Consultation, Conflict, and Collaborative Federalism: Canada-Ontario Immigration Relations, 1970-2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The provision of immigrant settlement services has long been recognized in the social science literature as essential to the economic, social, and political integration of immigrants to Canada. The 1976 Immigration Act, enacted in 1978, was a catalyst for increased provincial involvement in immigration, a jurisdiction shared between the two governments, yet largely managed by the Canadian federal government. The new Act initiated a flurry of bilateral federal-provincial cooperation accords on immigrant settlement throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Yet, the Canada-Ontario Immigration Agreement (COIA), signed in November 2005, was the last of ten bilateral immigration accords to be signed in Canada. While other Canadian provinces successfully leveraged their jurisdictional capacity in immigrant settlement through the successful negotiation of bilateral immigration agreements with the federal government, the finalization of a Canada-Ontario agreement on immigration and settlement remained in bureaucratic and political impasse for decades despite Ontario’s position as the province receiving the largest proportion of immigrants to Canada. The purpose of this dissertation is to explore the process by which Ontario’s first intergovernmental immigration agreement, decades in the making, was successfully concluded in 2005. Drawing on archival government documents, extensive interviews, and multiple interdisciplinary analyses, this dissertation traces the trajectory of Canada-Ontario-municipal intergovernmental negotiations in the shared jurisdiction of immigration and settlement from 1970-2005 to show how these intergovernmental relations evolved against a dynamic backdrop of demographic shifts, changing international norms, bureaucratic restructuring, and broader political agendas and economic interests. The dissertation demonstrates that while the negotiation of the 2005 Canada-Ontario Immigration Agreement marked a new leaf in intergovernmental cooperation, the Canada-Ontario immigration relationship remains wrought with complexity. Ontario’s unique approach to immigration consultation, continued disputes over devolution and federal spending power in the province, and fluid federal-provincial-municipal jurisdictional boundaries continue to pose a challenge to existing theories of collaborative federalism and multilevel governance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".