. 7 This included international students studying in academic, vocational or professional programs only. Those studying in language programs were not granted off campus work status. 172 During its tenure however, it played an influential role in furthering international education investments and policy change that were particularly beneficial to public post-secondary institutions and positioned the associations and its members as partners in immigration regulation and reform. Policy advocates within government Just as coalition building leverages support through alliances with like-minded organizations, within-government champions are needed by outside advocates to move policy change forward (DeGregorio, 1997). Lobbying success is expected to increase when special interests can share issue-relevant expertise with government allies, making it easier for natural allies in government to take on leadership of an issue (Hall & Deardoff, 2006; Baumgartner et al., 2009). The within government leaders and champions would then become policy advocates themselves, lobbying others in directing specific policy outcomes. In the case of the higher education sector, there were some natural alliances within government. This became extremely important since the sector did not have, in the traditional sense, any special or formal power to influence change. It was challenged by the same interjurisdictional hurdles that prevented better coordination as provincial/territorial and federal agencies did. Recall that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade had recommended a national strategy for international student marketing in a report in 1994 but at the time provinces were not fully onboard. Funding for Canadian Education Centers abroad was provided through DFAIT beginning in 1995. However higher education institutions were unhappy with the fee for service model when the government funding was incrementally decreased in 2001 and withdrawn in 2004. Interest in having government facilitate the recruitment of international 173 students was still a priority for the university sector as evidenced by AUCC’s March 2, 2001, submission to the House Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration Canada. In the 2004 Canadian Education Industry Summit several different viewpoints were still being voiced among stakeholders. Among those wanting more coordination and a greater pan- Canadian strategic approach was Jim Fox, president of the Canadian Bureau for International Education, who said Canada was not taking a strategic approach to marketing education services. "We have many hundreds of different approaches. It's very costly. We don't brand Canada. We brand individual institutions. These are big mistakes" (Schmidt, 2004, para. 7). Simon Williams, Deputy Director of Education Marketing in International Trade Canada urged governments to work together so they could compete more successfully against other countries and saw it as a major export activity. John Kershaw, Deputy Minister of Education in New Brunswick urged the federal government to play an active role in fostering Canada’s trade in education services, even though education is a provincial government responsibility. “Until government rethinks education as an industry, Canada will be mired in jurisdictional squabbles with the provinces.” He said the “door in” for the federal government was its “legitimate constitutional role in the export of goods.” Not everyone was as keen to expand international student recruitment efforts which was evident in the statements of other stakeholders during the Summit. “I don’t think there is a government in this country that would advocate education as a profit center and the commodification of education” said Andrew Thomson, Saskatchewan's Minister of Learning. Diane McGifford, Minister of Advanced Education in Manitoba said "I don't think we have a problem with revenue generation with international students. But there is a difference between revenue generation and revenue generation run amok. We have to be reasonable with what we 174 do." Michael Conlon, Director of Research at the Canadian Federation of Students, said "from our standpoint, spaces should be allocated on academic qualifications, and not your ability to pay. That principle compromises the basic idea of fairness -- that academic places shouldn't be for sale to the highest bidder” (Schmidt, 2004, para. 9-10). Those interviewed from the post-secondary sector confirmed that there were several people within DFAIT and CIC who were considered important allies. “I think we actually provoked meetings between different ministries” commented one HEI interviewee. “We pushed to have the issues discussed across departments” said another. Another interviewee said: …we went upstairs and met with ministers and deputy ministers and those people got it…. they got that it [recruitment and immigration] had to be tied together. They knew it would not be easy but that they were the ones that sat at the table with fellow ministers and they knew this could be an issue that could be worked on. Government representatives outside of DFAIT mentioned the “constant talk of competition by Foreign Affairs.” As one HEI interviewee said, “I think we were able to have influence but perhaps more so in the field… the culture of the foreign missions has had to change because of the traffic they have had to deal with in terms of visiting universities and college delegations and missions and things like that.” At the same time there was resistance to a federally coordinated approach from some provinces and opposition from CIC regarding some of the requests related to visa processing. Some also mentioned the existence of provincial level champions but this was not necessarily consistent across all jurisdictions. 175 “If we have a way to raise the profile of Canada this is going to benefit us. Let’s worry about them getting interested in Canada and then we can figure out where they can go” explained one government representative. “The brokering of interests across jurisdictions has always been a political priority in other files as well too and this was another example of that” noted another. Those within provincial governments who were also allied with HEIs in seeing change explained the difficulties in getting others within government interested: What happens at these tables is that… what the federal announcement did..when I say it provided me with a catalyst, it really provided me with that urgent file so suddenly I can go and say “hey everybody the feds are about to tread into our jurisdictional area…. how do you feel about that Quebec? How do you feel about that Alberta? You should be paying attention to this” ….and then it is able to get on the agenda. Otherwise, it is just me crying into the night. It also lets me say…this is important to the feds too see… it is just not me saying it. (Government interviewee) This diversity of opinion is also reflected in some of the positions captured in media and public statements. So, these changes did not happen merely by chance. There were several strategies employed, dedicated resources and both external and internal champions that managed to move this policy arena forward. The reason it becomes relevant is the resulting breadth of the change, the coordination required to enable the change, and the policy impacts of the changes. Higher education institutions and their organizations were not just stakeholders but considered in many 176 respects as partners in the process and implementation of these changes. They successfully exerted their policy preferences and influenced policy outcomes. In the research results attention is paid to interjurisdictional challenges in general that prevented the federal government from moving forward sooner on this policy arena and why higher education institutions played a role in pushing through this “interjurisdictional logjam.” What is absent are the various positions that different provinces played more directly since they were by no means equal in their interests or preferences. All government representatives were asked the same questions irrespective of which level of government they were representing. In hindsight it would have been advantageous to have asked provincial governments different questions about their own positions to possibly gain a better comparative understanding about the interplay between provinces and between provinces and the HEIs in their regions. This became evident in the range of responses from various stakeholders including HEIs, provincial associations with mandates related to international education and provincial government interviewees. “It was controversial…. how much do we let the feds in and let them sit down with institutions… lots of people [in provincial government] didn’t like that,” shared one provincial government representative. For some other provincial level respondents “international education was important and about the economy and our institutions” but for others it was “not a high priority” and it was “hard to get other jurisdictions to discuss it.” Even as complaints from HEIs grew for better coordination and policy change some provincial government representatives shared that the discussion to engage was about “…what is in it for us? Our necks were on the line…as provinces” in which some considered the status quo adequate and not being interested in any federal coordination or oversight. Comments like “provinces positions…it was not a consensus approach” and describing the position of some 177 provinces as “not opposition but a difference in priority” or that there was “concern but not opposition” indicates that there was uneven interest and priority across jurisdictions initially until the topic gained increased salience. From the HEI perspective it was communicated that “not all institutions were talking to their provinces” so it was “uneven, inconsistent and ineffective in many respects” and that there were a “bunch of different agendas depending on the size of the provinces.” This indication of the different interests and priorities of provinces and HEIs contributes to the “jurisdictional logjam” phenomena but also highlights why the tactic of securing allies from within government was a special interest approach used to press for change. As one government interviewee notes: How do we get traction amongst provincial colleagues? A lot of them didn’t have provincial units, if they did it was a small part of their portfolio. It was a two-pronged challenge. Getting time and attention and investment was a challenge internally and getting others to talk about it. The complexity of allies, levels of government, and a range of jurisdictional priorities highlights the nuance needed to move interests in this policy sphere forward not just of HEIs but of other government representatives with similar interests. It emphasizes that there was a great deal happening behind the scenes and at many different levels and with many different actors. Highlighting the role the public HEI sector played is not meant to downplay the signficant brokering that took place both across provincial jurisdictions and between provinces and the federal government, nor across federal departments for that matter. It does however situate their presence more clearly in the policy process. 178 6.5 Returning to the rival hypothesis of policy diffusion through competition There is strong evidence to suggest that higher education institutions were present, active, and influential in the policy formation related the recruitment and the immigration pathways of international students. Looking at the chronology of policy preference statements one can see that these pre-date policy changes, particularly in the early 2000s, and further evidence of collaborative policy development with the sector in the mid-2010s. This weakens but does not disprove the theory that policy diffusion, through a competition model, explains the policy change in this arena. Policy diffusion is defined as a process where policy choices in one country affect those made in a second country (Simmons et al., 2006). The literature describes four major ways in which policy diffusion can operate. Policy learning, emulation, coercion, and competition (Dobbin et al., 2007). Policy learning is when government considers policies of other countries in creating their own. Emulation is when policy is copied and is often symbolic or aspirational in nature. Coercion is policy diffusion in which nations are compelled to adopt policies as a condition of support or membership. Policy diffusion through competition is one in which governments consider the policies of other governments when creating their own to create a competitive advantage. The competitive lens is used extensively to frame a policy response related to the investment and liberalization of international student recruitment and immigration to Canada. There is no question that in a myriad of both higher education sector and government communications being competitive with other nations is a used both as a lobbying tool and then as a policy justification. As one interviewee associated with government put it, “AUCC President Paul Davidson kept going around saying that we are getting our clocks cleaned by the Australians as 179 messaging.” This was consistent with comments made to media as well. "It's a global competition," said Paul Davidson. "Being able to offer a commitment that students can stay here after they graduate is part of the pitch Canadian universities make to attract top talent" (Zilio & Chiose, 2016, March 16, para.14). Another higher education interviewee confirmed that communicating to officials what other nations were doing was a way to lobby government. “So, we did a lot of advocacy with ministers and high level federal civil servants to say – look at what other countries are doing, are you interested in this, it is an export we are good at and you guys have to at least get behind it in words politically.” This messaging was effective and is now entrenched in government communications to the public: Spectacular growth in markets and fierce competition among more and more countries to attract foreign students made it necessary to create a strong, distinctive image. With our new campaign, Imagine, which conveys the message that a Canadian education opens the door to a world of opportunities, we can move forward and enable an entire generation of foreign young people to discovery the many advantages of going to school in Canada. (EduCanada CMEC Fact Sheet, 2008, para. 3) In‐house government research and commissioned work also involves contrasting the comparative attractiveness and success of Canada’s immigration policies against those of other countries, especially Australia (Hawthorne, 2007). A quote from a CIC spokeswoman illustrates this new framing regarding international students and the Canadian Experience Class program: “Canada is revamping its approach because rival destinations such as Australia and the United Kingdom already have similar programs” (Chase, 2008, para.7). 180 Explaining that policy change was a result of only policy diffusion oversimplifies the process and omits several important factors. First, the landscape for international education is inherently one of competition. It is naïve to think that for any promising export opportunity there would not be an environmental analysis about what competitor nations are doing. Second, the extent of policy change and the consistent commitment to the international education sector does not actually mirror policy in other nations. In fact, in the late 2000s there are greater restrictions placed on migration policies of international students in the UK, the US and Australia while Canada continued to provide greater liberalization in the same policy arena. The within case analysis approach demonstrates the role higher education institutions played in pressing government for changes, and their use of the competition of other nations to make a case for new policies. When referring to the “drivers” of outcomes, there is no evidence to suggest that competition from other countries was the sole independent variable in this policy process. Instead, within country factors including demographic shifts, labour market needs and a population that was generally open to immigration serve as necessary but not sufficient conditions for the policy change. It is only when HEIs focused their lobbying efforts that change occurs because of the challenge in making progress given its interjurisdictional nature. HEIs attained policy success through its special interest efforts, using a range of different strategies, including promoting the narrative that Canada was “falling behind” in attracting international students which meant losing out on an economic opportunity. The next section looks at the degree to which HEIs were successful in doing so. 181 6.6 How much influence: assessing the degree of preference attainment Conceptually, policy success or influence is described as the distance between the outcomes within a specific policy field and the ideal points expressed by actors (Bunea, 2013; Klüver, 2013; Helboe-Pedersen, 2013). A preference attainment scale is basically a manifestation of this concept of policy success. How closely does the policy output compare with the preferences of specific stakeholders? The closer the alignment between preferences and outputs the higher the degree of preference attainment. Combining this methodological approach in conjunction with process tracing is meant to check the consistency of the study findings. If evidence of policy success and policy influence can be identified using process tracing, then preference attainment provides added information about the scope of success or influence. If process tracing is successful in providing convincing evidence that interest group influence was present, the expectation is that preference attainment methods will reinforce this conclusion. Through process tracing this analysis shows that higher education institutions and their associations had access, provided input and information, worked as a coalition with other stakeholders, and successfully found advocates within government to make their preferences known. How closely policy outputs matched the preferences of higher education interests are now assessed. The scope of policy outputs is limited to those implemented at the federal level. The following sections describe how policy preferences articulated by leaders and representatives of the higher education sector are determined and scored along four major policy areas impacting international students: federal investment, visa processing and approvals, work authorizations and immigration pathways. 182 6.6.1 Determining the policy preferences of the higher education sector The policy preferences communicated by those representing the higher education sector are determined using several sources. First, official written submissions to government which contain recommendations or requests are considered as a position or policy preference. Mention of lobbying intent on specific topics related to international student visas, work authorizations or immigration provisions documented in the Federal Lobby Registry are also used to identify sector preferences. Third, mention of a policy position in a published government or higher education association document are also included. Media reporting and elite interviews are not used independently to formulate a sector policy position but are identified as supporting evidence when one of the first three sources is identified. It is important to note that the higher education sector typically signaled clear policy preferences in written submissions to government. These were often re-emphasized or featured as stakeholder preferences in government documents as well. In some cases, the requests are general in nature. For example, one repeated request was an improvement in the speed with which international student visas are processed. Documented evidence indicates only a call for improvement in the speed of visa processing, without any indication of how much faster the processing should be. Elite interviews reveal however that there were discussions about how much faster higher education interests wanted visa processing times, but since no written evidence was found that could confirm this, the policy position is stated as “improve speed of visa processing.” When this more general statement to policy outcomes is used it becomes much easier to say policy preferences match policy outcomes. In other words, less specific policy statements lower the bar for the testing of policy preference outcomes. In order not to overinflate preference 183 attainment if there is evidence of calls for additional policy improvements or concessions, then full preference attainment is not fully met. For example, if sector representatives call for improved speed in visa processing, and government responds and improves the visa processing speed, but sector representatives call for further speed improvements, then the policy preference attainment is not fully reached. Only if the policy outcome is met without further requests or recommendations will it be determined that policy preferences fully match a policy outcome. Policy preferences of the higher education sector are compared to policy outputs by placing them on a scale from negative one (-1) to positive one (+1) with zero as the median point. At the far left of the scale, a negative one score would be a policy preference opposite to what was desired and on the far-right side, a score of positive one would be a policy preference in perfect alignment with policy outcomes. A score of zero is considered a neutral policy outcome. Preference attainment is focused on four major policy areas, with a summary of the policy outcomes and stated policy preferences drawn from published sources with supporting data from elite interviews when relevant. 6.6.2 Federal investment in international education Policy Preferences: Lobbying records show there was a general call for a federal government policy on international education as well as a more coordinated approach to marketing higher education abroad beginning in the late 1990s. This evolved into a request for an increase in the level of federal government support for marketing efforts in the early 2000s. The CCIE is on record for having lobbied the federal government extensively for new investments of approximately C$20 million per year to improve education marketing to international students (CMEC, 2011). According to interviews, the CCIE requested some of this funding to flow to 184 associations involved in the consortium in support of federal level marketing efforts which was not realized. There was also frustration that the level of investment was too low, particularly in relation to what other competitor nations were investing which is a signal that while the better coordination and a federal strategy was in line with HEIs policy preference, the level of investment was short of their policy preferences. The International Education Advisory Panel (2012) published recommendations to focus Canada’s promotional efforts on a limited number of priority markets for targeted resource allocation and that experts from the academic institutions or associations should be seconded to DFAIT to compliment the expertise of the trade commissioners responsible for education marketing efforts. There was also a recommendation to make international education in Canada a strategic component of Government of Canada official policies and plans. Policy outcomes: The 2007 federal budget included C$1 million annually for two years to establish an education brand and marketing campaign for Canada. The number of Canadian embassies, high commissions and consulates around the world implementing education-related promotional activities grew from 28 in 2008 to 108 in 2015 (GOC, 2016). In 2011 investment grew to C$5 million per year for 2 years and was subsequently made ongoing annual funding to support the pan-Canadian education brand and marketing efforts in 2013. There was also the re-allocation of resources to key posts in Canada's diplomatic network (GOC, 2013). International Education was included as one of 22 priority sectors in the Government of Canada’s Global Markets Action Plan. Preference attainment: Given these outcomes and stated preferences a score of .75 captures the increase in investment, coordination and elevating international education to a 185 priority sector but also the shortfall in requested funding levels for the initiative (Figure 6.1). See also Appendix H2 for scoring breakdown based on the preference attainment rubric. Figure 6. 