News   Mar 28, 2024
 127     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 186     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 251     0 

The Star - Time to Rethink Guestworker Program

Whoaccio

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
0
Time to rethink guest worker program
When Canada decided to allow employers facing acute labour shortages to hire temporary foreign workers, seven years ago, no one foresaw where it would lead.

Few imagined that a small experimental program could shake the underpinnings of the immigration system, distort the job market and raise human rights concerns.

Initially, the "low-skill pilot project" was tightly controlled. Employers had to prove they'd made a genuine effort to recruit Canadians. Ottawa had to agree that bringing in migrant labour would benefit the national economy. And foreign workers had to leave after 12 months.

For the few first years, the program produced a trickle of temporary residents.

That trickle has now swollen into a flood. In 2008, close to 200,000 temporary foreign workers arrived in Canada to drive trucks, serve fast food, clean buildings, even do government jobs. Today, more than half of those entering the country take this backdoor route.

Employers use the program as a source of cheap labour. The government promotes it as an efficient way to fill job vacancies. Immigration consultants capitalize on it, charging applicants hefty fees and promising them high wages, good working conditions, decent housing and employer-paid trips back to their home country.

How did a small detour around Canada's normal immigrant intake system expand into a high-speed thoroughfare for people who wouldn't otherwise qualify for admission?

And how will young Canadians, laid-off older workers and job seekers without post-secondary education get an economic foothold with so many entry-level positions filled?

The rapid expansion of the program began in 2006, when the newly elected government of Stephen Harper, reacting to pressure from the oil patch, "streamlined" the rules.

It introduced a fast-track approval process for employers seeking to bring in migrant labour and reduced the requirement for advertising job openings in Canada from six weeks to seven days.

The following year, the Conservatives announced that temporary foreign workers would be able to stay for two years without extending their visas.

And last year, Ottawa added a new feature called the Canadian Experience Class, which allowed temporary workers to apply for permanent residence without leaving the country. (What the government failed to make clear is that most low-skilled foreigners had little hope of meeting Canada's admission criteria. That meant they would either have to leave or attempt to stay illegally.)

Since the Tories took power, the number of temporary foreign workers accepted into the country has risen from 122,723 a year to 192,519 a year – a 67 per cent increase.

There is strong, albeit anecdotal, evidence that employers are replacing Canadian workers with lower-coast temporary foreign workers or recruiting abroad in the first place.

At the same time, there are persistent reports that recruits from poor countries are being exploited. Their tenure in Canada is dependent on their employer. They are not fully protected by the Charter of Rights. And many are willing to put up with substandard working conditions to support their families back home.

What human rights activists fear is that Canada is heading down the same path as many European countries whose "guest worker" programs have resulted in a large pool of illegal immigrants, foreign workers incapable of becoming permanent residents or citizens who go underground and live on the margins of society.

Surely it is time to pause and weigh the costs and benefits.

But there appears to be no inclination to do that in Ottawa. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is proud of the way his government is aligning the immigration system with the labour market.

Until Canadians who aren't proud to see their government creating an underclass of low-wage workers speak out, the problem will grow.

Carol Goar's column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

What xenophobic crap. Next time The Star has Haroon Sidiqui or some CUPE hack going on about how the 'neocons' are racist, they should just read this drivel. It's great to know The Star is together with Lou Dobbs in this glorification of nativistic xenophobia. Social welfare and global poverty alleviation should apparently take a backseat to keeping overpaid native borns employed.

Robert Silver's Blog
directs us to a far more well thought out article in the Atlantic on the subject.

Say you’re a Bangladeshi taxi driver struggling to survive on your daily wage in Dhaka. A couple of nongovernmental organizations have offered you help, but you can pick only one form of assistance: access to microcredit, or a chance to work in the United States. What’s the better deal? According to a recent analysis by the Center for Global Development, microcredit loans might net you an extra $700 over the course of a lifetime. Working stateside, you’re likely to make the same amount in a month.

