Basically slave labour

 

 

Oftentimes, news coming from the establishment is not really as encouraging as they sound or as good as they intend to be.

 

Canada’s Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander recently announced that Canada has issued more than 47,000 visitor visas to Filipino visitors in 2013, an increase of 57 percent since 2006 and a record high for the Philippines. But what the total number of visitors doesn’t indicate is that it is the Philippines’ latest contribution to modern-day slavery in Canada.

 

Since 2006, the number of temporary foreign workers in Canada has ballooned to over half a million workers toiling in jobs where they are paid wages lower than the legal minimum, where working conditions are below labour standards, and where there is little or no opportunity to transition to permanent residency and citizenship. Who would have thought that working overseas, especially in Canada, wasn’t a better alternative to staying home?
 

McDonald's Canada has announced putting its temporary foreign worker program
on hold. McDonald’s got bad publicity recently over allegations in Edmonton that
it was charging temporary foreign workers too much for rent. Media reports also
revealed that local Canadian workers at three Victoria, B.C. locations were denied
shifts in favour of workers hired under the TFW program. Photo by Associated Press.

There is now widespread criticism that Canada’s temporary foreign workers program is either not working or is being abused contrary to its original purpose. Under the program, employers are allowed to bring foreign workers for a specified duration to fill in labour shortages. These workers are bound to their employers and may not quit for any reason or seek other employment. Essentially, the temporary foreign workers program is a stop-gap measure to address labour shortages but its current use has morphed into something businesses have exploited as a quick fix for the sake of profit.

 

As early as 2011 I started posting blogs that were highly critical of Canada’s temporary workers program and the government’s new limit of four years for visas granted to these temporary visitors, denying them the opportunity of permanent residence. Those were views drawn out from my own experience as a lawyer working with immigrants and refugees. In 1992 when the Live-in-Caregiver Program was introduced, also by nature a temporary or contractual work arrangement except for the path to citizenship for successful participants and for which Filipino nannies have been improperly stereotyped as the program’s main market, the government’s temporary foreign workers program has already elicited disapproval from policy and human rights advocates and labour unions as a thinly disguised version of indentured servitude.

 

Everyone would recall that historic indentured slavery started out as temporary slavery for white people. Wealthy individuals and businesses paid for the passage of persons in Britain or Europe who wanted to immigrate to the colonies at that time. In return, they had to work for their sponsor as payment for their passage for a set number of years. Since the indentured servant could not leave or quit, the practice was a little better than slavery. In some ways, it was even worse because their employers would sometimes work them to death.

 

Indentured servants were exploited as cheap labour and were severely maltreated, a highly abusive situation being replicated in the plight of today’s forced migration of temporary foreign workers in Canada.

 

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has reported that foreign workers from Belize have accused McDonald’s Canada in Alberta and British Columbia of treating them like slaves by effectively forcing them to live in a shared apartment. McDonald’s would then deduct almost half the workers’ take-home pay as rent. Records showed that the workers made $11 an hour working at various McDonald’s locations and the company took $289 from their pay for rent, bi-weekly. The workers were left with a take-home pay each of roughly $350 for the same pay period.

 

Also just recently, the Alberta Federation of Labour claimed 65 oil-sand contractors were laid off and replaced by low-paid workers from Croatia. There were also prior complaints from Chinese workers who were brought in by a British Columbia coal mine, Royal Bank technical staffers laid off in an apparent outsourcing movement, and more than one fast-food restaurant has been accused of replacing staff with lower-paid foreign workers.

 

A Tim Horton’s franchise in Fernie, British Columbia, has also been accused by two Filipino workers who alleged that the store owner cheated them out of overtime pay by driving them to the bank to cash their paycheques and then taking a cut. In Kelowna, an 18-year-old high school student said she saw her hours at a local Dairy Queen franchise cut dramatically shortly after foreign workers arrived from the Philippines. Workers in British Columbia, ranging from seasoned professionals to teenage fast-food employees, are complaining about being dumped in favour of non-residents.

 

These temporary foreign workers are spread all over Canada, and exploited because they are cheap and low maintenance. The western provinces have seen the largest influx. Of the 202,000 temporary foreign workers who entered Canada in 2012, British Columbia had 28,000 TFWs in 2012, with half of them working in Vancouver, doing everything from flipping burgers to performing manual labour.

 

All these recent incidents illustrate that Canada’s temporary foreign workers program is in fact not working as designed by policy-makers in Ottawa, and in many instances, the program is being abused by a number of Canadian companies. Instead of addressing legitimate labour shortages so companies could hire skilled workers when no appropriate Canadian applicants were available, the program has become a convenient tool for some business companies to abuse and exploit their workers.

NDP MLA Mable Elmore (centre) and Jane Ordinario of Migrante BC (right) host a
 panel  to advocate for the rights of temporary foreign workers and to speak out against
 anti-immigrant sentiment. Photograph by Jenelle Schneider (Vancouver Sun). Click
link http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Canada/BC/ID/2450166399/
 to view "Foreign workers facing backlash."

While the program clearly benefits some Canadian businesses, it must also benefit the employees if the program were to stay as ethically legitimate. Arguably there is some merit if the purpose was to bring people from impoverished countries and allow them to work for some time, to enable them to save and return home with hard-earned cash. However, according to the CBC report, it looks like these workers will go home almost empty-handed.

 

Unlike the historic indentured servants who were promised freedom and citizenship if they survived their servitude, participants in Canada’s current temporary foreign workers program are not. When their employment is done, they must go back to their country of origin. They can re-apply to return to Canada only after four years have elapsed.