4 Preference attainment for federal investment in international education 6.6.3 Visa processing Policy preferences: Interest in improving the speed of student visa processing is highlighted in the lobby registry for AUCC/Universities Canada beginning in 1997. Lobbying records show requests for the harmonization and simplification of CIC policies with respect to student visas were also consistently raised from 2001 to 2015 from both the college and university sector organizations. There was a stated interest in creating new immigration regulations with the intention of “helping universities attract foreign students” beginning in October of 2008. Throughout 2007 and 2008 there were requests for increasing the level of government support for immigration programs and services within Canada and overseas with specific reference to the Student Partners Program. This policy request for the expansion of successful visa processing models, particularly the Student Partners Program, continued to be promoted in June of 2011 by the CCIE and was also mentioned in Government of Canada documents evaluating the International Student Program of CIC (GOC, 2015). The International 186 Education Advisory Panel recommended improved education visa processing to provide consistent and timely processing in their 2012 recommendations as well. Policy outcomes: Since the introduction of IRPA in 2002, there have been several policy and regulatory changes implemented by CIC/IRCC related to visa processing and approvals. In 2005 there was the streamlining of the Study Permit application process allowing international students to obtain a study permit valid for the full length of their intended study period and the ability to transfer between programs of study as well as institutions (GOC, 2010). There was also increased transparency and communication with the sector, particular through meetings with the CCIE as well as tools for stakeholders to monitor processing times both within and outside of Canada which vary depending on country. Visa application centers and an online visa application process were two major initiatives introduced in 2013 to modernize the system and contribute to reduced processing times. Visa application centers are private companies that have formal contracts with the Government of Canada and can facilitate the collection of biometrics and securely send applications and required documents to a Canadian visa office for processing of a study permit. The initiatives were meant to improve visa processing times. In the most recent ISP Evaluation (2015) however, a key recommendation continued to be an improvement in processing times based on feedback from stakeholders: The perspective of other government departments, provinces and territories, and Consortium interviewees concerning timeliness did not focus on CIC's ability to meet departmental business standards but rather compared Canada's processing time with other countries. Most of these interviewees felt that Canada is still lagging other competitor 187 countries in terms of the length in processing time, which reduces the competitiveness of Canada's ISP. (IRCC Evaluation Division, 2015, p. 28) The Student Partners Program (SPP) was developed in partnership between the Association of Canadian Community Colleges (ACCC), the Government of Canada and the Canadian High Commission. The SPP streamlined the visa application process, reducing the time it took to receive a study visa once certain requirements were met, leading to an increase in the number of study permits granted in India in which it was piloted with only a few ACCC member colleges. After 2010, there was an expansion of the program to designated learning institutions (DLIs) making more institutions SPP eligible. Every application submitted for the SPP is approved by the participating college, and the acceptance of a student into a college program is at the discretion of each participating college. The SPP is successful in part due to the partnership with government and participating colleges to ensure study permit compliance. The program was expanded to China in 2010, followed by Vietnam and the Philippines. This expansion continued under a newly named Student Direct Stream (SDS) in 2018 with 20 calendar day processing and country expansion to Pakistan, Morocco, and Senegal (IRCC, 2020). Preference attainment: The implementation and then expansion of the Student Direct Stream to facilitate expedited student visa processing at the college level highlights a major collaboration and policy shift for CIC/IRCC and fulfills the policy preferences of the college sector in particular. Those interviewed both from within CIC/IRCC and within the higher education sector identified a more open, collaborative, and accessible relationship between the sector and those responsible for the International Student Program. Government program 188 evaluation documents continue to push for further enhancements to processing time and clarity of communication and coordination. Enhancements to program integrity through the Designated Learning Institution regulations in 2014 facilitates faster processing as do the visa application centers and online application system. Interviews confirm that there has been a vast improvement but continue to press for additional timeliness to visa application processing in certain markets. A score of .75 captures the improvements, new programs and greater collaboration while acknowledging processing times continue to be a topic of discussion (Figure 6.2). See also Appendix H3 for scoring breakdown based on the preference attainment rubric. Figure 6. 5 Preference attainment for changes to visa processing and rate of approvals of international students 6.6.4 Work authorizations Policy preferences: In their submissions to the House of Commons Standing Committee of CIC, AUCC recommended international students be able to work part-time off campus during the school terms and full time over the holidays. Lobbying records support this request for improvements to off-campus work regulations (GOC Lobbying Registry, 2004). Lobbying records from ACCC identify expansion and facilitation of work permit processes beginning in 2007 and remained on the registry as a discussion topic until 2014. 189 Policy outcomes: The Post Graduate Work Permit Program (PGWPP) is introduced in 2005 allowing graduate students to work in Canada’s 3 major cities for one year or two years outside of those three city centers in their related field of study with a job offer. In 2008 specific employment and geographic restrictions, including the requirement of a job offer, are lifted and work authorization is extended to three years with the completion of a minimum of a 2-year Canadian credential. In 2014, changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) allowed international students to work off campus up to 20 hours per week during the academic term and were authorized to work full time when courses were not in session. Separate work authorizations were no longer required for off campus work. New regulations also allow those in Canada on a visitor visa to apply for a student visa within Canada. Preference attainment: These major changes to off campus work during study as well as post graduate work were significant changes and fully in line with preferences of the higher education sector. In particular, the swift policy expansion of the post graduate work permit program lifting geographic and job offer restrictions made it the most generous work offering to international students in the world. A score of .85 in Figure 6.3 shows the strong alignment of preferences to outcomes, with the only limitation that off campus work authorization was not extended to those learning English. As one higher education interviewee said “Frankly, we couldn’t have asked for more…the work and immigration pathways were very generous.” See also Appendix H3 for scoring breakdown based on the preference attainment rubric. 190 Figure 6. 6 Preference attainment for work authorization changes for international students and graduates. 6.6.5 Immigration pathways Policy preferences: There was strong support for the creation of the existing Canadian Experience Class program which provided a clear pathway for international students, particularly under the dedicated international student stream. When the Express Entry application management system was implemented, the sector initially expressed concern that the introduction of the Express Entry application management system would disadvantage international students or at the very least not recognize or provide advantage to them given its scoring system. The sector then lobbied to allocate points in Express Entry for study in Canada. Working with their provincial associations some higher education institutions also supported special international student streams through their regional Provincial Nominee Program. Policy outcomes: The Canadian Experience Class immigration program was introduced in 2008 to facilitate temporary foreign workers to apply for permanent residence while in Canada. A student stream was in place until 2013 until separate program streams were harmonized. In 2014 an Express Entry (EE) system to manage applications for permanent residence, including the Canadian Experience Class program is introduced and in 2016 additional points are offered for Canadian post-secondary credential completion. Following the introduction of points for Canadian study in November 2016, about 39% of the Principal Applicants (PAs) admitted in 2017 and 2018 obtained points for having obtained a Canadian 191 post-secondary credential (GOC, 2020) (Evaluation report of Express Entry, 2020) indicating a high number of international students are utilizing this pathway. In 2018, nearly 54,000 former students transitioned to permanent residence, an all-time high (IRCC, 2019). Preference attainment: Clear and specific pathways for international students to obtain permanent residence status, with some added regional pathways through Provincial Nominee Programs were fully in line with sector preferences. Points allocated for study in Canada within the Express Entry system are also aligned with the policy preferences. Initial skepticism and concern over the Express Entry application system were addressed by changes implemented by CIC shortly after the management system launch after sector lobbying. Overall a score of .75 is allocated for the preference alignment for immigration pathways however, while beyond the scope of this research there are also several provincial schemes that provide additional pathways to international students to remain in province in which they study (Figure 6.4). See also Appendix H5 for scoring breakdown based on the preference attainment rubric. The Provincial Nominee Programs (PNPs) allow Canadian provinces and territories to nominate individuals who wish to immigrate to Canada and who are interested in settling in a particular province. Each Canadian province and territory (except Nunavut and Quebec) have its own unique Provincial Nominee Program. Seven of these provincial programs have a dedicated international student stream. Those that do not (Alberta and New Brunswick) still provide recognition and preference to international students who have studied in their provinces, either in their application scoring or through regional immigration schemes like the Atlantic Immigration Pilot Stream developed for skilled workers and international graduates. These province specific pathways are not factored into the scoring so preference attainment should be considered even higher when considering the additional provincial pathways also in place. 192 Figure 6. 7 Preference attainment for immigration pathways for international students 6.6.6 Summary A preference attainment approach provides a consistency check on the results of the within case process tracing methodology and a means of assessing the degree to which the preferences of stakeholder interests match or are aligned with actual policy outcomes. In all four categories, (1) federal investment, (2) Student visa processing (3) work authorizations and (4) immigration pathways, public HEIs policy preferences closely matched policy outcomes. This suggests that they were successful in having their interests reflected in policy. In combination, it confirms the presence of lobbying of the higher education sector which initiated calls for greater federal support and then through a series of special interest tactics influenced policy outcomes. These include working through coalitions, gaining policy advocates within government and providing information and expert knowledge. New policy liberalized immigration pathways for students, expanded off campus work rights for both students and graduates and facilitated easier visa processing in cooperation with post-secondary institutions in particular the Direct Student Stream. These directly benefitted public HEIs and resulted in significant increases to the numbers of international students studying at Canadian universities and colleges. A competitive 193 lens was leveraged by both the sector and policy advocates as a call to action amidst a challenging inter-jurisdictional landscape, as were the economic benefits and a narrative of students as “ideal immigrants”. Previous research has underplayed the role of HEIs and their organizations in this policy space. In the next chapter I highlight why their involvement matters and what the implications are to research, policy, and the role of HEIs in future. 194 Chapter 7: Why does it matter? The immigration-education nexus 7.1 Introduction The use of a process tracing approach for a within-case analysis allows for a detailed account of policy players and the evolution of policy formation. Policy change with respect to international students in Canada is important because of the extent of change in a short period of time as well as the impact of the change. Over the last twenty years the policies and practices of the higher education sector and its internationalization efforts have been shaped and influenced by federal investments in international education and the temporary visa, work entitlements and immigration pathways. Education services now account for 14.5% of Canada’s total value of export of services for the nation representing $21.6 billion to Canada’s GDP in 2018 (GOC, 2019). This alone justifies the importance of adequately understanding the policy making process that facilitated more than a 342% increase in the number of international students in Canada since 1998. Beyond the commodification of education, the creation of immigration pathways for international students has tied study and migration more closely together than ever before. What does this mean for the future of higher education? In this chapter the implications of ever-increasing numbers of international students on Canadian campuses is explored along with the evolving role of higher education institutions as mobility gatekeepers and migration settlements. In the same way that immigration policy change has helped to alter the landscape of the higher education sector, the success of the sector in attracting international students is also having an impact on temporary foreign work programs and immigration in Canada. Current 195 trends, opportunities and threats related to the intertwined education-migration nexus are highlighted before the chapter concludes with recommendations for future research. 7.2 Research implications International education represents a policy area at the intersection of foreign policy and higher education. Within Canada this also means that international education falls between the cracks of federal-provincial jurisdictions (Trilokekar & Jones, 2007). This has produced a complicated policy making environment in which achieving policy alignment across jurisdictions is difficult to achieve. This within-case analysis contributes to the research on the mechanisms and interests both within and external to government that drive policy change at the intersections of federal-provincial jurisdictions. Policy issues surrounding climate change (Peters, Jordan & Tosun, 2017), natural resources, health, and social welfare (Simeon, 2014) which are also subject to interjurisdictional policy making will be able to draw from the policy implementation arc of this specific education related issue. In addition to federal-provincial jurisdiction challenges there is also substantial federal inter-departmental coordination required from those with responsibility over foreign policy and those with the responsibility for Canada’s immigration policy. Given that education is a provincial/territorial responsibility, and foreign affairs and international trade a federal one and immigration is shared between provinces and territories and the federal government, this research also contributes to cross-jurisdictional policy making theory from several different perspectives as well. This research also adds to the literature on interest groups in Canada in which government is seen to be mostly insulated from special interests. While it is true that there were 196 almost no “sticks” available to the higher education sector, they were an active and included part of the policy making process. While individual institutions were not seen as influential, their coordinated messaging through their associations carried weight. Their policy preferences related to international education ended up closely matching policy outcomes. It is difficult to dispute that they managed a high degree of policy success and evidence suggests that calls for policy changes were made by HEIs well before government signaled a change. It is perhaps easy to overlook the self-interest HEIs have in this policy area. Like business interests, the expansion of generous study and temporary work visa guidelines and dedicated immigration pathways along with the federal investment of international education make attracting international students to Canadian campuses much easier. Canadian HEIs have taken full advantage of this to expand the number of international students studying on their campuses resulting in substantial financial gain. They needed federal leadership to move this policy agenda and their preferences forward. Their tactics were low key but consistent and often coordinated and they used their unique position to gain policy advocates within government who could advance their interests. Signaling coordination across multiple levels of the education sector through the creation of a policy coalition facilitated the entry into other policy venues in which HEI preferences were clearly heard. Documentary evidence indicates a high level of advocacy for the interests of the higher education sector which is supported by interview data. These convincing findings break with past research that argue that policy diffusion through a competitive lens explains the policy change without identifying HEIs interests as an influencing factor (Geddes, 2015). My research presents a different theory that situates higher education institutions as major stakeholders who not only react to policy proposals but initiate them and contribute to their development through 197 both lobbying efforts and providing input into the policy process. Policy diffusion alone, however, does not explain policy change. Responding to competition in the recruitment of international students by other countries was used by both HEI interests as a lobbying tactic and by within-government policy advocates for catalyzing various stakeholders to action. From an interdisciplinary research perspective this work highlights the role of the higher education sector in policy development in immigration – a connection which is neither obvious nor widely studied. It contributes to the broader research discussion about international students, their success and well-being on foreign campuses, and the evolving role of post-secondary institutions in preparing students for migration pathways. As the next section highlights, policy shifts, advocated by HEIs to be more “attractive” to international students as a destination have also had the unintended consequence of transforming institutions into a key stakeholder in migration and immigrant transition. 7.3 Policy implications in higher education Looking in detail at the wide-reaching policy changes related to international student recruitment over the past 20 years reveals how the role and responsibilities of higher education institutions have changed in response to these policy shifts. The policy preferences of HEIs were motivated by the desire to attract more international students. Ease of visa processing, temporary work authorizations and preferential immigration pathways were the policy means for achieving this attractiveness. These liberalized policies, some of the most generous worldwide, have become “selling features” in the “competitive market” for the product which is an international student. This has translated into more than 60% of international students in Canada declaring intentions of becoming permanent residents (CBIE, 2019). Even if not promised, if expectations 198 of easy migration are part of decision-making process of international students, the higher education sector has become part of the migration pathway. Going a step further, it is not only part of the migration pathway, but it also has an increasing influence on who gets to migrate. What are the implications for higher education? First, if migration is a motivation for the majority of international students coming to Canada to study, then any policy changes that make immigration pathways more restrictive (or more liberal) will also have an effect on international student demand. This has played out in other jurisdictions and Canadian HEIs should not think they are immune to these types of policy shifts, irrespective of their past policy successes. HEIs have in effect, tied much of their international student recruitment fortunes on the attractiveness of the temporary and permanent immigration policies of government, which carries an inherent risk. All is well when government and the public are supportive of the concept of higher education as a migration pathway, but should that change, HEIs will find their international student market advantage quickly tested. Second, the appetite to receive increasingly larger numbers of international students has also manifested in the creation of academic programs that cater specifically to the current policy regime. Two-year diploma and post baccalaureate degrees have expanded to facilitate a maximum post-graduate work entitlement for the least amount of time in an academic program. Programs which attract large numbers of international students continue to expand their intakes to accommodate international student demand which is not necessarily tied to local labour demand. When Canadian education is used as only a means to immigration and institutions create short-term credentials, not because it is the right pedagogical choice, but because there is international demand due to the lower cost to access the immigration pipeline there are ethical implications to consider. What are the responsibilities of higher education institutions to ensure 199 the international students they admit receive adequate training and not just access to the immigration pathways provided to graduates? If immigration is the aim in what ways are higher education institutions helping to provide successful settlement in Canada? Is it appropriate to customize academic program offerings to cater to the rules of an existing immigration regime? The role of post-secondary institutions in relation to international students has also seen a shift. There are now expectations of support beyond study for international students, not just to maintain their international student status but also to navigate the post-graduate work environment and understand their immigration pathway options. There is now a requirement of accreditation to provide immigration advice to international students which has meant that many institutions have staff who are trained in providing immigration advice, roles that did not exist a decade ago. These evolving roles point to a change in the responsibilities of HEIs which are now part of this migration pathway, an expectation that institutions provide international students not just subject or skill mastery of their chosen discipline, but also with the language, cultural understanding, work experience and transition skills for what has been deemed to be the “ideal” immigrant. This fundamental reimaging began in the late 2000s mirroring immigration policy change. The challenge in this new role is that higher education institutions are not neutral. There is a financial incentive to bring in more international students and a financial imperative to maintain current numbers. Moreover, by providing generous temporary work opportunities during study and after graduation to international students studying at Canadian institutions it undermines efforts to recognize foreign credentials. Those with international credentials will often seek additional Canadian education credentials, both for the employer recognition it receives and the access to work authorization it provides. 200 There is a growing recognition that institutions are now effectively immigrant settlement hubs with the requirements of support and transition required just like any other newcomer immigrant category or group. Larger institutions will need to grapple with how this new role is incorporated into their academic enterprise and smaller institutions will need to establish greater connections to civil society settlement organizations to ensure transition support across the sector. Immigration policy changes have in fact altered Canadian higher education, from services to academic programs, from recruitment through to the very role of the institution. Aside from discussion about the number of international students, where they come from and their economic benefit, there has been little reflection for what this means for institutions. This research helps to underline that the successful policy advocacy of the sector has in turn influenced and changed the sector itself and future changes are not simply a response to current realities, but a risk and a responsibility of the sector’s own making. 