Nothing rich countries can send the global poor—not loans, not textbooks, not fair-wage campaign materials—will boost the income of the average worker nearly so much as letting him walk among the wealthy. Transported from Haiti or Nigeria to the United States or Canada, a low-skilled worker will watch the value of his labor jump more than 700 percent—instantly. Wage gaps of that magnitude have some economists, notably Harvard’s Lant Pritchett, supporting a small but potentially revolutionary shift in the nature of economic cooperation: a global guest-worker program, run by rich countries in the interest of the poor. Every wealthy country would hand out enough work visas to increase its labor force by 3 percent, and the visas would be temporary, allowing the benefits to be broadly shared among successive waves of foreign workers.

Because border control stifles so much potentially beneficial cooperation, even a modest easing of immigration restrictions produces huge payoffs. In 2005, the World Bank estimated that a 3 percent program could yield $300 billion annually for the citizens of developing countries. That’s $180 billion more than what the major Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development member countries dished out in foreign aid last year. So while aid is a transfer that leaves wealthy countries slightly poorer, a global guest-worker plan would leave the countries of the OECD slightly better off.

Admittedly, this moment of recession-fueled panic may not be the most politically expedient time to roll out the Pritchett plan for global economic justice. But those shocking wage differentials will still be around when rich countries are feeling flush. Pritchett says he has a model of how game-changing ideas are received over time, and it works something like this: “Crazy. Crazy. Crazy. Obvious.”
 
Last edited:
While I find it ironic and hilarious that The Star is complaining that the Conservatives might actually be bringing in too many foreigners, I will concede that they are right about some of the challenges Guest worker programs create. However, this does not mean the program should be scrapped. We simply need more legislation providing them with more protections. I'd also support some kind of policy that grants PR after a suitable period working in Canada. Say you worked here for 5 years maybe, then you get PR and citizenship after another 3.

Thanks Whoaccio for your second quote which is spot. There are countries that depend on remittances for a significant portion of their foreign currency earnings. Mexico, Bangladesh, the Philippines and Pakistan are a few examples. Killing off guest worker programs in the developed would impoverish hundreds of millions of people overseas than the few hundred thousand who might see some wage depression from increased competition in the low skilled labour market.
 
As a person who is well aware of being rejected by the Canadian immigration program as a skilled worker status, I think the problem is that the system has no equality anymore. The new immigration system the Conservatives imposed last year allows a cook at a restaurant come in with few questions asked; however, if you apply as someone who has worked in tech support and database analyst work in a non-managerial position you're application is instantly rejected (such as my case). I understand the Star's position on this issue very well, they are basically saying the immigration program is exploiting very low skill workers (which they are now) and the system is not equally distributed.

I didn't know it was Canada's job to try and bring wealth to the entire world, immigration should be about those who respect the Canadian system and want to come to Canada to benefit the nation and themselves, immigration isn't about bringing wealth to Pakistan or India. That's for those respective governments to promote wealth building programs for their people.

There's also a SWAP program where it makes a younger person very eligible to come to Canada for work on a temporary basis, and that program is only available to select nations. Unfortunately there isn't a program for Americans to tap into if they want to come to Canada; however, there is an American program of this type if Canadians want to apply to work south of the border.

There are many problems that need to be addressed in immigration.
 
Last edited:
I agree that it's bonkers not to allow any reasonably self-sufficient American to come work here, and eventually gain citizenship.


Andrew Coyne wrote a very thought-provoking book review on the subject of citizenship. You can check it out here.
 
Good article, ironically I have a lot to agree with in regards to Coyne's immigration article.

Canada needs to capitalize on America's new found provincialism. America is filled with immense anti-immigrant sentiment in modern time; however, Canada could open its borders and create a truly open society if it wanted to. Making it much easier to immigrate would open the doors (within reason) would be a great asset to grow the Canadian society and compete more on the world stage.

