Ottawa is considering barring certain employers from the temporary foreign worker program to reduce the proportion of non-permanent residents (those with work or study permits and asylum seekers) to 5 per cent of the Canadian population by 2027.Graham Hughes/The Globe and Mail
Anne Michèle Meggs is the former director of planning and accountability for the Quebec ministry responsible for immigration and author of L’immigration au Québec : comment on peut faire mieux.
Will the news that Ottawa is considering barring certain employers from the temporary foreign worker program make a difference to its long-beleaguered immigration policy? That remains to be seen.
The government’s move is part of its plan to reverse many decisions that have led to the serious negative consequences of the mismanagement of the immigration system over the last 10 years. The main stated objective is to reduce the proportion of non-permanent residents (those with work or study permits and asylum seekers) to 5 per cent of the Canadian population by 2027, a target experts consider unattainable.
However, is the growth of a population with a certain immigration status the only problem the government needs to resolve? Or is it the increasing size of the population in general? Or the number and pace of arrivals, whatever their status? Or the skills and skill-levels of the people who are arriving? Or the age pyramid?
There was no vision in the immigration policy that got us into this conundrum, and there is no obvious vision for bringing immigration policy back under control. For public policy to be effective and reinforce confidence in government, the public must understand and relate to the problems that the policy is attempting to address and feel intuitively that the government has the issue under control. Canadians these days sense that this is no longer the case for immigration policy and this is dangerous for social cohesion.
Kofi Annan, former secretary-general of the United Nations, in 2006 called for “triple wins – for migrants, for their countries of origin, and for the societies that receive them.” It is time for a realistic public strategy with clear and measurable “triples wins” that are understandable and meaningful to the Canadian public.
It is legitimate, and essential to ensuring support for policy decisions in this field, that governments prioritize their own countries’ economic and social interests. That being said, equity dictates that the advantages of immigration be felt by all. Increasing numbers will grow the overall economy, but not necessarily the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Also, the pace of arrivals should not put strains on the housing supply or the social safety net.
As for the immigrants themselves, is it a “win” for them to be living with temporary status for years on end? They are literally second-class citizens, without the same rights as those with permanent status, nor access to the same services. The threat of removal hangs constantly over their heads for fear of a temporary permit not being renewed or even being renewable or a refugee claim not approved. It’s impossible to plan a life and family in these circumstances. The temporary foreign workers program has been characterized by a United Nations rapporteur as a breeding ground for contemporary forms of slavery, but all non-permanent residents are easy targets for abuse and exploitation.
Temporary immigration leads to undocumented workers because many take the chance of staying even if their permit has expired, or their claim refused. (The government keeps whatever information it has on this phenomenon and enforcement efforts close to its chest.)
It leads to more families being split up for longer because generally one parent or spouse will arrive first and, if and when permanent residence is obtained, apply to bring in the other dependents. Permanent residence applications automatically include all members of the immediate family.
What is a win for the countries of origin? What are the impacts of inciting to Canada the best and the brightest students from developing countries with the deceiving promise of permanent residence? Or recruiting health care workers from abroad when the projected shortfall of health personnel in the world is 10 million by 2030, mostly in low- and lower-middle-income countries? On the other hand, we mustn’t forget the importance of the funds immigrants send home. Remittances account for nearly 4 per cent of the GDP for low-income countries.
And how should we react to situations of conflict or catastrophe? Improvisation in this area has led to hugely divergent policies. The uncapped Ukrainian response resulted in more than 900-thousand temporary visas being approved. Maybe we should consider ourselves lucky that “only” 300-thousand actually arrived before the cut-off date. The policy responses for Moroccans, Syrians, Sudanese and Gazans have varied significantly in numbers and conditions.
It is imperative that the government move to restore Canadians’ confidence in our immigration system. Clear, manageable and measurable objectives related to all aspects of immigration will be critical.
The strategy must be accompanied by a multi-year (five-year, for instance) government-wide operational plan providing for provincial collaboration. Ideally, this approach would be multipartisan, so that the upcoming election campaign doesn’t become a war of simplistic catchphrases and unviable promises related to immigration. Then we all win.