 

What is guaranteed by the Conservative majority in government is the perpetuation of its policy of privatizing immigration, i.e., allowing the private sector to dictate upon government who to allow to immigrate and for how long. The much-hyped Expression of Interest program borrowed from New Zealand and Australia, and dubbed by the feds as Express Entry, will be launched in 2015 and this is exactly what the private sector wants.

 

Two years ago, immigration applications received prior to 2008 were cancelled by the government, effectively wiping out 280,000 applications from the backlog. Today, Canada Immigration is blowing its own trumpet that Express Entry will lead to a faster and more flexible economic immigration system that will address Canada’s economic and labour market needs.

 

Starting May 1, 2014, the government will implement new caps for the Federal Skilled Worker Program (FSWP), Federal Skilled Trades Program (FSTP) and Canadian Experience Class (CEC), which they believe will ensure a steady supply of skilled workers who are settling in Canada permanently and helping to supplement the Canadian workforce in areas where there are skills shortages. By the end of 2014, Canada Immigration expects this pool of candidates to be made available to employers who can screen and cherry pick the workers they would allow to immigrate.

 

Express Entry is essentially a government off-loading of public policy to private sector interests, which will allow employers to define Canadian immigration policy. The trend toward privatization has been started with the shift to temporary foreign workers, and now the focus is on the skilled and experienced categories of immigrants.

 

Granting that the involvement of employers can help reduce skill mismatches between local economic needs and immigration quotas set by Canada Immigration, there is a clear and present danger in allowing employers alone to determine the workers they are willing to admit because they are intuitively looking for average workers, not skilled labour. In other words, the Harper government’s modernization of the Canadian immigration process will simply continue its policy of bringing foreign workers for hotels, fast food outlets, janitorial services and factories – typical Canadian jobs, albeit low-paying, which ordinary Canadian citizens are not willing to do.

 

As I have written in an earlier blog on the subject last November 2012, “the reliance on temporary foreign workers who are selected by employers based on their own short-term interests is headed towards a very troubling path. It is a policy that augurs well for the normalization of migrant labour in Canada, but doesn’t bode well for diversity, appalling for the workplace, and could potentially turn immigration into a source of social tension.”

 

In “The End of Immigration,” a documentary that examines the temporary foreign workers program in Canada, labour rights advocate Yessy Byl explained: “We have a system that is inherently engendering exploitation – it’s just inevitable. We set up a group of people who are brought to Canada to work, so we’ve got basically slave labour, because [the temporary workers] can’t work legally somewhere else.”

Big Brother is watching

 

 

Welcome to the new normal.

 

Starting January 2013, Citizenship and Immigration Canada will implement a host of changes that will overhaul the entire immigration system—from revising the point grid for selection of new immigrants to the new Skilled Trades Stream designed to address labour shortages to facilitating travel to Canada if you’re visiting or working. “These changes are long overdue and will help us move to a fast and flexible immigration system that works for Canada’s economy,” Canada Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced in a recent press release.

 

Underneath all these new changes is a seemingly harmless but potentially discriminatory policy to require nationals from 29 countries and one territory to provide their biometrics when they apply to travel to Canada to visit, study or work. Requiring fingerprints and photographs, Minister Kenney stressed, is “one of the most effective ways to identify individuals entering the country. By providing immigration officials with greater certainty, biometrics will facilitate legitimate travel to Canada.”

Since the events on September 11, 2001, the biometric community
has made vast technological improvements in protecting the United
States and its borders. Click link to view "Biometrics Since 9/11,"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dnXWGxn20w

This new requirement for biometrics applies to all persons from the following countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Bangladesh, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Vietnam, and Yemen.

 

One can only begin to speculate why these countries were selected, with the exclusion of others. A common thread that binds these countries is the ongoing war or civil strife in their territories that makes them a natural breeding ground for Islamic terrorists and intransigent rebel groups, or for criminals to operate. Right away, biometrics stigmatizes applicants from these countries since there is a putative perception they are being targeted precisely for the purpose of singling out undesirables like those engaged in terrorism or criminality.

 

Canada Immigration is using code words such as “legitimate travel” and “to protect the safety and security of Canadians” which Mr. Kenney has emphasized in his press release. This means that those who are engaged in terrorism and criminality pose a great danger to Canadian society and should be not be allowed to enter the country. But in identifying a pool of specific countries that should provide biometrics, Canada Immigration is immediately marking people from these source-countries as potentially unwelcome in Canada.

 

Biometrics has long been used in criminal proceedings, as well as in private and commercial transactions. But the infamy of September 11, 2001 ushered in greater concerns to control and secure the border from unwanted individuals. The U.S. Congress passed the Patriot Act in October 2011 requiring all foreign visitors to provide machine-readable, biometric travel documents, and put into place an entry-exit system to monitor movements to and from the country.

 

Next year, before newcomers are allowed to step into Canada, their biometric data will be checked to ensure that the individual who was approved to travel is in fact the same person who is entering Canada. The use of biometrics in immigration and border control will bring Canada up-to-date with other countries already using the system which includes the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, countries in the European Union Schengen Zone, Japan, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia.

 

Biometrics are physiological or behavioral characteristics used to recognize or verify the identity of a living person. They are digital fingerprints and photographs that are to be embedded in a Canadian visa. Any one of the different types of biometric information can allow border security guards to make rapid and precise, one-to-one (authentication) or one-to-many (verification), identity checks.

 

There are, however, significant human rights ramifications inherent in the collection, processing and distribution of a person’s biometrics which creates hostility between public policy and the individual’s right to privacy. This friction is now at the heart of the biometrics debate.

 

Rebekah Thomas, an associate policy and research officer at the Global Commission on International Migration in Geneva and a specialist in international human rights law, has urged policy makers to look at the biometrics debate “from the migrants' perspective because the development of biometric technology is particularly discriminatory towards migrants, both in its application and its effect.”