Plus I would benefit by an easier transition without having to go through all these unnecessary steps.
 
I live in a area where farms took in children from Britain after the war. These kids were a cheap source of farm labour. Everything old is new again:D
 
As a person who is well aware of being rejected by the Canadian immigration program as a skilled worker status, I think the problem is that the system has no equality anymore. The new immigration system the Conservatives imposed last year allows a cook at a restaurant come in with few questions asked; however, if you apply as someone who has worked in tech support and database analyst work in a non-managerial position you're application is instantly rejected (such as my case). I understand the Star's position on this issue very well, they are basically saying the immigration program is exploiting very low skill workers (which they are now) and the system is not equally distributed.

You are confusing the Guest worker program with the Canada Experience Class. There's a difference between the two. One offers a path to residency. The other offers employment which ends you leaving the country. And please stop making this a political issue. As I recall when many of these changes were made the Liberals were in a huge huff about the fact that low skilled workers were not going to be given a fair shake. I believe it was Maurizio Bevilacqua who was running around at the time suggesting that masons and house painters were going to be denied immigration....and that this was a direct slight to the Italian and Portugese communities that dominated the trades. Well they got what they asked for and the quotas ended up getting skewed the other way.

I have always said that they should either have criteria that evaluate only skills (academic background, experience) and leave the specific job defintion out or leave the job market matching issues to an agency other than Immigration Canada. Unfortunately, some bleeding hearts object that such moves would 'exclude' low skilled workers....which is exactly the point.

As for your second comment about bring wealth to Pakistan and India, well, you're obviously ignorant to how remittances work and the impact they have on those countries (not India, but the others that I mentioned). This is recognized by most governments in the developed world and by the UN. And is considered a form of aid by our own government. This does not mean they craft their immigration policy around it. At most, this usually means a few more slots for guest worker programs from these countries.
 
The problem with Coyne's suggestion is practicality. International law prohibits policies which automatically strip away citizenship if you don't maintain residency because this might potentially render a person state-less. That's what leads to countries creating deterrent policies (like the US taxing its overseas citizens) to make citizenship expensive enough that those who would abuse it might not find it worthwhile.

I am not sure if he's arguing that we should do away with immigration criteria when he suggests that it shouldn't matter where someone is born. Canada does not have regional quotas and such. There might be some differences in processing times which tend to make different regions spike migration here and there. But as far as immigration to Canada is concerned, for the most part it does not matter where you are born (the guest worker program and some specific clauses like NAFTA being the exception), you'll get evaluated and processed the same way.

I don't think that Coyne somehow makes an argument for the exception of American migrants. Indeed, if I read his argument correctly, then he is suggesting that where the applicant is from and applies from should not matter. That's largely true today. And applying his criteria stringently would mean that those special exemptions that are there today (like through NAFTA) would be canceled. Afransen or Brandon, are you guys arguing that we should make an exception for American migrants? If so, would this not run counter to the idea that the birthplace of the migrant should not matter. Personally, I am of the opinion that if reciprocity could be arranged that exceptions should be made for applicants from our trading partner countries (US, Mexico, the EU).
 
Last edited:
From what I have read on Coyne's opinion on migration is that he thinks more or less no criteria should be applied to new immigrants. A while back he had an debate with James Bisson (sp?) on Maclean's in which he seemed to argue that outside of screening for criminals, terrorists and dangerous diseases, more or less anyone who wants to come to Canada should be able to without having to meet random Gov Can criteria. When he speaks of ending discrimination against those who aren't fortunate enough to be born in Canada, he means from participating in the labor force and society as opposed to applying for immigration, the later of which is already equitable.
 
^ wow. If there were no non-security criteria, can you imagine the backlog? We'd have a billion people waiting to get in!
 
I'm saying that well-educated people from any developed anglo-saxon (or French) country would probably have the easiest time assimilating, and assimilation is a strong predictor of success of migrants. Admitting many people who don't have the language skills, etc. is setting them up for a lot of heartache.