7.4 Policy implications in immigration As both temporary and permanent immigration policy has shifted to make it more attractive for international students to study, work and immigrate to Canada there are also implications for immigration policy more generally. By the end of December 31, 2019, there were 827,586 international students in Canada with 78% (over 600,000) of these being students from post-secondary (IRCC, 2020a). Not only is that a 3.5-fold increase in the number of international students since 1998 these students have open work authorizations while they are studying and after graduation. As the number of international students increase and then subsequently graduate there will be an increasing proportion of the temporary foreign workforce in Canada comprised of international students and recent graduates. As an example, the rise in 201 the number of international students coming to Canada combined with the enhancements to the PGWPP, lead to a 15-fold increase in the number of PGWPP workers from 7,400 in 2005 to 117,700 in 2016. In 2018 there were 143,000 post graduate work permits representing more than 30% of all open temporary work permits with the most recent numbers indicating that in 2020 the number climbed to more than 248,000 (Figure 7.1) (IRCC, 2020a). Moreover, when you combine the part time work during academic studies with full time work authorization during study breaks, international students, combined with post graduate work permit holders make up more that 60% of the temporary labour force in Canada with the proportion continuing to grow as larger cohorts of international students graduate and access a PGWP (Figure 7.2). Figure 7. 1 Number of Post Graduate Work Permit (PGWP) Holders 2000-2020 Source: IRCC Open Data Portal Canada – International Mobility Program Work Permit Holders under Post-Graduate Employment on December 31st 202 Figure 7. 2 All temporary permits with work authorizations Source: IRCC Open Data Portal Temporary Residents: Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) and International Mobility Program (IMP) Work Permit Holders To make it attractive for international students to study in Canada, they are granted temporary foreign worker authorization both during and after study. They are admitted to Canada based on their successful admission into a Canadian designated learning institution. While they must also meet other financial, health and security conditions through the student visa approval process, the immigration pathway is accessed through higher education institutions which are motivated to maintain if not increase their international student intakes. The result is an 203 uncapped immigration pathway which is controlled by those that benefit directly from it. In many respects, higher education institutions have become de facto agents of immigration. They decide who and how prospective immigrants will be selected, and the fees they will pay to enter the country. It is prudent to recognize the strong and growing association between higher education and immigration and consider its consequences on both. In addition, this signficant growth comes with challenges. The IRCC 2019 Minister transition binder on international students identifies strains on operation processing, program integrity and compliance efforts to keep up as numbers expand. In 2018 more than 54,000 former students also became permanent residents in Canada (IRCC, 2019) representing 18% of all immigration that took place the same year (Figure 7.3). Transition rates to permanent residence are also increasing for international students (GOC, 2010). Greater numbers of international students and a greater percentage of them transitioning to permanent residence means the proportion of new immigrants who are former students is predicted to grow. This strengthens the case for not just international students as immigrants but the transformation of higher education institutions as migration gateways and immigration transition hubs. There is a growing recognition of this evolving role by the sector itself as demonstrated by HEI association leadership in speaking with the Globe and Mail: An image that we have been using in Ottawa is to talk about universities as the Pier 21 of the 21st century," Mr. Davidson said. Pier 21 was the Halifax pier where about one million immigrants landed between 1928 and 1971 – it is now a national museum of immigration. Universities can send a signal to the world that we want you to come and every step of the 204 way we make it seamless." Paul Davidson, President, Universities Canada. (Chiose, 2016, November 7, para. 5) From an immigration policy perspective, changes to international student immigration pathways can be seen to have a direct impact on the HEI sector through international student enrolments which are now considered a priority export. The proportion of international student graduates as temporary foreign workers in Canada continues to grow both in proportion to other temporary foreign worker categories but also in absolute numbers as well. As this immigration pathway expands the post-secondary sector increases its influence, through their admissions processes, on deciding who also works and immigrates. While this research situates higher education institutions more directly in the narrative of immigration policy and pathways and draws on the theories of interests in policy making to understand the mechanisms of policy preference and success, it also reveals the policy implications as seen in the increasing role of higher education institutions as immigration gatekeepers and settlements. 205 Figure 7.3 Transition to permanent residence from international study permit and PGWP 1998-2020 Data Source: IRCC Monthly and annual reports on admissions of permanent residents with prior study permit or post-graduate work permit employment 7.5 Future research Given the paucity of research on the intersections between education and immigration policy there are several new lines of inquiry available for future research. While this study focuses on the evolution of the federal level changes to immigration, the responses of provinces and territories in providing their own international student pathways to immigration through their dedicated Provincial Nominee Programs would further deepen the understanding of the Canadian context. A comparative provincial-territorial study that looked at policy choices and outcomes in terms of the number of international students coming through provincial streams may also provide insight into successful immigration policy incentives. Another area of interest is in the retention rates of former international students in their province of study and the degree to which there is cross provincial mobility. Are international students selecting Canadian higher education institutions in jurisdictions which provide easier pathways to immigration through 206 provincial immigration streams? What is the likelihood that international students stay in the provincial jurisdictions in which they have completed their post-secondary study? Are provinces who have dedicated immigration streams for international students more likely to have those with Canadian education experience settle in their jurisdiction? Similarly, comparisons between federal and provincial immigration pathways can also be conducted for rate, retention, and economic outcomes. The role of special interests on inter-jurisdictional issues would assist in making use of the within-case analysis in this research study to build theory or identify patterns across different policy areas (like health, environment, or resource extraction) on the ways in which major stakeholders have their voices heard both formally and informally to move multiple levels of government to action. From an education policy perspective, further research on the scale and scope of academic programming that is targeted specifically to international students is also an area in need of closer study. The proliferation of post-graduate certificate and diploma programs as well as course-based master’s degrees which have almost exclusively international student enrolments often attract those who seek a minimum amount of time in study to access the maximum post-graduate work authorization. Understanding this evolving program landscape in post-secondary education will shed light on the degree to which higher education is altering existing program capabilities in their attempts to recruit more international students. In this research theme there is also the opportunity to study what differences exist between college and university sectors as well as differences between the public and private education sectors. The particular country responses related to borders, movement, and migration as the COVID-19 epidemic unfolded and its longer-term impacts on the worldwide numbers of people 207 moving across borders to study is another topic for future research, especially given the diversity of responses of different nation-states. This will certainly be interesting from both an education and immigration perspective and in understanding the degree of elasticity of international student demand when mobility or migration restrictions are implemented. 7.6 Conclusion Understanding the characteristics of interest group systems remains crucial to understanding the functioning of advanced democracies (Beyers, Eising & Maloney, 2008) and efforts to systematically observe groups in the environments in which they develop, make decisions, and take action contributes not only to the advancement of our understanding of groups but also the understanding of politics and policy making more generally (Hojnacki et al., 2012). Lobbying is different across different democratic political systems and these differences are often attributed to variations in political institutions. When looking for or attempting to quantify “influence” of special interests the actual nature of the relationship and the interplay brought on by the institutional structure of governance is often thought of as coercion of politicians by “pressure groups.” However, as this case study has shown, many of the interactions may involve little or no conflict at all and few direct and explicit exchanges or as an actual invitation to be part of the policy discussion directly or through representation. Many of these relatively quiet interactions between a single or a few organizations and a single or a few politicians may be better described as casework by legislators on behalf of constituents. There is certainly influence in these kinds of interactions, but not influence as pressure or purchase. It is a legitimate type of interaction within democratic political systems (Lowery, 2007). Perhaps this quiet and consistent approach has been the reason that higher education institutions have largely 208 been ignored and unrecognized as playing a significant role in immigration policy change. Scholars including E. E. Schattschneider (1960) and Mancur Olson (1965) also emphasize how business interests attempt to shape the policy process quietly, avoiding open conflict and firms and trade associations seem to be more active in the less visible arenas (Dür et al., 2015). As an issues-based example of interest group influence, the globalization and internationalization of higher education, along with domestic realities of remaining economically viable, have propelled higher education institutions to recruit international students to their campuses. These HEIs and their professional organizations successfully influenced the Canadian government to make investments and regulatory and legislative changes that make it attractive for international students to study in Canada by offering preferential immigration pathways. They furthered their interests through formal lobbying channels and through participation as a key stakeholder in policy forums and discussions. They leveraged this access through their sector associations and the use of an across-sector coalition to gain access to federal level discussions when institutionally they were too great in number and under provincial oversight. As a sector they sought government allies and supported efforts to break the inter-jurisdictional challenges that this policy arena presented, utilizing a competitive lens with other nations to spur action. This narrative was embraced by those in government with the call to action being first an economic imperative, then a human resource opportunity to finally one of ideal immigrant. Demonstrating their initiative, presence, and position spatially, this research establishes that the policy preferences for greater liberalization of immigration pathways for international students predates more formal inter-jurisdictional discussion. Like a story within a story the policy making process identifies many players, and the source of ideas is often difficult to pinpoint to only one major actor, but a major actor is what the higher education sector was and continues to be and their 209 policy preferences were clear and when compared to policy implementation are closely aligned, signaling success in having their interests reflected in policy and policy preference attainment. High-skilled immigration regimes have been spreading and intensifying around the globe for the past two decades. Their sheer prevalence has become self-normalizing and legitimizing. As education and skills-based immigration frameworks expand there are scholars who have questioned why the worthy economic migrants seem to be ones with university degrees or high technical skill, preferably completed in Canada (Tannock, 2011). With the rise and spread of skill selecting systems of immigration, education is a pathway means to a migration end for those who can pay, but certainly not for all. Canadian higher education has itself advocated for the transformation of public post-secondary institutions into the fifth largest export industry of the country. It is complicit in its evolving role as an immigration settlement hub. It needs to embrace its responsibility to manage and meet the expectations of international students and their families in what is now perceived as a multi-step route to immigration for the majority of international students. How this is implemented will look different for different institutions. Creating within-institution settlement services is possible for some larger institutions, but the majority will need to establish partnerships with civil society settlement organizations already established within their local communities. There seems to be a widely held belief that because international students have spent time in Canada during their studies that they are “transition-ready” to continue along the migration pathway. Acknowledging this is not always the case means that higher education institutions need to facilitate transition actively to ensure their policy preferences are maintained. What they cannot do is ignore the expanded role they now play in facilitating national immigration policy objectives. 210 The preceding responsibilities along with their recommendations situates how higher education institutions have shifted from providing training and education to meeting development goals to one in which they aspire to attract the world’s best and brightest to learn and stay. The argument is the demographic need for greater numbers of immigrants to fill labour force needs as the population ages. I will argue however, that higher education institutions not only have a responsibility to be active participants in the transitional success of international students who choose to study in Canada because of the immigration pathways it affords, but to do more to make access to education for immigration purposes more readily available to those without the financial means if students are such “ideal immigrants.” It should also behoove higher education institutions and their organizations to reflect on their repeated messaging, taken up with enthusiasm by governments that international students are “ideal immigrants” to begin with. The ideal immigrant has always been the one who comes with aspirations to work towards a better life and the intention to contribute in a positive way to the social and economic fabric of a nation. To communicate differently only reinforces both the economic self-interest and elitism still apparently very prevalent in higher education institutions today. 211 Chapter 8: Epilogue In 2020 governments around the world closed their borders to slow the spread of COVID-19. This led the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) to cite it as the top migration issue of 2020. These border restrictions disrupted a range of travel and legal migration as well as informal migration routes. In some countries it helped to advance anti-immigrant sentiment and advance migration-limiting policies (MPI, 2021). The international education sector worldwide is deeply affected by the curtailment of cross-border movement. The various policy responses to COVID-19 by governments who are major hosts to foreign students have an impact on the perceptions international students have about the safety and the degree to which they feel welcome in a country. Given that the data collection for my research is from a pre-COVID-19 world, this final chapter explores what the implications might be of the pandemic for international student enrolments and government policy on immigration. How does Canada compare with other “competitor” countries in their policy response in terms of international students? Has the pandemic changed the interests of the Canadian government in its commitment of immigration pathways or to immigration more generally? Is there any evidence to suggest that Canada’s HEI sector continues to communicate their policy interests to government prior to a policy response or is the theory of policy diffusion using a competitive lens now a more convincing theory? While a complete extension of the research to include the impacts of COVID-19 is not possible, it is worthwhile to consider recent events and search once again for clues to the influences of policymaking in this arena. I begin with Canada’s pandemic response in the first eight months from March 2020 to November 2020 as it relates to international students and compare that to 212 the policy responses of other major receiving countries, looking to see if Canada was following policy responses of competitor nations. Then I look for evidence of the HEI sector advancing their interests to government for exemptions to general pandemic restrictions or policies for international students. An update on the Canadian COVID-19 response related to international students from December 2020 until May 2021 is also provided to highlight some signficant new policy responses. I will conclude with some thoughts on what the future may hold for international student mobility and international student migration in Canada when pandemic restrictions ease. 8.1 Government responses to COVID-19 and its impacts on international students The detailed policy responses of different governments to the pandemic are varied and far-ranging so I am providing only major policy highlights related to international students from the five main English-speaking countries Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Combined these regions host close to 65 percent of the world market share of degree seeking foreign students (IIE, 2019). The objective is not to provide a complete review but a general sense of the policy responses and the timing of these responses to provide some insight into whether policy diffusion might be taking place. I briefly review the four main areas of policy responses that impact international students. The nature and extent of the border closures, support for in-country international students, the impacts of international student and graduate work authorizations and admission criteria for new out-of-country international students. 213 8.1.1 Border closures As the confirmed cases of COVID-19 virus cases grew in many countries, many nations began implementing border closures to stop the spread of the virus. The degree to which this was done and who these restrictions applied to varied by country and effected international students in several ways. Border closures and travel limitations were the first pandemic policy response and naturally had an impact on international students around the world. In terms of different national responses, Australia initiated border closures on February 1, 2020, restricting all arrivals only from China given that the site of most infections at the time were from that region. Three weeks later, the United Kingdom chose a different response to that of Australia and instead requested travelers returning to the U.K. from “hotspots” which had begun to grow in number to self-isolate on return. This U.K. advisory was issued on February 25, 2020. Australia then expanded its border restrictions to additional countries including Iran, South Korea, and Italy on March 11. On the same day, the United States followed with closing borders to those arriving from Iran, China, and some European countries. Rather than targeting specific countries, New Zealand closed its borders March 17th and Canada did the same on March 18th, 2020, including its land border with the United States. Canada’s border closure was for all foreign nationals, but two days later, on March 20th a range of exemptions were granted for those already committed to working, studying, or making Canada their home. This meant that international students already in possession of a valid study permit continued to be allowed to enter (IRCC, 2020b). A full border closure followed in the United Kingdom on March 20th. As worldwide border closures took effect, Canada became the only country in the comparison group to allow international students to continue to enter. This demonstrates a policy response distinct from competitor nations. 214 8.2 Financial support for in-country international students In addition to border closures, which mainly affected new incoming international students and international student recruitment activities, subsequent policy responses affecting international students already present in host countries at the time of country lockdowns and restrictions also varied. Of course, all post-secondary students, domestic and international, were affected by the suspension of face-to face classes and the common move to online learning that was taking place in many parts of the world. What varied however, was whether international students were included in any financial support programs that some countries were providing to students or to those who had lost employment as a result of the pandemic. To what degree was there support for international students studying in these major recruiting countries? In Australia, there was a decision to provide no federally sponsored COVID-19 related welfare or emergency payments for international students, although universities and some state governments later stepped in to help international students financially. This had the effect of being needs based and uneven regionally and institutionally in its implementation. In early April 2020, the Canberra Times reported that the Prime Minister of Australia, Scott Morrison, was not considering financial assistance for international students: All students who come to Australia in their first year, have to give a warranty that they are able to support themselves for the first 12 months of their study. That is a requirement for their visa. So that is not an unreasonable expectation of the government that the students will be able to fulfil their commitment that they gave. If they’re not in a position to be able 215 to support themselves, then there is the alternative for them to return to their home countries. (Burgess, 2020, April 4, para.4) As in Australia, the United Kingdom also did not provide any direct financial support to international students already studying in the UK. Instead, the government provided £20 million (approximately $35 million Canadian) of funding in December 2020 to educational institutions for a student wide needs-based response, leaving it to institutions to decide how their allocation of funds would be dispersed to their student populations. In most cases, international students are able to access funding support through their institutions. An additional £50 million (approximately $87 million Canadian) was announced for general student support in early February also at the discretion of higher education institutions to administer (Department of Education United Kingdom, 2021). New Zealand took a similar indirect support approach for international students already present in the country. On July 27, 2020, the international education sector received $30 million NZD ($27.5 million Canadian) to keep specialist staff employed and be able to provide services required to adhere to the government mandated code of practice guidelines (New Zealand Qualifications Authority, 2016), basically protecting employment of those in the sector. An additional $10 million NZD ($9 million Canadian) was allocated to facilitate students to study from their home countries, which facilitated the move to online learning platforms but also did not go directly to international students. This investment was part of a four-year plan worth $51.6 million NZD focused on the longer-term recovery of the international education sector, which naturally has been hit extremely hard by the full border closures initiated by the New Zealand (Ministry of Education New Zealand, 2020). 