 

In When Biometrics Fail: Gender, Race, and the Technology of Identity, Shoshana Amielle Magnet contends that very often these technologies fail to work. Magnet is an assistant professor in the Institute of Women’s Studies and the Department of Criminology at the University of Ottawa. Her study shows that at the moment when biometrics fail, these technologies prove that they work differently and fail to function more often, on women, people of colour, and people with disabilities. Prof. Magnet’s book evaluates the state’s use of biometrics to control and classify vulnerable and marginalized populations—including prisoners, welfare recipients, immigrants, and refugees—and to track individuals beyond a nation’s territorial boundaries.

 

Things that once seemed like science fiction are now easily usable and can be shared to track immigrants, criminals, welfare recipients or terrorists. In the United States, for example, DNA is now collected from almost anyone who comes in contact with the criminal justice system, and the expansion of DNA collection is becoming a real and serious threat because DNA has the potential to reveal so much information about an individual. The frontier is being stretched and we are not sure which areas could be next.

U.S.  Senators Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham say that a federally issued
ID card with biometric information is necessary to curb illegal immigration to
the United States. Click link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFewUlszMTQ
 to view "The National Biometric ID Card: The Mark of the Beast?"

Critics of the use of biometrics in immigrant tracking suggest biometrics should enhance rather than conflict with individual privacy. That it should focus more on preventing identity theft and in providing increased anonymity for the user. Easier said than done because for the most part governments are more concerned with the security and welfare of the greater society rather than protecting an individual’s right to privacy. Privacy is a fundamental human right upheld under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and entrenched in almost every national law. But when it runs in conflict with the greater good such as the state’s security, privacy is usually trumped by public policy that aims to protect the state.

 

The right to privacy is usually assured through minimum guarantees that personalized computerized data will not be compromised. But these guarantees can be difficult to uphold in the case of biometrics because one of its weaknesses is lack of credibility, whether from error or their vulnerability to interference. When data, for instance, is transferred across different agencies and countries, there is a greater risk that it will trickle into more controversial areas of immigration control, such as tracking and surveillance. This is known as “function creep,” which means data is used for other purposes not foreseen or not consented to at that time it was collected.

 

Biometric measures are generally criticized for the tendency to discriminate against migrants, partly because of state policy to tackle illegal immigration and as an unavoidable consequence of their contact with borders. Immigrants from Third-World countries, for example those nationals from the 29 countries required by Canada Immigration to provide biometrics, are more likely to need visas for entry, and certain nationals and ethnic groups are deliberately targeted by immigration controls because of fear of terrorism and criminality.

 

For refugees and asylum seekers, or for just being included in the 29 countries required to provide biometrics, the process of having their biometric information collected may be a terrifying and traumatic experience. As earlier said, belonging to these 29 countries has a stigmatizing effect—the stigma of criminal activity attached to fingerprints or “mug shots,” for example.

 

Advocates of biometrics argue that these effects are unavoidable in order to ensure border security. Automation of identity checks and consequently raising the level of confidence in border security and immigration controls could reduce the negative myths and stereotypes about migrants and refugees. Traffickers would also be hindered in their attempts to use false identities.

 

Yet many of these biometric measures target nationals of particular countries who are also entitled to their fundamental human rights. Thus, it becomes more than doubly difficult to balance the policy of the state to secure its borders with the right of the individual to privacy.

 

A study made by the Global Commission on International Migration in Geneva shows scant evidence from the U.S. and the United Kingdom that biometric technology has contributed to reducing either terrorism or irregular migration. According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, more than 200 persons have been arrested since the January 2004 launch of US-VISIT, a program that electronically tracks the entry and exit of foreign visitors using biographical information and biometric identifiers. Those arrested include “convicted rapists, drug traffickers, individuals convicted of credit card fraud, a convicted armed robber, and numerous immigration violators and individuals attempting visa fraud.” After processing over 2.5 million visitors, no terrorist suspects have been caught to date, and these statistics do nothing to change the numbers of migrants who enter legitimately, but who become irregular once inside the country.

 

Security and human rights, however, are not necessarily incompatible principles. The application of biometric technology can certainly operate within a context that reconciles the needs and rights of both the state and the individual. Achieving the right balance may be elusive at this early stage of biometric applications, but this doesn’t mean that we should give up on our rights to privacy.

 

Perhaps, the more sensible way is to approach immigration reform and anti-terrorism as two separate and distinct issues. There should be proportionality between biometric data collection and usage and privacy rights. This would make it easier to assess if the measures undertaken are effective enough to justify interference with privacy rights.

Privatizing immigration

 

 

It all began with the rapid rise in the number of temporary foreign workers who have been coming to Canada to fill in labour shortages that cannot be addressed by Canadian workers. There is no quota for this type of workers, no upper limits.

 

There are more temporary foreign workers in Canada over the past decade, more so and rapidly since 2006. Today their ranks outnumber those of economic immigrants.

 

In 2010 alone, there were 283,096 temporary foreign workers in Canada, doing work that employers claimed there was no Canadian available to do. This is the highest on record, but only slightly higher than the number recorded during the worst of the recession in 2009.

 

The highest demand for temporary foreign workers comes from Alberta and Saskatchewan, the fastest-growing economies in Canada. But every Canadian province except Newfoundland and Labrador and Nunavut has at least doubled its number of “guest workers” over the years.

In an effort to modernize Canada's immigration process, the Harper government has
introduced several key proposals. The Agenda looks at what the proposals mean for
those coming to Canada. Click link to view "Realigning Canadian Immigration,"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrGfit4-z5g&feature=related

Armine Yalnizyan, a senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, has observed that this shift to temporary foreign workers or “guest workers” as others call them, is an indication of government’s off-loading of public policy to private sector interests. The public interest which is much broader than employers’ needs is increasingly being taken over by the private sector such as Canada Immigration’s plan to allow employers to define Canadian immigration policy.