I'm really struggling to understand why someone like Brandon should not be granted access. Even if there is not demand in his particular field, the fact that he is coming from a culturally similar country and is a knowledge worker would make it much easier for him to adapt and navigate the job market and find some job. He could be an analyst in any number of fields.
 
^ wow. If there were no non-security criteria, can you imagine the backlog? We'd have a billion people waiting to get in!

Well, I'm pretty sure it would also be accompanied by either a massive increase in quotas or eliminating quotas all together. There are alot of caveats to his position, as any carte blanche rebuild of the immigration system would, but it is on the whole more committed to the free flow of people.

Anyways, ideally we should move to stream immigrants into various classes. Currently we have economic immigrants, family class immigrants and refugees that are legitimate classes or immigrant. We might as well add illegal immigrant to that list.

Refugees - No one really opposes refugees. The problem is perceived abuse of the system by those who most likely shouldn't qualify. Cases of Czech Romas living under the EU's human rights framework, arguably the most robust on earth, filling for refugee status in Canada fall under this category. As would Mexican migrants who fail to find work in the USA claiming refugee status. Adopting more rigorous refugee claims process might help. Could we not carry out the actual refugee application system outside of Canada or at least outside of general society? Most investigations seem to suggest that it is fairly common for refugee claimants to apply for a hearing only to vanish into society. Set up quarantine camps at major points of entry, hold the refugees until they've actually been cleared and deport those who don't meet criteria. As a bonus, the quarantine centers could feature rudimentary assimilation classes on ESL, job hunting, our legal system and such.

Economic - These would generally be the cream of immigration. It could be helpful to replace the current quota systems with just putting a price on immigration. Determine what it costs governments to assimilate various classes of immigrant and charge accordingly. That sounds draconian, but it would be a good deal for most immigrants. If an engineer from Thailand were allowed to work in Canada, even earning the minimum wage would boost his earnings several times over, not to mention intangible quality of life benefits (i.e. no civil unrest). It would be a good deal for him to take on debt to boost his potential earnings by so much and avoid a lengthy quota system. The Government could help by providing low interest loans and actually remaining in Canada could be incentivized by the timing of repayments.

Family Class - This is pretty entwined with the economic class. As a rule of thumb, I don't think Canada should accept family members over, say, 60 unless they also qualified as some kind of refugee. Just sucking up health care costs from the around the world is dumb.

Illegals - Together with stricter monitoring of visa and refugee status, the best way to deal with illegal immigrants would be to provide a guest worker program. Generally speaking, these illegals wouldn't qualify for any other immigrant category as they lack to economic and academic skills. The solution would be allow temporary guest workers to fill low skill jobs under strict contracts. This would be tricky as it would necessitate making exemptions to most of our laws. Minimum wage laws and pensions, for instance, would render the these migrants uneconomic and force them into the black market. You can see this quite clearly in the USA where illegals are often priced out of working legitimately. This would benefit immigrants by providing them a legal way to enter the country and earn way more than they otherwise would get in their home country and entitle them to more protection than available to illegal immigrants. It would benefit Canada by providing a large population of affordable labor. The hard part is convincing native's that this is good (both Lou Dobbs and Carol Goar types) and insuring guest workers adhere to their contracts and don't become illegal immigrants at the end of their contract.
 
I'm saying that well-educated people from any developed anglo-saxon (or French) country would probably have the easiest time assimilating, and assimilation is a strong predictor of success of migrants. Admitting many people who don't have the language skills, etc. is setting them up for a lot of heartache.

I'm really struggling to understand why someone like Brandon should not be granted access. Even if there is not demand in his particular field, the fact that he is coming from a culturally similar country and is a knowledge worker would make it much easier for him to adapt and navigate the job market and find some job. He could be an analyst in any number of fields.