216 In comparison, the United States established a US$14 billion Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) as part of its Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act on March 27th (U.S. Department of Education, 2020). These funds provided $7 billion in emergency student grants; however international students were not eligible for this funding (American Council on Education (ACE), 2020). On December 27th, as part of a supplemental government COVID-19 economic relief bill, an additional $22.7 billion US dollar ($28.8 billion Canadian) relief fund for higher education was created with US$680.9 million to go to student emergency aid, equivalent to $864 million Canadian (U.S. Department of Education, 2021). International students studying at US institutions were ineligible for these funds as well (NAFSA, 2020). So, where the UK gave its higher education institutions some autonomy about which of their students needed emergency funding assistance, without providing eligibility guidelines, the United States created explicit exclusion of international students to emergency funding assistance like that of Australia. Canada’s response is distinct among these comparator countries. When the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) was announced on April 6th, international students were able to qualify along with domestic students whose existing part time employment was lost due to COVID-19 (IRCC, 2020c). This direct federal fund access in the early stages of the pandemic was a quick and inclusive response. In addition, restrictions on the number of hours international students were permitted to work while studying expanded if students already in Canada were required to study online or chose to take a break from their studies. No other comparator nation provided these types of exemptions or support in the early days of the pandemic. In this regard Canada acted ahead of its counterparts and was notably recognized as a leader internationally in 217 international education circles in addressing the needs of its international students residing and studying in Canada at the start of the pandemic. 8.2.1 Work authorization and immigration pathway policy responses As the pandemic continues there has been some convergence in policy responses, particularly in temporary visa requirement changes to ensure that international students are not disadvantaged because of COVID-19 restrictions. In July 2020, Australia announced they would begin granting student visas again so when borders did open travel arrangements could be implemented quickly. They also enacted changes which saw online learning count towards post-study work visas (Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (ICMM), 2020). Similarly, the United Kingdom made temporary changes permitting online study for the 2020-21 academic year without penalty for international students as well (Department of Education United Kingdom, 2020). In the United States, the Student Exchange and Visitor Program (SEVP) instituted a temporary exemption regarding online courses for the 2020 spring and summer semesters. This policy permitted nonimmigrant students to take more online courses than normally permitted by federal regulation to maintain their nonimmigrant status during the COVID-19 emergency. In preparation for the Fall 2020 semester, this was modified on July 6 to require at least one in-class course for international students to remain in the United States (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 2020). This order however was rescinded on July 26, 2020, after intense lobbying from the higher education sector (NAFSA, 2020). This meant that international students currently in the United States were no longer required to leave the country if their institution was providing only online learning options. Study visas were not being issued to new 218 international students whose US program was to be fully conducted online (US ICE, 2020). They are however eligible to enter if part of their program in being conducted face-to-face. New international student enrollment was in decline before the coronavirus pandemic, however a recent survey of higher education institutions regarding Fall 2020 enrollment indicates overall international student enrollment declined by 16%, and new enrollment fell by 43% (NAFSA, 2020). Like other countries Canada announced several temporary changes to the study visa process in order to mitigate the impacts of the suspension on face-to-face classes. On March 29, 2020, the federal government announced that international students who decided to study online in their home countries would continue to remain eligible for the Post-Graduation Work Permit if 50 percent of their studies were eventually completed in Canada (IRCC, 2020c). Under normal circumstances, criteria for the PGWPP limit an international student’s ability to pursue a program through online learning, from inside or outside Canada, and time spent studying outside Canada is deducted from the length of the post graduate work permit for which they are eligible. This announcement preceded similar policy exemptions related to international students’ work authorization qualifications although the United Kingdom announced on June 5th, 2020, that post-study work rights for those international students studying online would be assured (Department for Education United Kingdom, 2020). On July 20th, 2020, the Australian government announced that the eligibility requirements for their post-study program would also be similarly relaxed (ICMM, 2020). 219 8.2.2 Admission of new international students during the pandemic Finally, in terms of welcoming international students back to host countries to study, some countries have elected to provide limited access to small cohorts of international students under a range of eligibility requirements and restrictions. Australia initiated a pilot of bringing 300 students into Australia at the end of November 2020 (Charles Darwin University, 2020). New Zealand has indicated that students will return to New Zealand in small cohorts in phases beginning in April 2021. Priority will be given to currently enrolled students returning after ongoing border closures (Menchin, 2021). The United States allows international students with a valid study permit to arrive for the purposes of study only if they can take a minimum number of face-to-face courses which means that no exceptions for online learning have been made for study permit requirements (U.S. ICE, 2020). In comparison, Canada amended its travel restrictions on October 20, 2020, allowing international students to enter Canada if their designated learning institution (DLI) has an approved COVID-19 readiness plan in place (IRCC, 2020f). Like all travelers to Canada, international students and accompanying family members are subject to all public health measures, including the mandatory 14-day quarantine period upon arrival in Canada, but students can arrive in Canada even if classes continue online. The United Kingdom granted travel to the UK for the purposes of study on December 22, 2020, although it is urging international students to remain in their home countries if offerings are only running online (Home Office United Kingdom, 2020). 8.3 Does the theory still hold? A second look at policy diffusion Returning to the hypothesis that there is policy diffusion through competition, and that Canada in its policy response looks to other jurisdictions, the evidence does not hold up well to 220 analysis when the impacts of the pandemic on international students and their recruitment are considered despite similar economic and migration interests of competitor countries. Appropriately, some policy responses are a factor of the current situation of the spread of the virus in each host jurisdictions. In general, as the pandemic continues there is a degree of convergence in temporary study and work visa processing policy responses to ensure that pandemic lockdowns and restrictions do not unduly disadvantage international students. In this regard the United Kingdom and Canada now closely resemble each other, but in each case, Canada’s policy announcement came before that of the United Kingdom’s suggesting that Canada was a leader and not a laggard. It can also be argued that Canada’s response was not just faster, but also provided greater unrestricted access to financial support which included rather than excluded international students. Thinking back again to policy influence, if a policy diffusion theory does not explain the pandemic response of the federal government pertaining to international students and the international education sector, then perhaps these were generated from within government directly with the understanding that keeping the international education sector intact was important for both economic and immigration reasons. This seems like a very plausible hypothesis and a likely one as well. It is worthwhile however to see if there is evidence of any formal lobbying activity taking place from the HEI sector that would indicate they had an opportunity to share their policy preferences with senior government representatives. While a full analysis is not possible within the scope of this work, looking at the Canada Registry of Lobbyists records during the time of the pandemic may shed some insight into the extent of any engagement with the sector during the pandemic. The presence of any media coverage or press release statements from the HEI sector on government policy decisions will also be a possible indicator of policy alignment with the sector. 221 8.4 Initial indicators of HEI sector engagement in the COVID-19 pandemic response To what extent might there have been input or discussion with higher education institutions in a COVID related policy response of the federal government? Does the original hypothesis that HEIs influenced immigration policy related to international students still hold in an extreme case such as responding to a pandemic? Using data collected from Canada’s National Lobbying Registry, a search of communication reports from February 1, 2020, to February 2, 2021, reveals a great deal of activity from Canada’s two main higher education organizations, Universities Canada and Colleges and Institutes Canada (CICan). For meetings which took place in which immigration was the topic of discussion for the time period, there were a total of 85 communication reports submitted, consisting of 65 reports from Universities Canada and 30 from CICan. In addition, individual universities or groups of universities submitted an additional 55 reports (Registry of Lobbyists, 2021). A total of 140 communication reports representing meetings with senior government officials within a one-year time period on the single issue of immigration gives an indication that HEIs and their organizations were active on the topic of immigration. What is notable is that these took place with a senior representative of IRCC or the Prime Minister’s Office for more half of all the documented meetings. Additionally, the lobby registry shows that those with whom HEIs and their associations met with were either senior level bureaucrats or high-ranking elected officials. IRCC Minister Marco Mendicino was named in ten separate communication reports over the year and IRCC Deputy Minister, Catrina Tapley also took an additional nine other meetings over the same time. This is in addition to four other Minister-level meetings with Public Safety, Innovation and 222 Science and Intergovernmental Affairs and Deputy Minister level meetings with Public Health, International Trade, Foreign Affairs, and Economic Development. Lobbying registry records assist in ascertaining that there has been a great deal of activity from the HEI sector in meeting with senior levels of government related to the topic of immigration in 2020. This remains consistent with the presented research suggesting a growing and consistent interest of HEIs on immigration related topics. Returning to the fundamental strength of a process tracing approach, does the timing of the communications with senior government representatives suggest that key policy announcements impacting international students preceded meetings or followed? If the meetings followed, it would suggest that government was setting policy and HEIs were responding to it. If on the other hand, meetings preceded major policy announcements, then it would strengthen the argument that HEIs were providing their policy preferences prior to policy announcements. This would amount to a smoking gun test which provides a sufficient but not necessary outcome. If the observation does not pass this test, it does not eliminate it, but passing the test will strongly support the given hypothesis that HEIs continue, even during a pandemic response, to influence immigration policy directions. On March 20, 2020, a press release from IRCC Minister Mendicino outlined exemptions to the March 18 travel restrictions. These included all temporary foreign workers, international students whose study permit has been approved and approved individuals with approved permanent residence applications (IRCC, 2020b). Lobbying registry records show meetings taking place March 9 and 10, 2020 with the University of Toronto and St. Mary’s University and policy advisors in IRCC including the IRCC Deputy Minister March 10, 2020, on the topic of immigration. On March 20th Universities Canada had a meeting with an IRCC senior policy 223 advisor to Minister Mendicino. I would consider this only weak evidence given the timing, particularly that of Universities Canada. Since most temporary worker categories, which international students are a part of, were included in the exemption it is questionable to think at the earliest stages of the pandemic there was any kind of extensive HEI sector input. In other examples that are specific to international students, IRCC announced updated guidance on March 29, 2020, confirming that eligibility for the Post-Graduate Work Permit program will not be affected for those international students whose courses had switched to online delivery on an exceptional basis due to COVID-19 (GOC, 2021). This exception was later extended to include the 2020 Fall semester on May 14, 2020. This is a significant development in that distance or online learning courses are not normally classed as eligible studies for the purposes of a PGWP application. On October 20, 2020, it was also announced that new incoming international students could come to Canada to study, even if their programs were continuing online (GOC, 2021). Looking at the lobby registry meeting activity several communications are reported with IRCC and both individual institutions and HEI associations in the early part of May 2020, preceding the May 14th announcement of the easing of the PGWP eligibility requirements. Even more notable is the extent and level of meetings which took place between June and late into August, and particularly in the case of Universities Canada well into September and early October. (Registry of Lobbyists, 2021). Given these meetings were reported (often exclusively) to be related to immigration, this is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that there was lobbying activity to allow new international students to be permitted to come to Canada despite the current border restrictions in place. There was both significant activity and high-level access to suggest that HEIs were engaged in discussions related to international student arrivals during the pandemic. The timing of the reported meetings suggest activity both 224 prior and after key announcements. To what extent however were HEIs satisfied with the policy response from government? This will provide a rough indication of the preference attainment of the sector. Without the benefit of conducting elite interviews, I look for evidence in media releases and media coverage for any quotes or indications of preferences from HEIs or their associations. A cursory review of media coverage suggests that the sector was generally pleased with the government’s policy choices. In reference to the PGWPP easing of requirements, presidents of both Universities Canada and CICan officially recognized that “Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has already shown a lot of flexibility in responding to the pandemic…..and that they appreciate IRCC’s leadership on the issue” (Amyot & Davidson, 2020, para. 2). Comments from the sector on the opening of the borders to new incoming international students was also positive. “Canada’s universities are very pleased that the Government of Canada has amended travel restrictions to allow international students to begin safely entering the country,” said Cindy McIntyre, assistant director, international relations at Universities Canada (Quinn, 2020, para. 4). “This announcement is an extremely positive development for colleges and institutes across Canada and reflects our collective efforts to prepare and plan for the safe arrival of international students,” Colleges and Institutes Canada said in a statement (2020, para. 5), while CBIE president and CEO Larissa Bezo called the announcement “very welcome news” (Bezo, L, 2020). UBC’s President Santa Ono tweeted on October 2, 2020 “This is great news! I’m grateful to the federal and provincial governments and members of the UBC community for working together to support the safe entry of international students to Canada.” I contend then, that during the COVID-19 pandemic beginning in March 2020 until the end of December 2020, the HEI sector continued to be active and arguably 225 successful in advancing their policy interests related to international students. This is particularly true when compared with their sector counterparts in other countries who have similar interests but whose government responses were either slower, more restrictive in terms of border exemptions or less inclusive of international students in terms of emergency financial support. This fast and clear response from Canada’s federal government has had an effect on Canada’s perceived position in relation to other competing countries for prospective international students. Some early results and thoughts about the coordination and policy response concludes this reflection on the impacts of COVID-19 on the export industry of receiving international students. 8.5 Immigration and international student recruitment in Canada post-COVID-19 Heightened border controls, job losses, and economic contraction in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic calls into question what the impacts might be on Canada’s plan for immigration. At first glance the federal government has actually “doubled down” on the concept of immigration pathways and its interest in retaining increasing numbers of former temporary workers has not waivered, nor has the interest in continuing to accept increasing numbers of skilled immigrants through international student pathways. In the 2020 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration, published by IRCC, targets for admitting permanent residents for 2021 is 401,000 increasing to 411,000 in 2022 and 421,000 in 2023 (IRCC, 2020a). These number exceed previous year targets and is said to consider the evolving situation of COVID-19, basically indicating that lower immigration levels in 2020 justify increasing targets over the next three years. The pandemic has accelerated a trend that began in the early 2000s, of the increasing importance of temporary foreign workers in the selection of new immigrants in Canada (IRCC, 226 2020a). In 2019, Over 402,000 study permits, and 404,000 temporary work permits were issued of which 35% were post graduate work permits. A total of 827,586 international students held valid study permits in Canada in 2019 (IRCC, 2020a). While HEIs have been present and advocating for international student exemptions during the pandemic, the government is also motivated to expand these immigration pathways to meet their own stated targets. Ensuring a continuing (and minimally interrupted) flow of international students into the country are aligned with the objectives of the HEI sector. The “pro-international student” stance prior to the pandemic continues, but has this translated into enough incentives for prospective international students to come to Canada during the pandemic and what are the general expectations of the sector for future international student recruitment in a post-pandemic world? World Education Services (WES), a government designated academic and professional credential service, conducted a series of three surveys in April, June and August 2020 with prospective immigrants coming to Canada and received 27,930 valid responses across all surveys.8 Their results indicate that interest in immigrating to Canada increased between April and August 2020 with almost half of respondents also saying that the pandemic had no impact on their interest, while only 6% were less interested. This despite 60% of respondents in the August 2020 survey expecting that COVID-19 will negatively impact the availability of jobs in their field. Survey results also indicate that in the August 2020 survey only 12% of respondents were considering a delay in their immigration to Canada (Mehoob & Atlin, 2020). Of the 12% of respondents who are considering a delay, the top reasons cited were a decrease in the number of 8 Valid responses for each survey include 4615 for April with a 10.6% response rate and a 69.8% completion rate; 10598 valid responses in June with a 6.7% response rate and 76.7% completion rate; and in August there were 16, 12717 valid responses with a 7.8% response rate and a completion rate of 77.3%. Overall sample size across the three surveys was 480,822. 227 jobs in their sector in Canada, economic recession and travel restrictions. In general, interest to immigrate to Canada appears to remain strong. In terms of international students, NAVITAS research group ran an international student agent survey in May 2020 with responses from 400 agents in 63 countries indicating that Canada had become a more attractive study destination as a result of COVID-19: “Canada continues to demonstrate its inclusivity through a range of support measures targeted at students affected by the virus (including additional work rights and access to unemployment benefits) and in keeping its borders open” (Chew, 2020b, para. 9). The Navitas’ agent network reports an increase in interest for study in Canada and predicts a shift in market share which will see significant gains for Canada and a decline in the market share of the United States (Chew, 2020b). This is not to say that the number of international students coming to Canada will not be impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Industry experts are expecting an overall contraction in international student enrolments continuing in 2021 until restrictions are eased in most countries, possibly longer. If Canada gains market share, this will likely mean that the overall decline in the total number of international students will be better moderated as overall international student numbers contract. In September 2020, the same research survey was repeated with Canada maintaining a strong position in terms of their pandemic response according to the agents surveyed, however the United Kingdom’s handling of the COVID-19 crisis improved substantially between the two surveys (Chew, 2020a). While these are predictions from a specific agent network, the feedback highlights that early-stage responses to the pandemic influence student behaviour and decision-making in their choice of study destination. However as other competitor countries respond and converge in their policy responses this will be mitigated by more traditional selection factors including reputation, cost, and work and 228 immigration pathway opportunities. In June 2020, Canadian based Academica Group and Maple Assist disseminated the results of their joint International Prospective Student Study (IPSS). The first IPSS study was conducted in April 2020 with the assistance of 25 post-secondary institutions across Canada that included 12 universities and 13 colleges and polytechnics. A total of 16,649 international students from 180 countries responded. They had all been admitted to a participating Canadian institution. The survey was repeated in May 2020 with 2952 of the original April survey respondents participating. More than 83% of survey respondents planned to start classes in Fall 2020 but there was a strong preference for having in-person classes with social distancing measures in place. Greatest concerns were about teaching delivery models, specifically navigating online learning, travel restrictions and study permit acquisition. The study reinforces that the interest in studying in Canada remains strong among this incoming student group (Academica, 2020). For Canadian higher education, the overall impacts of COVID-19 are unprecedented. Economically, several institutions have announced temporary or permanent layoffs in the face of reduced provincial funding and overall student enrolment declines which are affected by both international and domestic student numbers (Janzen, 2020). Prospective students face a vastly different environment as they make their choice of study destination given campus tours and face to face recruitment activities are suspended. Moving learning delivery online poses another serious challenge as does managing the well-being of staff and students from a distance who are navigating in a new learning environment. Despite the challenges in 2020 there is cautious optimism for 2021from the Canadian post-secondary sector (Academica, 2020). 