 

While the involvement of employers can help reduce skill mismatches between local economic needs and immigration quotas set by Canada Immigration, there is a clear and present danger in allowing employers alone to determine the workers they are willing to admit because they are intuitively looking for average workers, not skilled labour. Employers are now taking advantage of the temporary work permit program to bring workers for hotels, fast food outlets, janitorial services and factories – typical Canadian jobs, albeit low-paying.

 

According to Naomi Alboim, Fellow and Adjunct Professor at the School of Policy Studies at Queen’s University, “while the use of temporary foreign workers to address acute skill or labour shortages is justifiable, some employers are using them to fill ongoing vacancies without exploring more durable long-term solutions. This is an illustration of how federal policies which facilitate temporary entry to Canada sometimes have long-lasting detrimental effects.”

 

Temporary workers come to Canada practically as guests of the employer. Oftentimes, they have very few rights or which they are usually unaware. They have no access to services available to other immigrants, and rarely is there a path for them to permanent residency.

 

Yessy Byl, a lawyer who volunteers with the Edmonton Community Legal Centre describes the temporary foreign worker program as really about contracting out immigration. “In fact the government is setting the stage for a bizarre non-immigration program because those workers can’t immigrate,” Byl adds.

 

Now comes the Expression of Interest (EOI) program that Canada Immigration Minister Jason Kenny proposes to install beginning January 2013. It’s a program borrowed from New Zealand and also adopted by Australia last July 2012, which builds a pool of skilled worker applicants that will allow employers to cherry-pick potential immigrants to fill regional labour shortages. By the end of 2014, Canada Immigration expects this pool of candidates to be made available to employers who can screen and choose the workers they would allow to immigrate.

 

Essentially, this amounts to privatizing immigration. Whether unintentional or not, the present Conservative government seems bent on passing to employers the responsibility for focusing the country’s immigration program towards meeting their labour market needs. To Minister Kenney, allowing employers to determine who they are willing to accept is needed to generate growth for the Canadian economy. In a statement issued last year, Mr. Kenney said “Employers are best positioned to decide who can best fill the open jobs rather than a passive and bureaucratic system.”

 

Based on the New Zealand experience, the Expression of Interest program is nothing but a paper review of an immigrant’s application, minus the required proof or documents needed to assess the application. An applicant can submit electronically or on paper an expression of interest to apply under the skilled migrant category. The questionnaire that accompanies the application is no different from the same standard questions an applicant needs to answer when applying for immigration. It’s still in a long format that asks for personal information, work experience, job qualifications and educational background. But the application appears to be biased in favour of those who have undergone post-secondary schooling or post-graduate studies in New Zealand, and those who have had work experience in New Zealand. If after a review the expression of interest is accepted, one must score at least 100 points to be included in the pool, then the applicant is required to submit all documentary proof of his or her answers to the questionnaire.

The pace and scope of change in Canada's immigration system in recent years leaves
one breathless. Click link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC_OHHc_ri0 to view
Prof. Naomi Alboim's "Shaping the Future: Canada's Rapidly Changing Immigration
 Policies."

How different is the Expression of Interest system from the current assessment of an application for any of the categories under Canada’s Immigration system? If New Zealand or Australia can accomplish its EOI assessment in 6 months or less, there is no excuse for Canada not to do the same. Except for one thing, there could be more Canadian applications than those submitted for New Zealand and Australia. But it’s not a good excuse if Canada Immigration is really sincere in its objective of reducing or eliminating the backlog of applications, which appears to be addressed by more efficient processing rather than by legislation or by a single ministerial decision.

 

Remember that all applications for immigration to Canada that were received prior to 2008 have all been wiped out from the backlog. More than 280,000 applications were affected, simply by a sweeping decision of an Immigration Minister, without comprehensive consultation, discussion and parliamentary debate. This also shows unpredictability in Canada’s immigration policy. The fact that changes in criteria can now be made unilaterally by a single minister and imposed retroactively indicates that the rules of the game are constantly changing.

 

Since the affected applicants had been waiting for seven years for their applications to be considered, they have refused to accept Minister Kenney’s decision to annul their applications. Lawyers for the applicants have asked the court for permission to bring a class action against the government. Lorne Waldman, a lawyer representing the applicants, has said that Mr Kenney's decision is unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada’s Bill of Rights.

 

The Expression of Interest system that is being proposed by Canada Immigration will not fully solve the issue of qualification and employment, especially if the determination is going to be left primarily to employers. While it is the federal government that regulates immigration, provincial and professional bodies play key roles in facilitating the employment of immigrants once they have settled in the country. Today, there is less coordination between professional bodies and industry and the government. Attracting qualified new immigrants with promises of good jobs would be misleading them, more so if they find out that it’s the provincial and professional bodies that really control access to jobs. The sad consequence is that these immigrants become deprofessionalized and are forced to accept jobs in the labour market that either underemploy or deskill them.

 

More to the point, Canada Immigration is increasingly becoming a slave to the labour market. The reliance on temporary foreign workers who are selected by employers based on their own short-term interests is headed towards a very troubling path. It is a policy that augurs well for the normalization of migrant labour in Canada, but doesn’t bode well for diversity, appalling for the workplace, and could potentially turn immigration into a source of social tension.

 

Privatizing immigration adds to the growing list of public services that the present Conservative government insists are better delivered and more cost-effective if transferred to the hands of the private sector. Health care, education, social services, utilities, even the prison system, are just a few of those targeted for privatization. The overhaul of Canada’s Immigration system is a clear sign that employers and the labour market are being given the primary responsibility to determine public policy to the detriment of national interest.