The problem with that view is that it could lead to serious loss of diversity. If you give preference to migrants from a handful of anglo-saxon countries (US and UK essentially) and Francophone world, you'd be excluding massive portions of the world where little to no english or French is spoken (Latin America, East Asia, the Middle East, the Caucasuses, heck Continental Europe as well). And how would you deal with a country like India. English is the working language for commerce, the government and the military over there which means that it has the largest English speaking population on the planet. Yet, it's not an Anglo country. Are you suggesting that an American or a Brit should get preference over an English speaking migrant from Calcutta? To me this is quite a slippery slope.

I don't see what's flawed about the requirements today. Any potential migrant is required to demonstrate a working proficiency of either Official Language. If you are from an English or French speaking country (with those languages as your mother tongue) or have been educated in English, the requirement to prove your linguistic capacity is waived. Are you suggesting that this policy is insufficient?

I think some of the confusion over language requirements comes from the fact that family class migrants (and of course asylum claimants) don't need to demonstrate language proficiency. But this is of course a politically difficult problem to overcome. And more so for the Conservative party. Every time there's even whispers that the Conservatives will move to enforce the language requirement for this class, the Liberals, the NDP and immigration activists across the land rush to the barricades and decry the CPC as immigrant hating hicks from Alberta (they conveniently ignore the fact that other than the big 3, Alberta is increasingly a top choice for immigrants). So what can be done in this sector? Personally, I'd support greater enforcement of the language requirements for all classes of applicants and for citizenship as well. But I suspect that I'd be in the minority. And when it comes to the political parties, there are probably only two parties that holds that view (and one cares only about one of the official languages).
 
Last edited:
The problem with that view is that it could lead to serious loss of diversity. If you give preference to migrants from a handful of anglo-saxon countries (US and UK essentially) and Francophone world, you'd be excluding massive portions of the world where little to no english or French is spoken (Latin America, East Asia, the Middle East, the Caucasuses, heck Continental Europe as well). And how would you deal with a country like India. English is the working language for commerce, the government and the military over there which means that it has the largest English speaking population on the planet. Yet, it's not an Anglo country. Are you suggesting that an American or a Brit should get preference over an English speaking migrant from Calcutta? To me this is quite a slippery slope.


I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying we should reduce quotas for immigration for the rest of the world. Our immigration infrastructure is designed a certain flow of migrants. Migrants from wealthy anglo-saxon countries that would be self-sufficient (ie, can land a job, otherwise they get the boot) should be allowed to come with just security and criminal background checks. They place a minimal burden on our immigration infrastructure, and thus need not take any 'spots' away from migrants from the rest of the world. India does indeed have many proficient speakers of English, but the majority do not. Much of the country is also desperately poor. The wheat needs to be separated from the chaff.

My point is not that we should be less favourable to migrants from the rest of the world, but that people like Brandon should not have to jump through so many hoops if he could come here, get a job within six months, and pay his way. People like Brandon are less of a drain on Canada than people with less than flawless language skills who intend to return 60% of their wages in remittances (a drain on our local economy). Not to say we should not admit people like that, but if we do, people like Brandon are a slam dunk.

I don't see what's flawed about the requirements today. Any potential migrant is required to demonstrate a working proficiency of either Official Language. If you are from an English or French speaking country (with those languages as your mother tongue) or have been educated in English, the requirement to prove your linguistic capacity is waived. Are you suggesting that this policy is insufficient?

I don't think 'working proficiency' is anything approaching flawless fluency. And it does make a difference in terms of economic success. But I don't have any particular issue with language proficiency of non-family class migrants. My issue is our absolutely insane barriers against individuals from culturally similar, wealthy nations--these are people who have the easiest time assimilating, and require the least government support to get established.
 
Last edited:
I agree with the Star's article. As someone seeking employment (anything, really), it is frustrating coming against these minimum wage guestworkers that don't speak any English, and just drive local wages into the ground. I'd say to the gov't: STOP this program until unemployment figures dip below 5% again.
 

Back
Top