229 8.5.1 COVID-19 update and Canada’s continued policy responses As the COVID-19 pandemic extended into 2021 there were two significant announcements from IRCC referencing the importance and value placed on international students. The first announcement was made on February 12, 2021, as the prospect that online learning would need to continue for several more months. The temporary changes put in place to in October 2020 regarding the eligibility of international students for the Post Graduate Work Permit allowing online learning to count was extended which was understandable and expected but in February these provisions were also expanded. International students could now complete their entire academic program online (instead of a requirement to complete 50% on campus in Canada) and still be eligible for a future PGWP. (IRCC, 2021a) This makes it even easier for international students to obtain post-graduation work authorization. On April 14, 2021, IRCC announced another initiative to accept over 40,00 applications for permanent residence from those who graduated from a Canadian institution in the past 4 years. Any international graduate from an eligible Canadian post-secondary program within the last 4 years was encouraged to apply (IRCC, 2021b). The special program opened for applications on May 6, 2021, and reached the 40,000 application quota on May 7, 2021, at 1:01PM eastern time (Thevenot & El-Assal, 2021). These policy announcements highlight once again the strong interest of the federal government to facilitate work and immigration pathways for international students. 8.6 Summary The Canadian government acted quickly to implement a range of Ministerial Instructions to loosen or change current travel restrictions, requirements of study in Canada, and work 230 eligibility requirements of international students. This included initially those international students who were in Canada studying and then as the pandemic progressed, making accommodations for new incoming international students. This required changes to country wide travel restrictions and working closely with higher education institutions to put COVID-19 safety plans and protocols in place to bring international students onto campuses where many classes were still being conducted online. The speed and decidedly early pro-international student response is in contrast with some other competitor nations and Canada’s leadership has been heralded both within and outside the country. International student feedback was strong and positive, indicating continued and often growing interest in study in Canada. Canada did not look to other nations in a policy diffusion, competitive lens as it developed its international student response to the pandemic. In fact, other countries have pushed to emulate the Canadian response and it further emphasizes the position of international students both as a key economic driver and as a preferred source of highly skilled immigrants. There is some strong circumstantial evidence to suggest HEIs continued to lobby and be an active part in the government’s policy response in which the preferences of HEIs continue to be largely met, even in a time of pandemic. Recently announced policy responses make it clear that the federal government is fully committed to the promotion of the education-immigration nexus as a major source of future immigration to Canada. 231 Bibliography Abbott, A., & Silles, M. (2016). Determinants of international student migration. World Economy, 39(5), 621-635. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.12319 Advisory Panel on Canada's International Education Strategy, Canadian Government EBook Collection, & Canada. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. (2012). International education, a key driver of Canada's prosperity: Final report. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. https://www.international.gc.ca/education/advisory-consultation.aspx?lang=eng#:~:text=The%20mandate%20of%20the%20Advisory%20Panel%20on%20Canada%E2%80%99s,abroad,%20and%20building,%20expanding%20and%20ensuring%20greater Academica Group. (2020, June). International Prospective Student Study. Key Findings Report. https://www.academica.ca/sites/default/files/IPSS%20Public%20Release_WithMA.pdf Alberts, H. C., & Hazen, H. D. (2005). “There are always two voices…”: International students' intentions to stay in the United States or return to their home countries. International Migration, 43(3), 131-154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2435.2005.00328.x Allison, J. (2007). Walking the line: Canadian federalism, the Council of Ministers of Education, and the case of international education, 1970 - 1984. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 39(2), 113-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620701342338 Aberbach, J. D., & Rockman, B. A. (2002). Conducting and coding elite interviews. PS: Political Science and Politics, 35(4), 673-676. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096502001142 Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management, 10(1), 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2004.9967114 Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 290-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303542 Altbach, P. G., & Teichler, U. (2001). Internationalization and exchanges in a globalized university. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(1), 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/102831530151002 American Council on Education. (2020). Summary of higher education provisions in H.R. 748, the coronavirus aid, relief and economic security (CARES) act. 232 https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Summary-CARES-Act-HigherEd-Provisions-032620.pdf Amyot, D. & Davidson, P. (2020, May 11). Leveraging international education for a globally connected and prosperous Canada. iPolitics. https://ipolitics.ca/2020/05/11/leveraging-international-education-for-a-globally-connected-and-prosperous-Canada/ Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, Ottawa (Ontario). (2001). Recognizing the importance of international students to Canada in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. A brief submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration Canada regarding Bill C-11, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and its Regulations. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED455736.pdf Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. (2002). International Student Recruitment. Ottawa: AUCC. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. (2007), Internationalizing Canadian Campuses. Ottawa: AUCC. Association of Universities & Colleges in Canada. (2014). Canada's universities in the world: AUCC internationalization survey. Association of Universities & Colleges in Canada. Azmat, F., Osborne, A., Le Rossignol, K., Jogulu, U., Rentschler, R., Robottom, I., & Malathy, V. (2013). Understanding aspirations and expectations of international students in Australian higher education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33(1), 97-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2012.751897 Baas, M. (2019). The Education‐Migration industry: International students, migration policy and the question of skills. International Migration, 57(3), 222-234. https://doi.org/10.111/imig Baglay, S., & Baglay, S. (2012;2011) Provincial nominee programs: A note on policy implications and future research needs. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 13(1), 121-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-011-0190-8 Bartell, M. (2003). Internationalisation of universities: A university culture-based framework. Higher Education, 45(1), 43-70. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021225514599 Bauder, H. (2003). "Brain abuse", or the devaluation of immigrant labour in Canada. Antipode, 35(4), 699-717. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-8330.2003.00346.x Bauder, H. (2008). Immigration debate in Canada: How newspapers reported, 1996-2004. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 9(3), 289-310. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1007/s12134-008-0062-z 233 Baumgartner, F. R. (2009). Lobbying and policy change: Who wins, who loses, and why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Beach, D., Pedersen, R. B., & Project Muse University Press eBooks. (2013). Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Beach, D. (2016). It's all about mechanisms - what process-tracing case studies should be tracing. New Political Economy: Process Tracing: The Understandings of Causal Mechanisms, Edited by: Bruno Palier and Christine Trampusch, 21(5), 463-472. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2015.1134466 Beech, S. E. (2015). International student mobility: The role of social networks. Social & Cultural Geography, 16(3), 332-350. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2014.983961 Beerkens, E. (2003). Globalisation and higher education research. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(2), 128 -148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315303007002002 Berry, J. M. (2002). Validity and reliability issues in elite interviewing. PS: Political Science and Politics, 35(4), 679-682. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096502001166 Bevis, T. (2014). A History of Higher Education Exchange: China and America. Routledge Publishing. New York. Beyers, J., Eising, R., & Maloney, W. (2008). Researching interest group politics in Europe and elsewhere: Much we study, little we know? West European Politics, 31(6), 1103-1128. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380802370443 Bezo, L. [@LarissaBezo]. (2020, October 2). Very welcome news from Minister @marcomendicino! [Tweet] Twitter. https://twitter.com/LarissaBezo/status/1312106325749317632 Bhandari, R., & Blumenthal, P. (2011). International students and global mobility in higher education: National trends and new directions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Birrell, R. J., & Perry, B. (2009). Immigration policy change and the international student industry. People and Place, 17(2), 64 - 80. Bond, S., & Bowry, C. (Eds.) (2002). Connections and complexities: The internationalization of higher education in Canada. The Centre for Higher Education Research and Development, University of Manitoba. Bond, S., Lemasson, J., International Development Research Centre (Canada), & Education Source. (1999). In Bond S. L. (Ed.), A new world of knowledge: Canadian universities and globalization. International Development Research Centre. 234 Boswell, C. (2009). The political uses of expert knowledge: Immigration policy and social research. Cambridge, UK; New York;: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581120 Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. (pp. 241-258). New York, Greenwood. Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J.P. (1990). Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. Sage Publications. London. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 Brady, H. E., & Collier, D. (2010). Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards (2nd ed.). Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. British Columbia Council for International Education. (2009, October). Education au/in Canada Brand Training Workshop. BCCIE eNews. http://www. bccie.bc.ca/docs/enews_archive/October2009Issue1_archive.pdf Brooks, R., & Waters, J. (2011). Student Mobilities: Migration and the Internationalization of Higher Education. Palgrave MacMillan: Basingstoke. Brown, P. (1995). Cultural capital and social exclusion: some observations on recent trends in education, employment, and the labour market. Work, Employment and Society Vol. 9, pp. 29-51. Brown, P., & Tannock, S. (2009). Education, meritocracy and the global war for talent. Journal of Education Policy, 24(4), 377-392. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930802669938 Brunner, L. R. (2017). Higher educational institutions as emerging immigrant selection actors: A history of British Columbia's retention of international graduates, 2001-2016. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 1(1), 22-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2016.1243016 Bunea, A. (2012;2013). Issues, preferences and ties: Determinants of interest groups' preference attainment in the EU environmental policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(4), 552-570. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2012.726467 Burbules, N. C., & Torres, C. A. (2000). Globalization and education: Critical perspectives. New York: Routledge. Burgess, K. (2020, April 4). Coronavirus: International students should go home if they can’t support themselves: PM. The Canberra Times. 235 https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6710557/international-students-should-go-home-morrison/ Cairns, D. (2014). Youth transitions, international student mobility and spatial reflexivity: Being mobile? New York, NY; Palgrave Macmillan. Canada. (2014). Overhauling the temporary foreign worker program: Putting Canadians first. Employment and Social Development Canada. Ottawa. https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/foreign-workers/reports/overhaul.html Canada. (2021, January 4). COVID-19: A Guide for international students in Canada arriving from abroad. https://www.Canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/guide-international-students-arriving-abroad.html Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Evaluation. (2011). Evaluation of the provincial nominee program. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-statistics/evaluations/provincial-nominee-program/summary.html Canada. Department of Foreign Affairs & International Trade, Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs & International Trade, & World Trade Organization. (1999). Government response to the report of the standing committee on foreign affairs and international trade, "Canada and the future of the World Trade Organization". Ottawa. Canada. Immigration Legislative Review Advisory Group. (1997). Not just numbers, a Canadian framework for future immigration. Ottawa: The Advisory Group. Canadian Bureau for International Education. (2010, June 29). Five national education associations establish the Canadian Consortium for International Education Marketing. http://cbie.ca/data/media/releases/20100629_e.pdf Cambridge, J. (2002). Global product branding and international education. Journal of Research in International Education, 1(2), 227 - 243. Cammisa, A. M. (1995). Governments as interest groups: Intergovernmental lobbying and the federal system. Westport, Conn: Praeger. Carlson, S. (2011). How to Explain the Transnational Occupational Mobility of Former International Students? Suggestions for a Change in Research and Theoretical Perspectives. In F. Dervin (ed) Analyzing the consequences of Academic Mobility and Migration. (pp.115-130). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 236 Chan, S. (2012). Shifting patterns of student mobility in Asia. Higher Education Policy, 25(2), 207-224. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2012.3 Charles Darwin University. (2020, November 30). CDU welcomes international students as flight lands in Darwin. https://www.cdu.edu.au/news/cdu-welcomes-international-students-flight-lands-darwin Chase, S. (2008, Aug 13). Labour: Ottawa to ease immigration for workers, students plan aims to retain skilled employees. The Globe and Mail (1936-2017). https://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/historical-newspapers/labour/docview/1412627595/se-2?accountid=14656 Chen, L. (2008). Internationalization or International Marketing? Two frameworks for understanding international students’ choice of Canadian Universities. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. 18(1): 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841240802100113 Chew, J. (2020, July 20). COVID-19 is changing the fortunes of international education destinations – Part 1. Navitas Insights. https://insights.navitas.com/covid-19-is-changing-the-fortunes-of-international-education-destinations-part-1/ Chew, J. (2020b, July 21). COVID-19 is changing the fortunes of international education destinations – Part 2. Navitas Insights. https://insights.navitas.com/covid-19-is-changing-the-fortunes-of-international-education-destinations-part-2/ Chiose, S. (2016, April 7). Work permit program for international students’ needs reform, experts say. The Globe and Mail. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/work-permit-program-for-international-students-needs-reform-experts-say/article29563194/ Chiose, S. (2016, November 7). Ottawa revises how it assesses permanent residence applications from international students. The Globe and Mail. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ottawa-to-revise-how-it-assesses-permanent-residence-applications/article32701307/#c-image-0 Coates, K. (2009). Exploring the unknown: Levinas and international students in English Higher Education. Journal of Education Policy. 24(3), 271-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930802669961 Coghlan, D., & Brydon-Miller, M. (2014). The SAGE encyclopedia of action research (Vols. 1-2). London. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446294406 Colleges and Institutes Canada. (2020, October 2). Changes to travel restrictions affecting international students. https://www.collegesinstitutes.ca/changes-to-travel-restrictions-affecting-international-students/ 237 Collier, D. (2011). Understanding process tracing. PS: Political Science and Politics, 44(4), 823-830. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511001429 Collier, D., Brady, H., & Seawright, J. (2010). Outdated Views of Qualitative Methods: Time to Move On. Political Analysis. 18(4). 506-513. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpq022 Collins, F. L. (2012). Researching mobility and emplacement: Examining transience and transnationality in international student lives: Researching mobility and emplacement. Area (London 1969), 44(3), 296-304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2012.01112.x Council of Ministers of Education (Canada). (1986). Foreign students in Canada = les etudiants etrangers au Canada. Toronto, ON: Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, (2008). Fact Sheet: A brand for Education in Canada. https://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/128/brand-information.en.pdf Council of the Federation (Canada). (2011). Bringing education in Canada to the world, bringing the world to Canada: An international education marketing action plan for provinces and territories. Ottawa, Ont: The Council of the Federation. http://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/264/COF_Bringing_Ed_to_Canada_Eng_final.pdf Crossman, J. E., & Clarke, M. (2010). International experience and graduate employability: Stakeholder perceptions on the connection. Higher Education, 59(5), 599-613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9268-z Crossman, E., & Hou, F & Picot, G. (2020). Two-step immigration selection: A review of benefits and potential challenges Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-626-x/11-626-x2020009-eng.htm Dahlgren, L. O., Handal, G., Szkudlarek, T., & Bayer, M. (2007). Students as journeymen between cultures of higher education and work: A comparative European project on the transition from higher education to working life. Higher Education in Europe, 32(4), 305-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/03797720802066005 Daniel, B. K., & Harland, T. (2018). Higher education research methodology: A step-by-step guide to the research process (1st ed.) Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315149783 Davies, H., Nutley, S., & Smith, P. (2000). What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services (1st ed.). Bristol: The Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1t892t3 238 Deardorff, D.K., de Wit, H., & Heyl, J. (2012). Bridges to the Future: The Global Landscape of International Higher Education. In Deardorff, D. K., Wit, H. d., & Heyl, J. (Eds.) The SAGE handbook of international higher education. (417-435). Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications. DeGregorio, C. A. (1997). Networks of champions: Leadership, access, and advocacy in the U.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Department of Education, United Kingdom. (2020, June 5). University Minister sets out support for international students [Press release]. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/universities-minister-sets-out-support-for-international-students Department of Education United Kingdom. (2021, February 2). Government announces £50 million to support students impacted by COVID-19 [Press release]. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-50-million-to-support-students-impacted-by-covid-19 de Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for internationalization of higher education: A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States of America. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education. de Wit, H. (1999). Changing rationales for the internationalization of higher education. International Higher Education, 15, https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.1999.15.6477 de Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Westport: Greenwood Press. de Wit, H. (2013). The different faces and phases of internationalisation of higher education. (pp. 89-99). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7085-0_6 de Wit, H., Agarwal, P., Said, M., Seehole, M. & Sirozi, M. (2008.) The Dynamics of International Student Circulation in a Global Context. Sense Publishers. Rotterdam, Netherlands. Davies, P. H. J. (2001). Spies as informants: Triangulation and the interpretation of elite interview data in the study of the intelligence and security services. Politics, 21(1), 73-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.00138 Doyle, S., Gendall, P., Meyer, L. H., Hoek, J., Tait, C., McKenzie, L., & Loorparg, A. (2010). An investigation of factors associated with student participation in study abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(5), 471-490. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315309336032 239 Dreher, A., & Poutvaara, P. (2011). Foreign students and migration to the United States. World Development, 39(8), 1294-1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.12.001 Dür, A. (2008). Measuring interest group influence in the EU: A note on methodology. European Union Politics, 9(4), 559-576. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116508095151 Dür, A., & De Bièvre, D. (2007). Inclusion without influence? NGOs in European trade policy. Journal of Public Policy, 27(1), 79-101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X0700061X Dür, A., Bernhagen, P., & Marshall, D. (2015). Interest group success in the European union: When (and why) does business lose? Comparative Political Studies, 48(8), 951-983. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414014565890 Eising, R. (2016). Studying interest groups: Methodological challenges and tools. European Political Science, 16(3), 291. https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2016.14 Elgersma, S., Canada. Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Canadian Government EBook Collection, & Canada. Library of Parliament. (2015). Immigration policy primer. Library of Parliament = Bibliothèque du Parlement. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/bdp-lop/eb/YM32-5-2015-42-eng.pdf Ellermann, A. (2020). The comparative politics of immigration policy: Policy choices in Canada, the United States, Germany and Switzerland [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Political Science. University of British Columbia. Engel, C., Matznetter, W., Van Bouwel, L., Waters, J., & Wolfeil, N. (2010). International student mobility and migration in Europe. BELGEO (Leuven), https://doi.org/10.4000/belgeo.838 Facchini, G., Mayda, A. M., & Mishra, P. (2011). Do interest groups affect US immigration policy? Journal of International Economics, 85(1), 114-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2011.05.006 Featherstone, M., & Ebrary Academic Complete (Canada) Subscription Collection. (1995). Undoing culture: Globalization, postmodernism and identity. Thousand Oaks; London; SAGE Publications. Findlay, A. M. (2011). An assessment of supply and demand‐side theorizations of international student mobility. International Migration, 49(2), 162-190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2435.2010.00643 Findlay, A. M., King, R., Smith, F. M., Geddes, A., & Skeldon, R. (2012). World class? An investigation of globalisation, difference and international student mobility. Transactions 240 - Institute of British Geographers (1965), 37(1), 118-131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2011.00454.x Fong, V. L. (2011). Paradise redefined: Transnational Chinese students and the quest for flexible citizenship in the developed world. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Foskett, N., & Maringe, F. (2010). Globalization and internationalization in higher education: Theoretical, strategic and management perspectives. New York; London: Continuum. Fraser, S. (2009). Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons, Fall 2009: Matters of special importance; main points - chapters 1 to 8; appendices. Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Freeman, R. (2014). Knowledge in policy: Embodied, inscribed, enacted. Bristol: Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447309987.001.0001 Frenette, M., Canadian Publications From 2013, & desLibris - Documents. (2019). Postsecondary experience and early labour market outcomes of international study permit holders. Statistics Canada = Statistique Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2019019-eng.htm Furukawa, T., Shirakawa, N., & Okuwada, K. (2013). An empirical study of graduate student mobility underpinning research universities. Higher Education, 66(1), 17-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9586-4 Gagnon, Y. (2010). The case study as research method: A practical handbook. Presses de l'Université du Québec. Gammeltoft-Hansen, T., & Sørensen, N. N. (2013). The migration industry and the commercialization of international migration. Abingdon, Oxon; New York; Routledge. Geddie, K. P. (2010). Transnational Landscapes of Opportunity? Post-graduation Settlement and Career Strategies of International Students in Toronto, Canada and London, UK (Order No. NR72154). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (869739925). https://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/dissertations-theses/transnational-landscapes-opportunity-post/docview/869739925/se-2?accountid=14656 Geddie, K. (2015). Policy mobilities in the race for talent: Competitive state strategies in international student mobility. Transactions - Institute of British Geographers (1965), 40(2), 235-248. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12072 George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 241 Global Affairs Canada (2018). Economic Impact of Education in Canada. Roslyn Kunin & Associates. https://www.international.gc.ca/education/report-rapport/impact-2017/sec-1.aspx?lang=eng Goldthorpe, J. H. (1991). The uses of history in sociology: Reflections on some recent tendencies. The British Journal of Sociology, 42(2), 211-230. https://doi.org/10.2307/590368 Gopal, A. (2016). Visa and immigration trends: A comparative examination of international student mobility in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly, 4(3), 130-141. https://doi.org/10.1002/sem3.20091 Gosh, R. (2004). Globalization in the North American region: Toward renegotiation of cultural space. McGill Journal of Education, 39, (1), 87 -102. Gough, N. (1999). Globalization and school curriculum change: Locating a transnational imaginary. Journal of Education Policy, 14(1), 73 -84. Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6) 1360-1380. Gregory, R. G. (2014). The two-step Australian immigration policy and its impact on immigrant employment. IAZ Discussion Paper Series No 8061. Germany. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53768-3.09977-X Gribble, C. (2008). Policy options for managing international student migration: The sending country's perspective. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(1), 25-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800701457830 Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (2001). Special interest politics. Cambridge, Mass: MIT. Gu, Q., Schweisfurth, M., & Day, C. (2010). Learning and growing in a 'foreign' context: Intercultural experiences of international students. Compare, 40(1), 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920903115983 Gürüz, K., & Ebrary Academic Complete (Canada) Subscription Collection. (2011). Higher education and international student mobility in the global knowledge economy (Rev. and updated 2nd ed.). Albany: State University of New York Press. Harrison, K., & Hoberg, G. (1994). Risk, Science, and Politics: Regulating Toxic Substances in Canada and the United States. Montréal, CA: McGill-Queen's University Press. 242 Haupt, A., Krieger, T., & Lange, T. (2016). Competition for the international pool of talent. Journal of Population Economics, 29(4), 1113-1154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-016-0601-4 Hawkins, J. N., Jacob, W. J., & Palgrave Education Collection. (2011). In W. James Jacob, John N. Hawkins, Hawkins J. N. and Jacob W. J. (Eds.), Policy debates in comparative, international, and development education. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230339361 Hawthorne, L. (2007). Labour market outcomes for migrant professionals: Canada and Australia compared. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2808943 Hawthorne, L. (2008). The growing global demand for students as skilled migrants. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/intlstudents_0.pdf Hawthorne, L. (2010). How valuable is “Two-step migration”? labor market outcomes for international student migrants to Australia. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal:APMJ, 19(1), 5-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/011719681001900102 Hawthorne, L. (2012). Designer Immigrants? International Students and Two-Step Migration. In Deardorff, D. K., Wit, H. D., & Heyl, J. The SAGE handbook of international higher education. 417-435. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications. Hawthorne, L., & To, A. (2014). Australian employer response to the Study‐Migration pathway: The quantitative evidence 2007‐2011. International Migration, 52(3), 99-115. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12154 Hazen, H. D., & Alberts, H. C. (2006). Visitors or immigrants? International students in the United States. Population, Space and Place, 12(3), 201-216. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.409 Heale, R., & Forbes, D. (2013). Understanding triangulation in research. Evidence-Based Nursing, 16(4), 98-98. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2013-101494 Heaney, M., & Leifeld, P. (2018). Contributions by Interest Groups to Lobbying Coalitions. Journal of Politics 80(2): 494–509. https://doi.org/10.1086/694545 Helboe Pedersen, H. (2013). Is measuring interest group influence a mission impossible? the case of interest group influence in the Danish parliament. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 2(1), 27-47. https://doi.org/10.1057/iga.2012.19 243 Hénard, F., L. Diamond & Roseveare, D. (2012). Approaches to Internationalisation and their implications for strategic management and institutional practice: A guide for higher education institutions, OECD. http://www.oecd.org/education/imhe/Approaches%20to%20internationalisation%20-%20final%20-%20web.pdf Henry, M., Lingard, B., Rizvi, F. & Taylor, S. (1999). Working with/against globalization in education. Journal of Education Policy, 14(1), 85-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/026809399286512 Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2015). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. Hochschild JL. (2009). Conducting Intensive Interviews and Elite Interviews. Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research [Internet]. https://scholar.harvard.edu/jlhochschild/publications/conducting-intensive-interviews-and-elite-interviews Hojnacki, M., Kimball, D. C., Baumgartner, F. R., Berry, J. M., & Leech, B. L. (2012). Studying organizational advocacy and influence: Reexamining interest group research. Annual Review of Political Science, 15(1), 379-399. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-070910-104051 Home Office United Kingdom. (2020, December 22). Covid-19: Guidance for Student sponsors, migrants and short-term students. Temporary concessions in response to Covid-19. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/948022/Student_Guidance_-_Covid-19_response.pdf Hou, F. (2015). Earnings advantage of landed immigrants who were previously temporary residents in Canada. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2015370-eng.htm Hou, F., Crossman, E. & Picot, G. (2020). Two-step immigration selection: An analysis of its expansion in Canada. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-626-x/11-626-x2020010-eng.htm Hudzik, J. K. (2014). Comprehensive internationalization: Institutional pathways to success. London; New York, NY; Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315771885 Hughes‐Warrington, M. (2012). The ethics of internationalisation in higher education: Hospitality, self‐presence and ‘being late’. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(3), 312-322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00674.x Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs Australia. (2020, July 20). Supporting international students to support Australian jobs. [Press release]. 244 https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/alantudge/Pages/supporting-international-students-support-australian-jobs.aspx Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Evaluation Division. (2011). Evaluation of the provincial nominee program. Ottawa: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-statistics/evaluations/provincial-nominee-program.html Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Evaluation Division. (2015). Evaluation of the international student program. Ottawa: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-statistics/evaluations/international-student-program.html Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Evaluation Division. (2018). Evaluation of the Provincial Nominee Program. Ottawa: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-statistics/evaluations/provincial-nominee-program-2015.html Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. (2019). IRCC Minister Transition Binder 2019: International students. Ottawa. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. https://www.Canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/transparency/transition-binders/minister-2019/students.html Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. (2020a). 2020 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration. https://www.Canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/pdf/pub/annual-report-2020-en.pdf Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. (2020b, March 20). Canada provides update on exemptions to travel restrictions to protect Canadians and support the economy [Press release]. https://www.Canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2020/03/Canada-provides-update-on-exemptions-to-travel-restrictions-to-protect-canadians-and-support-the-economy.html Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. (2020c, April 22). Removing barriers for international students working in essential services to fight COVID-19 [Press release]. https://www.Canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2020/04/removing-barriers-for-international-students-working-in-essential-services-to-fight-covid-19.html Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. (2020d, May 14). Flexibility in port-graduate work permit rules to help international students and Canadian post-secondary institutions. [Press release]. https://www.Canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/notices/pgwpp-rules-covid19.html 245 Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. (2020e, July 14). Minister Mendicino announces changes to facilitate online learning for international students. [Press release]. https://www.Canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2020/07/minister-mendicino-announces-changes-to-facilitate-online-learning-for-international-students.html Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. (2020f, October 2). Update on travel restrictions exemptions for international students [Press release]. https://www.Canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2020/10/update-on-travel-restriction-exemptions-for-international-students.html Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. (2020g, December). Measures to support international students during the COVID-19 pandemic. https://www.Canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2020/07/measures-to-support-international-students-during-the-covid-19-pandemic.html Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. (2021a, February). Government of Canada announces further measures to support international students. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2021/02/government-of-canada-announces-further-measures-to-support-international-students.html Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. (2021b, April). New pathway to permanent residency for over 90,000 essential temporary workers and international graduates. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2021/04/new-pathway-to-permanent-residency-for-over-90000-essential-temporary-workers-and-international-graduates.html Janzen, R. (2020, September 7). The summer in review. Academica Group. https://forum.academica.ca/forum/a-summary-of-summer-2020 Johnstone, M., & Lee, E. (2014). Branded international education and 21st-century Canadian immigration, education policy, and the welfare state. International Social Work, 57(3), 209-221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872813508572 Jones, G. A., Shubert, A., & Trilokekar, R. D. (2009). Canada's universities go global. Toronto: J. Lorimer & Co. Junk, W. M. (2020). Co-operation as currency: How active coalitions affect lobbying success. Journal of European Public Policy, 27(6), 873-892. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2019.1631377 Kachulis, E. & Perez-Leclerc, M. (2019). Temporary Foreign Workers in Canada Background Paper. Publication No. 2019-36-E. Library of Parliament, Ottawa, Canada. 246 Kamara, A. & Gambold, L. (2011). Immigration and Diversity: Exploring Challenges Facing International Students On and Off Campus. Canadian Diversity, 8(5), 25-29. Kapur, D., & McHale, J. (2005). Give us your best and brightest: The global hunt for talent and its impact on the developing world. Washington, D.C: Center for Global Development Karlsen, O. J. (2020). Decision-shaping from the outside: Measuring and explaining the degree of preference attainment in the EEA EFTA comments. University of Bergen. Karram, G. L. (2013). International students as lucrative markets or vulnerable populations: A critical discourse analysis of national and institutional events in four Nations. Canadian and International Education, 42(1), 1-13. Kehm, B., & Teichler, U. (2007). Research on internationalisation of higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, (3/4), 260 - 273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303534 Kell, P., & Vogl, G. (2010). Global student mobility in the Asia Pacific: Mobility, migration, security and wellbeing of international students. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. Khoo, S.M. (2011). Ethical globalization or privileged internationalization? Exploring global citizenship and internationalization in Irish and Canadian universities. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3-4), 337-353. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2011.605320 Khoo, S.M. (2012). Rerouting the postcolonial university: Educating for citizenship in managed times. In Andreotti, V., & Souza, Lynn Mario T. Menezes de. (Eds.) (2012). Postcolonial perspectives on global citizenship education. (pp. 200-220). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203156155-20 King, R. & Ruiz-Gelices, R. (2003). International student migration and the European “year-abroad”: Effects on European identity and subsequent migration behaviour. International Journal of Population Geography, 9(3), 229-252. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijpg.280 Klingemann, H., & CRKN MiL Collection. (2006; 2007). Mapping policy preferences II: Estimates for parties, electors, and governments in eastern Europe, European Union, and OECD 1990-2003. New York; Oxford;: Oxford University Press. Klüver, H. (2011). The contextual nature of lobbying: Explaining lobbying success in the European Union. European Union Politics, 12(4), 483-506. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116511413163 Klüver, H. (2013). Lobbying in the European Union: Interest groups, lobbying coalitions, and policy change (First ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199657445.001.0001 247 Knight, J., & Association of Universities & Colleges of Canada. (2000). Progress and promise: The 2000 AUCC report on internationalization at Canadian universities. Ottawa: Assn of Universities & Colleges of Canada. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315303260832 Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (1999). Strategies for internationalization of higher education: historical and conceptual perspectives. In Knight & de Wit (Eds.), Quality and internationalisation in higher education. Paris: OECD. Kubota, R. (2009). Internationalization of universities: Paradoxes and responsibilities. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 612-616. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00934.x Lacina, J. G. (2002). Preparing International Students for a Successful Social Experience in Higher Education. New Directions for Higher Education, 2002(117), 21-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.43 Laver, M., Benoit, K., & Garry, J. (2003). Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. The American Political Science Review, 97(2), 311-331. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000698 Leask, B. & Carroll, J. (2011) Moving beyond “wishing and hoping”: Internationalization and student experiences of inclusion and engagement. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(5), 647-659. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.598454 Lin, J. G., & Yi, J. K. (1997). Asian international students’ adjustment: Issues and program suggestions. College Student Journal, 31(4), 473- 479. Lo, L., Li, W., & Yu, W. (2019). Highly‐skilled migration from China and India to Canada and the United States. International Migration, 57(3), 317-333. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12388 Lowery, D. (2007). Why do organized interests lobby? A multi-goal, multi-context theory of lobbying. Polity, 39(1), 29-54. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300077 Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review, 32(4), 298-310. https://doi.org/10.2307/974990 Lu, Y., Canadian Government EBook Collection, & Statistics Canada. (2015). International students who become permanent residents in Canada. Ottawa: Statistics Canada = Statistique Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2015001/article/14299-eng.htm 248 Lu, Y., Zong, L., & Schissel, B. (2009). To stay or return: migration intentions of students from People’s Republic of China in Saskatchewan, Canada. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 10(3), 283-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-009-0103-2 Magnussen, J. (2000). Examining higher education and citizenship in a global context of neoliberal restructuring. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 22(1), 73-88. Mahler, S. J. (1995). American Dreaming: Immigrant Life on the Margins. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mahoney, C. (2007) Lobbying Success in the United States and the European Union, Journal of Public Policy 27(1), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X07000608 Mahoney, C. (2007b). Networking vs. allying: The decision of interest groups to join coalitions in the US and the EU. Journal of European Public Policy: Empirical and Theoretical Studies in EU Lobbying, 14(3), 366-383. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760701243764 Mahoney, C., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2015). Partners in advocacy: Lobbyists and government officials in Washington. The Journal of Politics, 77(1), 202-215. https://doi.org/10.1086/678389 Marginson, S. (1999). After globalization: emerging politics of education. Journal of Education Policy 14, (1), 19 - 31. https://doi.org/10.1080/026809399286477 Marginson, S. (2018). The UK in the global student market: second place for how much longer? Centre for Global Higher Education. https://www.researchcghe.org/perch/resources/publications/the-uk-in-the-global-student-market.pdf Maringe, F. & Foskett, N. (Eds.) (2010). Globalisation and internationalization in Higher Education: Theoretical, strategic and management perspectives. London: Continuum International Publishing. Matthews, J. (2002). International education and internationalization are not the same as globalization: Emerging issues for secondary schools. Journal of Studies in International Education, 6, (4), 369 - 390. https://doi.org/10.1177/102831502237642 Martel, L., Canadian Publications From 2013, Statistics Canada (English), & Canada. (2015). Recent changes in demographic trends in Canada. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2015001/article/14240-eng.htm Massey, D. S., & Malone, N. (2002). Pathways to legal immigration. Population Research and Policy Review, 21(6), 473-504. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022914700681 249 McKay, A. (2012). Buying policy? the effects of lobbyists' resources on their policy success. Political Research Quarterly, 65(4), 908-923. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912911424285 Mehoob, F., & Atlin, J. (2020, November 20). Canada’s appeal to prospective immigrants in the face of COVID-19. World Education Services. https://wenr.wes.org/2020/11/Canadas-appeal-to-prospective-immigrants-in-the-face-of-covid-19#:~:text=To%20understand%20the%20potential%20impact%20on%20prospective%20immigrants,were%20changing%20over%20time%20as%20the%20pandemic%20unfolded. Meijnen, G. W. (1991). Bourdieu: Education and cultural capital. International Journal of Educational Research, 15(1), 13. Mestenhauser, J. (1998). Reforming the higher education curriculum: Internationalizing the campus. Phoenix, Arizona: American Council on Education & Oryx Press. Series on Higher Education. Milanovic, B. (2011) The haves and the have-nots: A brief and idiosyncratic history of global inequality, New York: Basic Books. Milanovic, B. (2005) Worlds apart: Measuring international and global inequality. Princeton University Press. Ministry of Education New Zealand. (2020, July 28). Rebuilding international education [Press release]. https://education.govt.nz/news/rebuilding-international-education/ Moores, L., & Popadiuk, N. (2011). Positive aspects of international student transitions: A qualitative inquiry. Journal of College Student Development, 52(3), 291-306. Mosley, L. (2013). Interview Research in Political Science, Cornell University Press, Ithaca N.Y. Mueller, R., & desLibris - Documents. (2006). Restricted immigration of foreign students to the United States in the post 9/11 period: Is the US loss a gain for Canada? Prairie Metropolis Centre. NAFSA. (2020, November 20). Sustain international student enrollment at U.S. Colleges and Universities impacted by COVID-19. NAFSA Association of International Educators. https://www.nafsa.org/policy-and-advocacy/policy-resources/sustain-international-student-enrollment-us-colleges-and-universities-impacted-covid-19 New Zealand Qualifications Authority. (2016). Pastoral care of international students. https://www.nzqa.govt.nz/assets/Providers-and-partners/Code-of-Practice/Pastoral-care-of-international-students.pdf 250 Nott, W. (2020, November 6). Positive signal to international students as Canada sets immigration targets. The Pie News. https://thepienews.com/news/positive-signal-to-intl-students-as-Canada-sets-immigration-targets/?mc_cid=90cf72c412&mc_eid=30ffe574ab Nunes, S., & Arthur, N. (2013). International students' experiences of integrating into the workforce. Journal of Employment Counseling, 50(1), 34-45. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1920.2013.00023.x OECD (2004), Internationalisation and Trade in Higher Education: Opportunities and Challenges, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (2006), From Immigration to Integration: Local Solutions to a Global Challenge, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1787/9789264028968-en OECD (2009), Higher Education to 2030, Volume 2: Globalisation, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (2012), International Migration Outlook 2012, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD. (2014). Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2014-en OECD (2018), How is the tertiary-educated population evolving?, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 61, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/a17e95dc-en OECD (2019), International Migration Outlook 2019, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/c3e35eec-en OECD (2019), Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en OECD (2020), Education at a Glance 2020: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en OECD & The World Bank. (2007). Cross-Border Tertiary Education: A Way Towards Capacity Development, OECD Publishing, Paris. Ono, S.J. [@ubcprez]. (2020, October 2). This is great news! I’m grateful to the federal and provincial governments. [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/ubcprez/status/1312133584258392064 UNESCO (2009), Global Education Digest 2009, UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Montreal. Pang, J. (2005). The internationalization of university: From an ethical perspective. Canadian Social Science, 1(3), 113-118. https://doi.org/10.1.1.674.7878 251 Papademetriou, D. G., Benton, M. & Hooper, K. (2019). Equipping immigrant selection systems for a changing world of work. Washington, D.C., Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/TCM-Competitiveness-CouncilStatement-Final.pdf Papademetriou, D. G., & Hooper, K. (2019). Competing approaches to selecting economic immigrants: Points-based vs. demand-driven systems. Washington, D.C., Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/TCM-Competitiveness-SelectionSystems-Final.pdf Paquet, M. (2014). The federalization of immigration and integration in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 47(3), 519-548. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423914000766 Paquet, M. (2015). Bureaucrats as immigration policy-makers: The case of subnational immigration activism in Canada, 1990-2010. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(11), 1815-1835. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1023185 Paquet, M. (2017) Wicked problem definition and gradual institutional change: federalism and immigration in Canada and Australia. Policy and Society, 36:3, 446-463. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14494035.2017.1361638 Pechar, H. & Andres, L. (2011). Higher education policy and welfare regimes: International comparative perspectives. Higher Education Policy, 24, 25-52. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2010.24 Perkins, R. & Neumayer, E. (2014), Geographies of educational mobilities: Exploring the uneven flows of international students, The Geographical Journal, 180(3), 246-259, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12045. Perna, L. W., Orosz, K., Jumakulov, Z., Kishkentayeva, M., & Ashirbekov, A. (2015). Understanding the programmatic and contextual forces that influence participation in a government-sponsored international student-mobility program. Higher Education, 69(2), 173-188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9767-4 Peters, B. G., Jordan, A., & Tosun, J. (2017). Over-reaction and under-reaction in climate policy: An institutional analysis. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 19(6), 612-624. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2017.1348225 Pherali, T. J. (2012). Academic mobility, language, and cultural capital: The experience of transnational academics in British higher education institutions. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(4), 313-333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315311421842 252 Phinney, R. (2017). Strange bedfellows: Interest group coalitions, diverse partners, and influence in American social policy. New York, NY, USA; Cambridge, United Kingdom. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316756287 Picot, W. G., Hou, F., & Statistics Canada. Analytical Studies Branch. (2003). The rise in low-income rates among immigrants in Canada. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Analytical Studies Branch. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/catalogue/11F0019M2003198 Picot, G., Hou, F., Coulombe, S., Statistics Canada. Analytical Studies Branch, & Statistics Canada. Business and Labour Market Analysis Division. (2007). Chronic low income and low-income dynamics among recent immigrants. Ottawa: Business and Labour Market Analysis Division, Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2007294-eng.htm Prazeres, L. (2013). International and Intra‐national student mobility: Trends, motivations and identity. Geography Compass, 7(11), 804-820. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12080 Preston, V., Damsbaek, N., Kelly, P., Lemoine, M., Lo, L., & Shields, J. (2010a). What are the labour market outcomes for university-educated immigrants? Toronto Immigrant Employment Data Initiative Analytical Report No. 8. York University, Toronto. Preston, V., Damsbaek, N., Kelly, P., Lemoine, M., Lo, L., & Shields, J. (2010b). Do country of birth and educational attainment affect the labour market outcomes of immigrants? Toronto Immigrant Employment Data Initiative Analytical Report No. 13. York University, Toronto. Pritoni, A. (2015). How to measure interest group influence: Italy’s professional orders and liberalization policy. Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana Di Scienza Politica, 45(2), 183-202. https://doi.org/10.1017/ipo.2015.10 Proksch, S., & Slapin, J. B. (2009). How to avoid pitfalls in statistical analysis of political texts: The case of Germany. German Politics, 18(3), 323-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644000903055799 Prokopenko, E., & Hou, F. (2018). How temporary were Canada's temporary foreign workers? Analytical Studies Branch Research Papers Series, Statistics Canada. Catalogue no. 11F0019M-No. 402, Ottawa. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2018402-eng.htm Quinn, C. (2020, October 5). Canada to open borders to international students from October 20. The PIE news. https://thepienews.com/news/Canada-open-borders-student-oct/ Rahguram, P. (2012). Theorising the Spaces of Student Migration. Population, Space and Place. Special issue: International Student Migration. 19(2): 138-154. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1747 253 Reitz, J. G. (2007). Immigrant employment success in Canada, Part I: Individual and contextual causes. Journal of International Migration and Integration / Revue De l'Integration Et De La Migration Internationale, 8(1), 11-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-007-0001-4 Reitz, J. G. (2007). Immigrant employment success in Canada, Part II: Understanding the decline. Journal of International Migration and Integration / Revue De l'Integration Et De La Migration Internationale, 8(1), 37-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-007-0002-3 Rheault, L. (2013). Corporate lobbying and immigration policies in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 46(3), 691-32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000842391300064 Rhoads, R. A., & Szelenyi, K. (2011) Global citizenship and the university: Advancing social life and relations in an interdependent world. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Rich, A., (2004). Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge, UK; New York; Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509889 Rizvi, F. (2011). Theorizing student mobility in an era of globalization. Teachers and Teaching, 17(6), 693-711. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2011.625145 Rizvi, F. & Lingard, B. (2000). Globalization and education: Complexities and contingencies. Educational Theory, 50(4), 419-426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2000.00419.x Robertson, S.L. (2005). Re-imagining and rescripting the future of education: global knowledge economy discourses and the challenge to education systems. Comparative Education, 41 (2), 151-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060500150922 Sadlack, J. (1998). Globalization and concurrent challenges for higher education. In P. Scott (Ed.). The globalization of higher education. United Kingdom. The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Samuel, T. J. (1988). Family class immigrants to Canada 1981-1984: Part 2: Some aspects of social adaptation. International Migration, 26(3), 287. Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and Evidence‐Based policy making. Oxford, UK and Boston, USA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00292 Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research methods for business students (4th ed.). Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Savage, J., & Bellaire, R. (1981). Universities and the federal government. In Nowlan, D. & Bellaire, R. (Eds.), Financing Canadian universities: By whom and for whom? (pp.140-147). Toronto: OISE Press. 254 Scott, C., Safdar, S., Desai Trilokekar, R., & El Masri, A. (2015). International students as ‘Ideal immigrants’ in Canada: A disconnect between policy makers’ assumptions and the lived experiences of international students. Comparative and International Education (Ottawa, Ont.), 43(3). https://doi.org/10.5206/cie-eci.v43i3.9261 Scherrer, J. (2013). The negative effects of student mobility: Mobility as a predictor, mobility as a mediator. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 8(1). Scherrer, J. (2013). The negative effects of student mobility: Mobility as a predictor, mobility as a mediator. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.22230/ijepl.2013v8n1a400 Schmidt, S. (2004, Oct 29). Canada losing out on education exports, officials say: [all but ottawa@ toronto edition]. National Post. https://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/330196730?accountid=14656 Schneider, G. & Baltz, K. (2005). Domesticated Eurocrats: Bureaucratic Discretion in the Legislative Pre-Negotiations of the European Union, Acta Politica 40(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500092 Seidle, F. L., & desLibris - Documents. (2013). Canada's provincial nominee immigration programs securing greater policy alignment. Institute for Research on Public Policy. Shan, H. (2009) Shaping the re-training and re-education experiences of immigrant women: The credential and certificate regime in Canada. The International Journal of Lifelong Education, 28(3), 353-369. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370902799150 Shanahan, T. & Jones, G. (2007). Shifting roles and approaches: government coordination of post-secondary education in Canada 1995-2006. Higher Education Research and Development, 26(1), 31-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360601166794 She, Q., & Wotherspoon, T. (2013). International student mobility and highly skilled migration: A comparative study of Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Springerplus, 2(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-132 Shen, Y., & Herr, E. L. (2004). Career placement concerns of international graduate students: A qualitative study. Journal of Career Development, 31, 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOCD.0000036703.83885.5d Shields, R. (2013). Globalization and international student mobility: A network analysis. Comparative Education Review, 57(4), 609-636. https://doi.org/10.1086/671752 255 Sidhu, R. (2002). Educational brokers in global education markets. Journal of Studies in International Education, 6(1), 16 - 43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315302006001003 Simeon, R. (2014). Federal-provincial diplomacy: The making of recent policy in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Soon, J. (2012). Home is Where the Heart Is? Factors Determining International Students' Destination Country upon Completion of Studies Abroad. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(1), 147-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2012.640026 Souto-Otero, M., Huisman, J., Beerkens, M., de Wit, H., & Vujic, S. (2013). Barriers to international student mobility: Evidence from the Erasmus program. Educational Researcher, 42(2), 70-77. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12466696 Stein, S. (2018). National exceptionalism in the ‘EduCanada’ brand: Unpacking the ethics of internationalization marketing in Canada. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 39(3), 461-477. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2016.1276884 Stein, S., & de Andreotti, V. O. (2016). Cash, competition, or charity: International students and the global imaginary. Higher Education, 72(2), 225-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9949-8 Stein, S., Andreotti, V., Bruce, J., & Suša, R. (2016). Towards different conversations about the internationalization of higher education. Comparative and International Education (Ottawa, Ont.), 45(1)https://doi.org/10.5206/cie-eci.v45i1.9281 Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality (1st ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Sweetman, A., & Warman, C. (2014). Former temporary foreign workers and international students as sources of permanent immigration. Canadian Public Policy / Analyse De Politiques, 40(4), 391-407. https://doi.org/10.3138/cpp.2012-021 Tamburri, R. (2008). Canada works on a brand for postsecondary education. University Affairs, 49(2), 29-32. https://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/233295741?accountid=14656 Tamburri, R. (2008). Canada launches an education brand. University Affairs, 49(9), 34-35. https://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/233297611?accountid=14656 Tansey, O. (2007). Process tracing and elite interviewing: A case for non-probability sampling. PS: Political Science and Politics, 40(4), 765-772. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096507071211 256 Teichler, U. (2012). International student mobility and the Bologna process. Research in Comparative and International Education, 7(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2012.7.1.34 Thevenot, S., & El-Assal, K. (2021, May 7). Canada’s new international graduate stream reaches cap. CIC News. https://www.cicnews.com/2021/05/canadas-new-international-graduate-stream-reaches-cap-0517985.html#gs.2pcckd Tichenor, D. J. (2002). Dividing lines: The politics of immigration control in America. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. Tremblay, K. (2005). Academic mobility and immigration. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9(3), 196-228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315305277618 Triadiafilapoulos, T. (2010). Global norms, domestic institutions and the transformation of immigration policy in Canada and the US. Review of International Studies, 36(1), 169-193. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210509990556 Trilokekar, R. D. (2010). International education as soft power? The contributions and challenges of Canadian foreign policy to the internationalization of higher education. Higher Education, 59(2), 131-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9240-y Trilokekar, R. D., & Kizilbash, Z. (2013). IMAGINE: Canada as a leader in international education. How can Canada benefit from the Australian experience? The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 43(2), 1-26. Tsebelis, G. (1995). Decision making in political systems: Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 289-325. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400007225 UNESCO (2006) Global Education Digest 2006, UIS, Montreal, Canada, 33. https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/global-education-digest-2006-comparing-education-statistics-across-the-world-en_0.pdf United States Department of Education. (2020). CARES Act: Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/caresact.html United States Department of Education. (2021). CRRSAA: Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF II). https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/crrsaa.html#:~:text=The%20Higher%20Education%20Emergency%20Relief%20Fund%20II%20(HEERF,President%20Donald%20J.%20Trump%20on%20Dec.%2027,%202020 257 United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2020, July 24). Broadcast message: Follow-up: ICE continues March guidance for fall school term. https://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/bcmFall2020guidance.pdf Van Evera, S. (2016). Guide to methods for students of political science. Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/j.ctvrf8bm7 Van Mol, Christof. (2014). Intra-European Student Mobility in International Higher Education Circuits: Europe on the Move. Palgrave Macmillan. London. van der Wende, M. (2007). Internationalization of Higher Education in the OECD Countries: Challenges and Opportunities for the coming decade. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 274-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303543 Voltolini, B., & Eising, R. (2016). Framing processes and lobbying in EU foreign policy: Case study and process-tracing methods. European Political Science, 16(3), 354. https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2016.18 Wachter, B. (2003). An introduction: Internationalization at home in context. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(1), 5-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315302250176 Wallerstein, I. (2004). World systems analysis: An introduction. Duke University Press. Walton-Roberts, M. W. (2011). Immigration, the university and the welcoming second tier city. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 12(4), 453-473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-011-0187-3 Waters, J.L. (2006). Education, Migration and Cultural Capital in the Chinese Diaspora: Transnational students between Hong Kong and Canada. Cambria Press. New York. Weaver, R. K., & Rockman, B. A. (1993). Do institutions matter? Government capabilities in the United States and abroad. Washington, D.C: The Brookings Institution. Wei, H. (2013). An empirical study on the determinants of international student mobility: A global perspective. Higher Education, 66(1), 105-122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9593-5 Weirs-Jenssen, J. & Try, S. (2005). Labour market outcomes of Higher Education undertaken abroad. Studies in Higher Education, 30, 681-705. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500340028 Weisser, R. (2016). Internationally mobile students and their post-graduation migratory behaviour: An analysis of determinants of student mobility and retention rates in the EU. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 186. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlwxbvmb5zt-en 258 Wells, A. (2014). International student mobility: Approaches, challenges and suggestions for further research. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143, 19-24. Wen, W., & Hu, D. (2019). The emergence of a regional education hub: Rationales of international students’ choice of China as the study destination. Journal of Studies in International Education, 23(3), 303-325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315318797154 West, A., & Nikolai, R. (2013). Welfare regimes and education regimes: Equality of opportunity and expenditure in the EU (and US). Journal of Social Policy, 42(3), 469-25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279412001043 Wilson, J. Q. (1980). The politics of regulation. New York: Basic Books. Wong, C. (2006). Lobbying for inclusion: Rights politics and the making of immigration policy. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press. Woodside, A. G., & Wilson, E. J. (2003). Case study research methods for theory building. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 18(6/7), 493-508. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858620310492374 World Education Services. (2020). Canada’s appeal to prospective immigrants in the face of COVID-19. https://knowledge.wes.org/rs/317-CTM-316/images/wes-research-report-Canada-appeal-to-prospective-immigrants-in-the-face-of-covid-19.pdf Zadja, Joseph. (2015). Second International Handbook on Globalization, Education and Policy Research. Springer. The Netherlands. Zgaga, P. (2009). Higher education and citizenship: ‘the full range of purposes.’ European Educational Research Journal, 8(2), 175-188. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2009.8.2.175 Zilio, M & Chiose, S. (2016, March 14). Ottawa looks to ease international students’ path to permanent residency. The Globe and Mail. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-looks-to-ease-international-students-path-to-permanent-residency/article29242266/ Ziguras, C. and Law, S.F. (2006). Recruiting international students as skilled migrants: The global ‘skills race’ as viewed from Australia and Malaysia. Globalisation, Societies and Education, (4), 59 –76. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767720600555087 259 Appendices Appendix A Ministerial Instruction Provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 260 Source: Elgersma, Sandra. (2015) Immigration Policy Primer. Publication No. 2015-42-E. Library of Parliament. Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Government of Canada. 261 Appendix B Provincial Nominee Program provisions for international students262 Appendix C Summary of lobbying records of the higher education sector related to international student recruitment and immigration C.1 Lobbying registrations and reports by subject 2008-2017 C.2 Lobbying registrations and reports by government department 2008-2017 Organization Education ImmigrationInternational TradeInternational RelationsColleges and Institutes Canada 270 124 0 67ACCC 43 27 0 0Universities Canada 1053 228 211 411AUCC 156 101 71 78Languages Canada 26 26 4 4CBIE 87 24 13 23Polytechnics Canada 240 75 8 26OrganizationIRCC CIC Global AffairsDepartment of Foreign Affairs and International TradeForeign Affairs, Trade and DevelopmentPrime Ministers OfficePrivy CouncilColleges and Institutes Canada 99 35 113 12 27 83 59ACCC 12 12 11 6 11 18 12Universities Canada 205 90 194 93 90 220 227AUCC 98 87 46 89 25 117 144Languages Canada 22 5 13 1 2 0 2CBIE 26 11 25 15 11 20 23Polytechnics Canada 84 58 38 46 12 0 80263 Appendix D Media Analysis D.1 Frequency of key words in media related to international students 1990-2017 264 265 D.2 Media analysis economic versus immigrant frame 2006-2014 266 D.3 Spokesperson analysis in the media on international student recruitment and immigration 267 Appendix E Interview Scripts E.1 Government representatives interview script I. Introduction Thank you for taking the time to speak to me today. My research is on the influence of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and their professional associations on immigration policy over the last 20 years. I am interested in your account of the discussions, activities or actions you had in your role as _ _______________ with those in the higher education sector related to international students. I am also interested in your opinion on the immigration policy changes that have taken place, particularly those for international students studying in Canada. The interview has a series of questions and will take approximately 40-45 minutes to complete. Your participation in this interview is completely voluntary and you can withdraw from participating at any time in the process. Your responses will be confidential and not attributed to you. Dissemination of the research will only be reported in aggregate form and will be part of my doctoral dissertation and possibly academic journal articles. With your consent I would like to audio record our conversation so that I do not miss any of the information you provide. If you do not wish to have the interview audio recorded, then I ask for your permission to take handwritten notes. As a result of my ongoing research, I have a solid understanding of the regulatory changes that have taken place, and the prior and current state of immigration policy as it relates to international students. I hope you will be able to provide me with greater detail and insight into how some of these changes took place. II. Interview Questions 1. How did the issue of study and work visas for international students first come to your attention? 2. Who were the main stakeholders and what issues were they interested in? i. How did they bring their concerns or preferences to you? 3. Did provincial level government representatives ever directly advocate for immigration policy changes? i. In what ways might this have taken place? Please provide some examples. ii. What key messages were used? 268 4. In your role as [insert professional title] did you ever directly advocate for greater government support or policy changes affecting international students? i. What requests did you personally make and how were these requests made? Please provide examples if you can. 5. How were the requests for government action received by government officials at the time? i. Do you recall if there was any resistance on the part of other stakeholder groups or advocacy for different policy choices from other organizations? 6. To what extent do you think higher education institutions have influenced the visa and immigration policy changes that have taken place over the last 20 years? How close were the changes aligned to the recommendations made? 269 E.2 Higher Education representatives interview script I. Introduction Thank you for taking the time to speak to me today. My research is on the influence of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and their professional associations on immigration policy over the last 20 years. I am interested in your account of the discussions, activities or actions you and your organization may have participated in to advocate for change in immigration policies and regulations. I am also interested in your opinion on the immigration policy changes that have taken place, particularly those for international students studying in Canada. The interview has a series of questions and will take approximately 40-45 minutes to complete. Your participation in this interview is completely voluntary and you can withdraw from participating at any time in the process. Your responses will be confidential and not attributed to you. Dissemination of the research will only be reported in aggregate form and will be part of my doctoral dissertation and possibly academic journal articles. With your consent I would like to audio record our conversation so that I do not miss any of the information you provide. If you do not wish to have the interview audio recorded, then I ask for your permission to take handwritten notes. As a result of my ongoing research, I have a solid understanding of the regulatory changes that have taken place, and the prior and current state of immigration policy as it relates to international students. I hope you will be able to provide me with greater detail and insight into how some of these changes became policy. II. Interview Questions 1. Did [affiliated institution] ever directly advocate for immigration policy changes? i. In what ways might this have taken place? Please provide some examples. ii. What key messages were used? iii. When did this advocacy take place? 2. In your role as [insert professional title] did you ever directly advocate for greater government support or policy changes affecting international students? i. What requests did you personally make and how were these requests made? Please provide examples if you can. ii. When did this advocacy take place? 