 

Throughout its history, Canada has been a welcoming nation to immigrants, unifying their families and providing citizenship and accepting their full participation in Canadian society. Canada’s radical shift in immigration policy from one that is based on the huge potential of human capital is reversing this trend and pushing Canada downwards to a troubling new direction.

Canada’s dream daycare program

 

 

One of the recurring program changes that Canada Immigration considered between 2008 and July 1, 2012 was the proposal to impose a four-year limit on temporary foreign work in Canada and a four-year waiting period to return to Canada. This was supposed to include all temporary foreign workers, without exception.

 

On April 1, 2011, Canada Immigration implemented this program but Canada’s Immigration Minister Jason Kenney had a change of heart and exempted the Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP) from the four-year limit on temporary work visas, thus continuing the right of foreign domestic workers to apply for permanent residence after completing two-years of live-in service. Maybe the thousands of Filipino caregivers under the LCP have worked their magic charm on Mr. Kenney after they have hailed him as their hero and the “king of Canada’s multiculturalism.”

Filipino nanny takes care of employer's child. Photo courtesy of Kia, Marin & Liam.
Click http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDsbr_X2uV8 to view  "Nanny Documentary 1."

But the exemption covers only those caregivers who have already completed their work contracts and have submitted their applications for permanent residence when the new rules took effect in 2011. We just have to wait and see if the final Rules and Regulations in January 2013 will still contain this important exemption for workers under the LCP.

 

There is reason to worry because this has been done before by the Canadian government. Before the Foreign Domestic Movement in 1981 and the LCP in 1992 were adopted, foreign domestic workers, particularly those from Europe and those of English ancestry, were given the right to enter and stay. Prior to the 1970s, domestics from Britain were granted permanent residence after providing live-in services for six months. These domestics were given this right with the eye toward their future roles as wives and mothers. But this right was not given to Caribbean women who were allowed to enter Canada under short-term work permits. 

The LCP and the previous Foreign Domestic Movement program were seen by Third World domestic workers as the necessary purgatory to obtain permanent residence. But this may change if the path to permanent residence will be removed from the program by Canada Immigration in 2013.

 

Right now, nanny placement agencies in Canada are looking for various alternatives in case the LCP becomes a four-year temporary contract without giving workers hired under the LCP to apply for permanent residence after two years. The only reason why the LCP has become so popular, especially among Filipino women, is because these workers look at their mandatory two-year live-in requirement as a transition to a better future. These workers are unlikely to complain no matter how exploitative their work and living situations are. Even if their work amounts to being underemployed and de-skilled, it is still better than remaining in the Philippines with no prospect of a better future. Judging from the success of their predecessors, they all know they can also do well in the open job market after becoming permanent residents.

 

An alternative being considered by nanny placement agencies is the hiring of au pairs from Europe for 12 months under the existing working holiday visas. These visas are faster to process and since holiday visa workers do not stay permanently after one year, this option for Canadian families is of low cost to the government.

 

Daycare has always been a critical problem for Canada’s young families, where many Canadian women are torn between the choice of keeping their professional careers and putting them on hold to look after their young children. The cost of daycare has also increased sharply in the last 20 years, driving spouses to consider alternative working hours so that one parent is left to provide care to the children while the other works. This is especially true for parents who prefer home-based child care rather than the child care centre. It is estimated that the national average for child care in Canada is more than $4,500 a year, and 7.8 percent of a family’s budget is directed to child care.

Click link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYtPycoW9ng to view "The
Canadian National Child Care Policy."

There has been a move toward regulated child care in all provinces, away from informal family arrangements. In Quebec, which subsidizes daycare heavily, 72 percent of children attend regulated centres. In the rest of Canada, the rate is 40 percent. It is also estimated that more than 165,000 regulated spots are needed to meet the demand for space.

 

In Quebec, its newly-elected premier Pauline Marois has promised low-cost day care for all families, a project which she launched 15 years ago when she was education minister in 1997. The heavily government subsidized $7-a-day daycare system has been plagued by a shortage of available spaces and many families have been on the waiting list for so long. Marois promises to create 28,000 new spaces, a project which will take four years and cost the province $261 million more per year. But this project, according to Marois, will eventually leave the province with a spot for every child.

 

A recent study showed that the Quebec daycare system works and it provides economic benefits to families and has helped single parents to enter the workforce. The study also concluded that the province’s daycare program added 1.7 per cent to Quebec’s GDP in 2008 and brought back $1.50 in tax revenue for the federal and provincial governments, combined, for every $1 spent by Quebec. In Ottawa, the last time the federal government toyed with the idea of creating a national daycare system based on the Quebec plan was during the Liberal government under Paul Martin.

 

At present, Canada provides cash transfers and tax exemptions for child care services that benefit disproportionately the wealthiest Canadians, but offer very little support to middle-class families. Outside Quebec, parents are paying between $1,000 to $2,000 a month for each child care space, an enormous fraction of a middle class family’s income.

 

The concept of a national childcare program has been proposed by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in 1970. Finding that reliable child care is fundamental to women’s equality in employment, the Commission recommended that “the federal government immediately take steps to enter into agreements with provinces leading to adoption of a national Daycare Act.” The Vanier Institute of the Family also noted that “most women and men expect to have jobs and careers. With the high cost of living, most families require two earners to achieve an average standard of living.”

 

Nothing has been accomplished at the federal level and the provinces—with the exception of Quebec—in successfully implementing an effective and low-cost daycare program.

By virtue of default by the federal and provincial levels of government, the Live-in Caregiver Program has become Canada’s substitute daycare program: home-based daycare plus the added benefit of a caregiver who looks after housekeeping, cooking and other menial chores that Canadian mothers would prefer not to do by themselves. It’s a dream daycare program: low-cost to the government, and an affordable and comfortable luxury to families who can afford to hire a live-in caregiver.

 

However, the mandatory live-in residence requirement for LCP workers undermines the LCP workers’ personal freedoms and increases their vulnerability to every form of abuse and exploitation. Domestic workers have to endure two years of indentured service just to have a shot at the prize of landed or permanent resident status.

 

Whether live-in caregivers keep their chances of gaining permanent residence after two years of work, the obvious winner in this type of arrangement is the Canadian government. Foreign domestic workers bear the heaviest of burden among all new immigrants—that of modern-day slavery only to get a crack at that much-vaunted Canadian life in the future, while others get instant landed status and the opportunity to pursue the careers they’ve prepared for.

The end of Canada’s multiculturalism

 

 

Very recently, Jason Kenney, Canada’s Minister for Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism announced that Canada will soon have an immigration system that works for Canada’s economy. Instead of a system plagued with backlogs, by the end of 2013, Canada’s new immigration system will become more flexible and responsive to the labour market, Mr. Kenney said.

 

The overriding objective of Mr. Kenney’s initiative in overhauling Canada’s immigration system is to install a fast, flexible just-in-time immigration system. To Mr. Kenney, the bottom line is to make the system work for Canada’s economy, anything short is unacceptable.

 

Mr. Kenney’s package of initiatives will be implemented on January 2013, a totally revamped immigration program that features a new point-grid which harkens back the old era when Canada’s immigrants and settlers were primarily people of European Christian heritage. This was prior to 1967 when Canada’s immigration policy, just like most other countries at that time, used race, ethnicity, religion and language in selecting new immigrants.

Canada Immigration Minister Jason Kenney. Photo courtesy of Andrew Forget,
QMI Agency. Click link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru5sTwBmWX4 to
view "Minister Jason Kenney on the Irish Late Late Show."

Of course, the new immigration policy will not directly identify race, ethnicity or religion as criteria in choosing newcomers in this country, obviously an indication that Canada is also sensitive to issues of racism and discrimination. However, the emphasis placed on proficiency in either of the official Canadian languages of English or French as the most important decisive factor in the selection process unmistakably tilts it in favour of certain source countries. Already, critics of this potential shift from non-English speaking countries have pointed out the return to Canada's ethnocentric roots, which was the main reason for adopting the points system in the first place.

 

When Canada adopted the points system for selecting new immigrants, it was hailed as a Canadian innovation. The system removed any type of formal discrimination from immigration policy. Individuals would no longer be denied immigration to Canada, as it was in the past, based on their ethnicity, nationality or religion.

 

Mr. Kenney has emphasized many times that proficiency in English or French accelerates the integration of newcomers in the workforce and in the larger Canadian society. “Extensive research has consistently shown that the ability to communicate effectively in either French or English is a key factor in the success of new immigrants,” said Minister Kenney.

 

Language proficiency will not only be imposed as the most requirement for new immigrants but also to applicants for Canadian citizenship as well. With this stringent language requirement for citizenship, immigrants who have been successful as permanent residents and have lived, worked and contributed to Canada for years will find it more difficult to become citizens.

 

Effective November 1, 2012, applicants for citizenship will be required to submit acceptable evidence of their language proficiency, such as the results of a CIC-approved third-party test, or evidence of completion of secondary or post-secondary education in English or French, or evidence of achieving the appropriate language level in certain government-funded language training programs. This requirement will be in addition to passing a harder citizenship exam and a 75 percent minimum passing grade. There will also be no automatic citizenship for foreign-born children and for everyone born in Canada of immigrant parents.

 

Making proficiency in English or French as the most important requirement for social integration and job placement strikes at the heart of Canada’s policy of multiculturalism. In 1971, the federal government has recognized the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society, and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage. That Canada is not mainly English or French, but a composite of many and diverse ethno-cultural communities.

 

In 1988, Parliament passed the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, and enshrined this policy of multiculturalism in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, guaranteeing among others, equal protection and benefit of the law, and freedom from discrimination on the basis of gender, religion and racial or ethnic origin. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act also upholds Canada’s multicultural policies in its objectives by respecting the federal, bilingual, and multicultural character of the country.

Vancouver Multicultural Day Committee’s National Multicultural Day event.
Courtesy of BC Gov Photos. Click link to view "The State of Multiculturalism
in Canada," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZytZWw7ByM

As immigration continues to change the country’s demographics, Canada’s multiculturalism program has focused on making its institutions more responsive to the needs of Canada’s diverse population. Therefore, this new language proficiency requirement for new immigrants and citizens is unquestionably a step backward, a decision that ignores the ethnic and cultural make-up of Canada’s present-day immigrants.

 

Since 1991, China, India and the Philippines have been the top source of immigrants to Canada – countries where neither English nor French is the first language. Other immigrants and refugees come from countries in the Third World where they don’t speak English or French as their mother tongue. In due time, these immigrants have mastered their ability to speak English or French. Although not without the hardship that usually comes with every immigrant’s struggle to survive, they have contributed to the country’s economy and have become established and law-abiding citizens.

 

While mastery of the language might produce better economic outcomes for immigrants in the short term, it could also make it more difficult to find enough people with sufficient levels of fluency to maintain Canada’s immigration levels. And language is not the only focus of the present overhaul of Canada’s immigration system.

 

A study conducted by Prof. Naomi Albiom of Queen’s University has found that the present government’s immigration policies are making Canada less welcoming as it was. The new emphasis on reducing backlogs and short-term labour market needs is reshaping Canada’s future as a country for immigrants. Prof. Albiom has also criticized the pace these changes are being made through undemocratic methods like embedding them in omnibus and budget bills, and giving the immigration minister with almost unlimited authority to set policies with little public or parliamentary oversight.