270 3. Did your institution/organization act on its own, or was there coordination of activities with other institutions and organizations? i. If there was coordination of some kind, which organizations did you coordinate with and when and how did this coordination take place? 4. How were the requests for government action received by government officials at the time? 5. Was there any resistance on the part of other stakeholder groups or advocacy for different policy choices from other organizations? 6. To what extent do you think higher education institutions have influenced the visa and immigration policy changes that have taken place over the last 20 years? i. How close were the changes aligned to the recommendations made? 271 Appendix F Interview methods table Code Category Status Source Date Format Length (minutes) Record 1 HEI Completed Identified 18-Nov-18 In person 40 Recorded 2 HEI Completed Identified 5-Feb-19 Phone 65 Notes 3 HEI Completed Identified 6-Feb-19 Phone 45 Recorded 4 HEI Completed Referred 8-Feb-19 Phone 45 Recorded 5 HEI Completed Identified 18-Nov-18 In person 50 Recorded 6 HEI Completed Identified 19-Nov-18 In person 70 Recorded 7 HEI Completed Identified 21-Nov-18 In person 65 Recorded 8 HEI Completed Identified 23-Jun-19 In person 60 Notes 9 HEI Completed Identified 11-Jul-19 Phone 40 Recorded 10 HEI Completed Identified 5-Dec-18 Phone 45 Recorded 11 HEI Completed Identified 11-May-19 Phone 60 Recorded 12 HEI Completed Identified 22-Nov-18 In person 55 Recorded 13 HEI Completed Identified 14-Jan-19 In person 55 Recorded 14 HEI Completed Identified 15-May-19 Phone 45 Recorded 15 HEI Completed Identified 15-May-19 Phone 45 Recorded 16 HEI Completed Identified 16-Jan-19 In person 60 Recorded 17 HEI Completed Identified 12-Feb-19 In person 40 Recorded 18 HEI Completed Identified 21-Jan-20 In person 45 Recorded 19 HEI Declined Identified N/A N/A N/A N/A 272 20 Gov’t Completed Identified 20-Nov-18 In person 50 Recorded 21 Gov’t Completed Identified 20-Nov-18 In person 55 Recorded 22 Gov’t Completed Identified 5-Jun-19 Phone 55 Recorded 23 Gov’t Completed Identified 17-Jul-19 Phone 55 Notes 24 Gov’t Completed Referred 22-Jan-20 In person 45 Recorded 25 Gov’t Completed Identified 22-Jun-19 In Person 55 Notes 26 Gov’t Completed Identified 17-Jul-19 Phone 40 Recorded 27 Gov’t Completed Identified May 8 2019 Phone 45 Notes 28 Gov’t Completed Referred 11-Jun-19 Phone 60 Notes 29 Gov’t Completed Identified 9-Feb-19 Phone 45 Notes 30 Gov’t Completed Referred 19-Jun-19 Phone 60 Notes 31 Gov’t Completed Identified 10-May-19 Phone 45 Notes 32 Gov’t Completed Identified 10-May-19 Phone 45 Recorded 33 Gov’t Completed Identified 29-Jun-19 Phone 45 Recorded 34 Gov’t Declined Identified N/A N/A N/A N/A 35 Gov’t Declined Identified N/A N/A N/A N/A 36 Gov’t Declined Identified N/A N/A N/A N/A 37 Gov’t Declined Identified N/A N/A N/A N/A 273 Appendix G Causal Process Observations Type of CPO Description Examples Evidence of HEI sector preferencesEvidence of strategies used by the HEI sectorEvidence of access to decision makersResponses to decision makersHEI sector preferences reflected in legislation and regulation outcomesPredicted behaviourEvidence that actors make choices and behave as a theory predicts.Actions of actors are in line with what a theory expects them to do.HEI sector deeply engaged in the topic, active lobbying from national associations; institutional investmentCreation of a coalition; use of government allies when access to key decision makers proved challengingHEI use formal and informal mechanisms of communication with policy makers.Formal inclusion in policy consultations; initiating one time and then ongoing federal investment requiring a response from provinces; addressing student visa processing delays Strong alignment in visa processing and work authorizations; Partial alignment in degree of federal investment and immigration pathwaysPreferencesObservations or evidence about preferred alternatives from specific actors’ statements (public or private) or through their behaviour.Actor statements in privateDirect comments from HEI interviews confirming preferences for investment, improved visa processing, work authorization and immigration options for the purposes of international student recruitment.Interviews explaining who in government HEIs went to first; multiple approach of participating widely in both provincial and federal discussions; use of associations to drive federal access to decision makers along with institutions participating in provincial consultationsSpecific recall of conversations between government and HEI sector noted in interviews. Details of specific meetings shared but not explicitly included for confidentiality reasonsInterviews confirming the preferences of the HEI sector and which government interests were aligned or resistant; investment in a Pan Canadian approach called for by HEIs and developing the first National - International Education Strategy in CanadaStreamlining and easing some requirements of the student visa application; commitment of resources and technology upgrades to process student visas faster; significant changes to work authorization for international students and graduates; development of dedicated immigration streams for international graduates; preference of Canadian credentials in apply through Express EntryActor statements in publicQuotes from national association leaders in published documents and in the mediaLimited media attention sought by HEIs to maintain client politics and reduce issue salience with the public; more candid comments made in stakeholder meetingsHEI sector representative responses usually in response to government announcements; Public statements focus on the economic benefits of international students and the expanding importance of the sectorOngoing funding for pan Canadian branding and international student recruitment within Global Affairs. Additional investments in visa processing to improve processing speed and reduce barrier to applicants through overseas education processing centers274 Type of CPO Description Examples Evidence of HEI sector preferencesEvidence of strategies used by the HEI sectorEvidence of access to decision makersResponses to decision makersHEI sector preferences reflected in legislation and regulation outcomesConsiderationsEvidence of actors explaining actions through particular goals, beliefs, costs or benefits. Actor statement in privateIn interviews there is evidence of HEI institutional stakeholders requesting a government response to competition and making it easier for international students to select Canada; Interviews speak to pointing out the challenges they are facing as they recruit international students to their institutions. Interview comments on presenting the "opportunity" to Foreign Affairs of international students as a revenue source; use of a competition lens to government and explaining that Canada was "falling behind"Lobby records and interviews confirm this messaging was researching key decision makers, particularly as the importance of the international education sector was growingGovernment picked up on the competition frame being used and the idea of international students being ideal as immigrants; undertook their own research and evaluationPost Graduate Work Permit becomes a major source of temporary foreign workersConditions which will motivate actor preferencesPublic interests in diversity, cultural exchange and making up for declining domestic enrolments and tuition revenue; Initial cutbacks to government funding of HEI institutionsUsing a competition frame around a policy response federally; quotes in the media; references in interviews; linking Canadian education experience to ideal immigrants evidence found in interviews, media and public documentsExtensive consultation of sector interests federally through the Advisory Board on the International Education StrategyDemographic shifts in the population making immigration in general a government priority; relative acceptance from the public for greater numbers of immigrants and the relatively positive public sentiment to international students relative to other immigration categories n/aActors achieve an action by undertaking something costly or difficult.Interviews reveal the difficulty in finding a way to access those in immigration (CIC/IRCC) Lobbying, consultations and presentations to government; and use of government allies in DFAIT/Global Affairs to access decision makers within CICInterviewees confirm meetings with overseas commissions early in process to deal with visa processing issues. Pilot program launched to address inherent bias in student visa processing issuingStudent Partners Program launched and then expanded into the Student Direct StreamObserving a change in outcome as resource levels change.Regulatory and legislative changes coincide with substantive increases in international student numbers in Canada, which experienced a gain in market share of international students, and signficant increases in the number of international students transitioning to temporary work and permanent residence with numbers continuing to rise year on year Use of overseas trade missions for support of international recruitment activities overseas; participation in international recruitment activities in conjunction with the EduCanada BrandMore open and transparent lines of communication to those in IRCC have been established with the creation of advisory committees from the HEI sector; expansion of those in the overseas missions having dedicated staff to handle the education fileMoving beyond only target numbers of international students in the International Education Strategy but moving towards building diversity of geographic regions where international students come fromTemporary federal investment increased and becomes ongoing; additional enhancements to international student pathways; preferential regulations275 Type of CPO Description Examples Evidence of HEI sector preferencesEvidence of strategies used by the HEI sectorEvidence of access to decision makersResponses to decision makersHEI sector preferences reflected in legislation and regulation outcomesInformation and beliefsEvidence that actors know, have information about or believe what the theory says they know or believe about the constraints they face.Evidence of the availability of informationNational association generated reports on the international student recruitment activity and internationalization of higher education interests of member institutions; No substantive evidence of reports or public documents commissioned by national associations Access to decision makers confirmed through interviewsStatistics Canada reports on economic outcomes of immigrants with Canadian education experience; Economic impact reports commissioned; additional reports commissioned on the capacity of HEIs to receive international students; and the policy responses of different comparator countriesEvidence of the transmission of information or ideas.Consultations through both formal venues (documented) and informal discussions (explained through interviews) Interviews mention the additional research undertaken by the federal government and used by those in government considered allies to champion investment and policy changeAccess to decision makers confirmed through interviewsSome documents available publicly, others were referenced to in interviews n/aActor existenceAre the actors who must be present for the theory to hold in existence.Evidence of existencen/aLobbying activity by HEI associations HEI sector presence at meetings and participation in many consultations established with documentary evidence supported by interviews n/a n/a276 Elements of influence Data collection strategy Methodology Proposition /Hypothesis Preferences of HEI sector • Elite interviews of national HEI sector leaders • Document analysis of public documents of HEI sector and its associations related to visa and immigration preferences for international students • Semi structured interviews • Process tracing • Hypothesis 1: HEI sector was successful in influencing immigration policy change in Canada from 1990-2017 Strategies used by HEI sector • Elite interviews of national and select • Semi structured interviews • Proposition 2: Both national and provincial 277 provincial HEI sector leaders. • Documenting the number and content of reports and position papers of HEI sector • Process tracing representatives were part of the strategies used by the HEI sector • Proposition 3: Use of an issues-based coalition expanded impact of influence Access to decision-makers • Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying public data archive • Elite interviews of both HEI sector and political and bureaucratic representatives at the national level as • Records Analysis • Proposition 1: HEIs used their position as expert to access key decision makers using information as well as in more formal lobbying venues 278 well as selected provincial jurisdictions Responses of decision-makers • Elite interviews of both HEI sector and political and bureaucratic representatives at the national level as well as selected provincial jurisdictions • Process tracing • Proposition 1: HEIs used their position as expert to access key decision makers using information as well as in more formal lobbying venues • Proposition 3: Use of an issues-based coalition expanded impact of influence 279 HEI sector preferences reflected in legislation and regulation outcomes • Mapping regulation, legislation and government support changes over time • Analysis of government reports, documents and media/press releases • Comparing preferences with outcomes over time • Preference attainment measure • Hypothesis 1: HEI sector was successful in influencing immigration policy change in Canada from 1990-2017 280 Appendix H Preference Attainment Rubric and Scoring H.1 Preference attainment rubric No Alignment Limited AlignmentNeither aligned nor unaligned Some Alignment Full Alignment(-1) to (-.8) (-.79) to (-.4) (-.39) to .39 .4 to .79 .8 to 1Policy outcomes are opposite to stated preferencesPolicy outcomes are not aligned to stated preferencesPolicy outcomes that are not directly related to HEI sector stated preferencesPolicy outcomes are prtially aligned to stated preferencesPolicy outcomes match stated preferencesEvidence of requests made and no action taken or policy change madeEvidence of requests made with little action taken with some policy outcomes in conflict with policy preferencesEvidence of action without requests made with policy outcomes that are only indirectly related to stated preferencesEvidence of requests made and some action taken or partial policy change made in line with requestsEvidence of requests made and action taken or policy change made in line with requestsEvidence of policy made in line with competing actors not aligned with the public HEI sectorEvidence of policy outcomes made in line with competing actors and only somewhat aligned with the public HEI sectorEvidence of policy outcomes made which are neither aligned or unaligned with preferences but may address other stakeholder interestsEvidence of policy outcomes made which favour HEI sector interests and not those of competing actors requestsEvidence of preferences made in which favour HEI interests and not those of competing actors requestsEvidence of restrictions or limits to existing policy that are opposite to current preferencesEvidence of restrictions or limits to existing policy that are in some conflict to current preferencesPolicy change or outcomes that neither restrict nor expand current practice and are neutral to HEI sector preferences and interests Evidence of some expansion, liberalization or loosening of restrictions to existing policy that are mostly aligned to current HEI sector preferencesEvidence of expansion, liberalization or loosening of restrictions to existing policy that are fully aligned to current HEI sector preferences281 H.2 Preference attainment scoring for federal investment Policy preference/government ask Evidence of preference/ask Policy outcome Source Preference Alignment Assigned Score TotalA pan Canadian approach to international student recruitment effortsStatements of topics discussed in lobbying records through the Office of Lobbying Commission of CanadaDevelopment of the EduCanada Brand and the province-led Designated Learning Institution (DLI) quality assurance regimeAnnouncements by DFAIT/Global Affairs in conjunction with CMEC and provinces Full Alignment 1Commitment for federal investment for international student recruitment and marketing effortsCCIE consortium on record requesting $20 annually for marketing efforts$1 million annually for two years 2007-2009 for Edu Canada brand and marketing. This increased to $5 million in 2011 for 2 years and $5 million of ongoing annual funding since 2013Federal budget announcements and coverage in the mediaSome alignment: Funding but less than requested however after a few years as annual fund has been made ongoing 0.75Partial federal funding should flow through the CCIE to coordinate national marketing effortsInterviews describing the position and requests of the ConsortiumFunding went to marketing efforts within Global Affairs and did not go to the Consortium or its members directlyConfirmed by Consortium members and interviewsSome alignment: funding secured but not allocated in line with preferences 0.75Recruitment efforts should promote limited priority marketsRecommendations from the International Education Advisory PanelThe number of Canadian embassies, high commissions and consulates with education-related promotional activities gre from 28 in 2008 to 108 in 2015Additional reallocation of resources to key posts in Canada's diplomatic network announcement by the Government of Canada for the purpose of international educationFull Alignment: investment and expansion within priority markets outlined in recommendations 1Experts from the the associations or academic institutions should be secconded to DFAIT to compliment the activities of the overseas trade commissioners education marketing effortsRecommendations from the International Education Advisory PanelThis recommendation did not appear in the final version of the federal government International Education StrategyCanada's International Education Strategy 2013This was not adopted from the recommendations of the International Education Advisory Panel 0International education should become a major strategic component of the Government of Canada's official policies and plansRecommendations from the International Education Advisory PanelInternational education was included as one of the 22 priority sectors in the Government of Canada's Global Markets Action Plan 2013Global Markets Action Plan 2013Full Alignment: Inclusion as recommend as a priority sector for government 1Total 4.5AVERAGE 0.75282 H.3 Preference attainment scoring for international student visa processing Policy preference/ government askEvidence of preference/ask Policy outcome Source Preference Alignment Assigned Score TotalImprovement in speed of student visa processingLobbying records from the Office of Lobbying Commissioner of Canada by AUCC/Universities Canada and ACCC/CiCan from 1997 to 2010. Creation of Visa Application Centres; online visa application centres modernized the student visa application process and improved processing times'International Student Program EvaluationsSome alignment: Signficant improvements in processing times and improved transparency however HEI sector contued calls for improvements 0.7 Harmonization and simplification of CIC policiesLobbying records from the Office of Lobbying Commissioner of Canada by AUCC/Universities Canada and ACCC/CiCan from 2001 to 2015Streamlining of the study permit application process in 2005IRCC announcements, amendments to regulations and confirm through elite interviewsFull alignment: Signficant streamlining initiative and better lines of communication with HEI stakeholders 0.8 Creation of new visa processing regulations with the intention of helping universities and colleges attract foreign studentsLobby records from the Office of Lobbying Commissioner by AUCC and ACCC beginning in October 2008Increased transparency and sector communication through the CCIE and CBIE immigration regulations committee resulted in many regulation improvementsIRCC announcements, amendments to regulations and confirm through elite interviewsSome alignment: Simplification of student visa requirements reducing barriers for international students to receive a visa but biometrics and reporting requirements were added as requirements 0.7 Increasing the level of government support and funding for immigration programs and services to address backlogs and support new programs including the Student Partners Program (SPP)International Education Advisory Panel recommended improved education visa processing and program expansion in 2012Stakeholder tools to monitor processing times within and outside of Canada by countryFederal funding investments in budget announcementsSome alignment: Signficant investment in staff and technology improvements. Make backlogs addressed but processing delays still persist, particularly in certain locations 0.75 Request to expand the Student Partners program both geograpahically and in terms of number of institutionsFeedback and recommendations made in the Evaluation of the International Student Program of CIC in 2015Significant expansion of the SPP from India only to include China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Pakistan, Morocco and Senegal Student Partners ProgramFull alignment: Signficant expansion of the Student Direct Stream improved processing times and visa approval rates 0.8 Total 3.75 AVERAGE 0.75283 H.4 Preference attainment for work authorizations Policy preference/ government askEvidence of preference/askPolicy outcome Source Preference Alignment Assigned Score TotalRequested international student be able to work part time off campus during school sessions and full time on study breaksSubmissions to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Immigration and Lobbying records from the Office of Lobbying of Canada from 2007 to 2014In 2014 changes to IRPA allowed off campus work during studies up to 20 hours and full time during study breaksIRCC announcements and changes to IRPAFull Alignment: Recommendations implemented fully for most institutions 0.90 Expansion and facilitation of work permit upon graduationLobbying records from the Office of Lobbying of Canada and elite interviewsThe PGWPP is introduced in 2005 and geographic restrictions are lifted and legnth of work authorization is extended up to three years on completion of a Canadian academic credentialIRCC announcements and changes to IRPA regulations Full Alignment: Introduced changes with greater restrictions but then eased shortly afterwards and continued to ease the administrative barriers to post graduate work through regulations 0.8 Removal of existing barriers for off campus work authorizations both during and after studiesRecommendations from the immigration stakeholder group advising IRCCWork authorization no longer required for off campus work and now granted automatically with student visa; time to apply for PGWP extendedIRCC announcements and changes to IRPA regulationsFull alignment: sustain and incremental changes for easing transition of international students to temporary foreign workers 0.8 Total 2.5 AVERAGE 0.85284 H.5 Preference attainment for immigration pathways Policy preference/ government askEvidence of preference/askPolicy outcome Source Preference Alignment Assigned Score TotalInclusion of international students as a dedicated stream within the Canadian Experience ClassHouse of Commons Standing Committee on Immigration CEC introduced in 2008 with a dedicated student stream that was later harmonized in 2013 but still highly utilized by international student graduates Evaluation report for Canadian Experience ClassSome alignment: Harmonization of international student stream into a non specific stream has not impacted its use with international students 0.75 Request for recognition of Canadian education credentials by allocating qualification points as part of the new Express Entry application management systemLobbying records; written requests from sector immigration advisory to IRCC; Express Entry was introduced in 2014 and changes to allocate points to international students with Canadian credentials was implements in 2016Evaluation report for Express EntrySome alignment: Initial skepticism from HEI sector to EE but calls for points to be allocation to international graduates was quickly implemented 0.75 Worked within their provincial jursidictions for special pathways for international students through Provincial Nominee ProgramsSome mention in Elite interviews but otherwise beyond the scope of the study7 provinces have dedicated international student streams in their provincial nominee programsVarious provincial nominee program online resources. Summary found in Appendix BIt was beyond the scope of the study to ascertain all provincial level HEI preferences and compare them to separate PNP programs but heavily used by international student graduates No score assigned Total 1.5AVERAGE 0.75
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Interdisciplinary Studies
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Andres, Lesley
Ellermann, Antje, 1971-
The influence of higher education on immigration policy in Canada
Text