 

All this makes us wonder if Immigration Minister Kenney’s reform initiatives are simply a reaction to the failure of multiculturalism in Europe where the leaders of Germany, France and Britain, have each declared that multiculturalism has been a failure in their countries, serving to separate and segregate, rather than integrate. Is Mr. Kenney trying to avoid a similar backlash against multiculturalism in Canada by revamping the immigration system now, rather than wait for the kind of European upheaval against accommodation of diversity issues?

 

The 2004 United Nations Mission on contemporary racism, for instance, concluded “that racial discrimination in Canada was tangible as reflected in the high incidence of poverty, overrepresentation in the prison population, racial profiling and under representation of ethnic and racial minorities in the upper and middle layers of political, administrative, economic, cultural and media institutions and mechanisms.” An effective way, it seems for the present government to prevent this situation from blowing up is to control the influx of new immigrants, and to ensure that these immigrants will conform to Canada’s original ethnocentric values and culture.

 

So, the Conservative government’s immigration momentum appears to run counter to the basic idea of multiculturalism that successful integration occurs when newcomers retain a sense of their heritage and culture while also becoming engaged in the larger society. While Europe has struggled with this concept, the defining feature of Canadian culture seems to be under siege not much from the immigrants this country fears may strike like their counterparts in Europe, but more from a government that seems tied to old-fashioned assimilation.

 

Like Europe where mandatory civic integration policies are now being implemented, Canada is similarly paving the way to a more comfortable road to assimilation of its new immigrants by ensuring that they conform to its ethnocentric culture right at the gates. Against a backdrop of increasing social isolation of immigrants and their rising political radicalization, it is only a matter of time when Canada eventually sheds off the reputation of being the first country in the world to adopt a policy of multiculturalism.

 

When Mr. Kenney insists on language proficiency and emphasis on hiring of temporary foreign workers without a path to permanent residence and citizenship, the undercurrent in this policy is clear: Canada can no longer tolerate a live-and-let-live attitude towards immigrants. New immigrants to Canada, to the Conservative government’s approval, must be “Canadian first,” at least in relation to public life. If their ethnic identities are to be preserved, these must be expressed only in private and not be the basis for political claims to multiculturalism.

 

The death knell to multiculturalism has already been sounded. Allan Gregg wrote in The Walrus that the elite consensus on a feel-good multiculturalism is blinding us to the reality of growing ethnic divides and animosities. Canada is not immune to the European conundrum and failure to contain multiculturalism.

To avoid the ethnic and religious divisions that are so visible in Europe, Jason Kenney is learning his lessons fast. He may not admit that he intends to abolish multiculturalism as an objective of immigration reform, but his immigration policies appear to be directed towards post-multiculturalism, a new order that avoids the excesses of multiculturalism without imposing the harsh policies of assimilation that are happening in Europe where he has been borrowing most of his ideas of reform.

A question of fairness

 

  

Reviewing the performance of his cabinet portfolio for the past 12 months, Canada Immigration Minister Jason Kenney says “It’s been a busy time, but we are not done yet.”

 

Indeed, Minister Kenney has his hands full these days overhauling Canada’s immigration system. Before Kenney’s term is over, don’t be surprised if we have a system cloned after the Australian model or an entirely new one that no one could even recognize as Canadian.

 

On top of these immigration reforms, Minister Kenney wanted all prospective immigrants to pass a very high level of proficiency in English or French, which he said is the surest predictor of success in the labour market and in integrating with Canadian society. While mastery of English or French might produce better economic outcomes for some immigrants, it could however also negatively impact Canada’s immigration targets if no sufficient number of people is found with the required levels of fluency. While this language requirement does not aim to discriminate, it may have the unintended consequence of targeting favoured nationalities. Based on the Australian experience from which Minister Kenney borrows many of his initiatives, today’s immigrants in Australia are predominantly from the United Kingdom, Ireland and New Zealand, all English-speaking nations.

 

Minister Kenney provided a litany of accomplishments—all the regulatory and program changes his department has initiated or implemented during the last 12 months, from eliminating backlogs in the application system to detecting and cracking down on immigration fraud. In addition, Kenney has also introduced reforms which will take effect in January 2013 that will totally revamp the 20-year-old point-grid system, modify Canada’s Federal Skilled Worker Program (FSWP), and create a new Federal Skilled Trades Class (FSTC).

Canada Immigration Minister Jason Kenney shouts for a living, according to the Toronto Star. Photo courtesy of  Fred Chartrand/The Canadian Press. Click link to view "Jason Kenny on transforming Canada's Immigration system,"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/video-jason-kenney-on-transforming-canadas-immigration-system/article4104591/

There is one way to evaluate Minister Kenney’s immigration reforms, and this is by ascertaining their fairness. By fairness, we mean if these initiatives simply are reasonable, even-handed, or just. Whether applicants for immigration and their families and eligible relatives are given a fair shake. Not by any pompous or high-falutin standard of fairness.

 

Although Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act does not mention the word “fair” in its objectives under Paragraph 3-Objectives and Application, until it reaches Paragraph 3(2) which pertains to the objectives of the Act with respect to refugees. The said paragraph provides for “fair and efficient procedures that will maintain the integrity of the Canadian refugee protection system.” By extension, we could also argue that these “fair and efficient procedures” also apply to immigration applicants. After all, they are also entitled to respect for their human rights and fundamental freedoms just like refugees. Everyone for that matter has a right to a modicum of fairness.

 

Arbitrary backlog reduction

 

In his departmental review, Minister Kenney claimed he has reduced by over three-quarters, from 640,000 to close to 150,000, the total number of people in the Federal Skilled Worker backlog of applications prior to February 27, 2008. Kenney wiped out this backlog by cancelling all applications submitted prior to February 27, 2008, for which an immigration officer has not made a decision based on selection criteria by March 29, 2012. Close to 280,000 applications, mainly from China, India and the Philippines are affected by this decision.

 

In exchange for eliminating these prior applications, applicants will be reimbursed for their fees, and the federal government thinks this is fair. On the contrary, it would never be fair. The Canadian government has dashed their hopes and dreams. They gave up other options and, for some, opportunities for personal advancement which are no longer available after waiting so long. Others have postponed marriage or raising their families, so how can you be fair to these people? Their applications were never refused but only languished in the backlog because of bureaucratic incompetence. Now, Canada Immigration faces a class action suit from these affected applicants.

 

Capping family reunification

 

Minister Kenney also claimed in his review that he has reduced the backlog for sponsored parents and grandparents. To achieve this, Canada Immigration capped the number of applications for family reunification, thus denying the hopes of many new immigrants to bring their families to Canada. To allay the fears of these immigrants that they would not be able to sponsor their families, Kenney sweetened the cap by allowing parents and grandparents to come to Canada as temporary visitors under an expedited application process—8 weeks versus 8 years if they apply for permanent residence.

 

Whenever he has the chance, Minister Kenney has stated publicly that the parent and grandparent super visa, valid for up to 10 years for visits of up to two years, has been a great success with nearly 3,700 successful applications in its first six months. But not according to many parents and grandparents who have submitted their super visa applications.

 

Toronto Star ran a story about Jose Alfredo Canizales Giron and his wife Emma Luisa Fonseca de Canizales from Honduras who wanted to visit their three adult children in Canada. They have been previously sponsored by their daughter Ana but the application was caught in the immigration backlog. But Ana was thrilled to learn of Canada Immigration’s new super visa that would facilitate her parents' visits.

 

Canada Immigration denied Ana’s parents citing their “family ties in Canada and in your country of residence” and “length of proposed stay in Canada.” She paid $6,000 for her parent’s health insurance coverage in Canada and $2,200 for their return flight, which were requirements under the new super visa.

 

In the case of Liza Parekh, a story also ran by Toronto Star, her mother Meena’s application was approved under the new super visa. She was shocked, however, when border officials limited her mother’s stay to six months. Liza was hoping her mother could help her with the birth of her first child. So her mother’s super visa turned out to be not super at all but just like a temporary visa which was good only for six months, not for two years as originally announced by Minister Kenney.

 

The Winnipeg Free Press also reported that the “new super visa is super disappointing” and that the changes made by the Conservative government were meant to keep families apart. Fred de Villa, a prominent Filipino community leader in Winnipeg, has criticized the onerous requirements for the new super visa application which he said were obviously put in place to prevent families from reunification.

 

Under the new super visa, sponsoring children are required to purchase health insurance coverage for $100,000 for one year for parents who are 55 years and older. De Villa, who works in the insurance industry, said that the required health coverage costs at least $1,200 a year and there’s no monthly payment plan. There are no refunds if the parents stay for just a few months and the medical insurance covers nothing except emergencies like a stroke or one that requires hospitalization.

 

A tale of broken promises

 

Canada’s super visa is fast becoming a tale of broken promises. As of March 2012, rejections for super visa applications have gone up, contrary to Minister Kenney’s claim that the super visa is a great success. In May this year, Minister Kenney boasted that more that 3,500 parent and grandparent super visa applications were approved since it was introduced on December 1, 2011. In the excitement of almost everyone about the new super visa, no one thought people would get blindsided.

 

Among the new immigration reforms that will take effect in January 2013 is the revised Federal Skilled Worker Program (FSWP). As pointed out earlier, the new FSWP makes proficiency in English or French as the most important selection factor, with new minimum official language thresholds. The total number of points for language has also been upped from 16 to 24.

 

There is also an emphasis on younger immigrants who will more likely acquire valuable Canadian work experience and remain in the workforce longer. Against an aging population, this is a smart and selfish economic decision to select younger people who will contribute longer and replenish Canada’s pension, employment insurance and health plans.

 

Foreign work experience will no longer have much weight. Those who have Canadian work experience will get more points. Obviously, if one wishes to acquire Canadian experience, the best way to do it is by applying for a temporary work visa and work from 2 to 4 years before applying for permanent residence. This emphasis on Canadian work experience works as a disincentive for applicants for permanent residence who have never worked in Canada before.

 

Canada Immigration is also introducing a mandatory requirement that FSWP applicants have their education abroad assessed against Canadian education standards by designated organizations. Points will be awarded according to how an applicant’s foreign educational credential compares to a completed educational credential in Canada. However, it does not necessarily guarantee that they would become licensed to practice in a regulated occupation. This goes without saying because Canada Immigration has no jurisdiction on professions which belongs to the respective societies that govern the different professions such as law, medicine, accounting or engineering.

 

Instead of recognizing foreign credentials, Canada Immigration is again raising the false hopes of immigrant professionals that they can continue working in their fields of expertise.

 

Acceptance under the new class for skilled tradespersons (FSTC) will largely depend on an offer of employment and a certificate of qualification from a provincial authority. Judging from the past, this is an area ripe with fraud and employment practices that are exploitative. Immigrant applicants might also be enticed to enter this new class if they lack the high level of language proficiency and Canadian work experience.

 

Canada’s Minister for Immigration Jason Kenney keeps on rationalizing his reforms as necessary for a “faster, more flexible, responsive and secure immigration system that will better meet Canada’s economic needs while continuing to uphold our humanitarian commitments.” Nowhere did he mention or emphasize the fairness of the system. Everywhere he is invited to speak, Minister Kenney sidesteps any talk about whether the new immigration policies will be fair to immigrants, obviously a matter that is not high in his list of priorities.