Travailleurs étrangers temporaires: Ottawa va resserrer les règles et les critères d’admissibilité 

2024/08/27 Leave a comment

The most comprehensive report I have seen so far (no doubt various commentaries will emerge in coming days). As the saying goes, better late than never but the Liberal government’s (mis)management of immigration has to rate as one of its biggest policy failures, substantively and in political terms.

But this policy reversal, one among a number, has the advantage that it demonstrates that restrictions cannot be automatically portrayed as xenophobic, nor can criticism of any proposed immigration restrictions in the Conservative 2025 platform be labelled as such by the Liberals and NDP.

We should expect to see the impact starting in October, with the final quarter numbers providing a good indication of their effectiveness:

Le premier ministre Justin Trudeau a annoncé lundi des changements au Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires (PTET) lundi matin, alors que le cabinet ministériel effectue sa retraite à Halifax. 

« Nous allons réduire l’utilisation du programme pour faire entrer des travailleurs étrangers temporaires faiblement rémunérés », a-t-il dit. 

« Nous regardons également les modifications au volet des postes à haut salaire. » 

Le premier ministre a justifié cette décision en expliquant qu’en raison de l’inflation, la situation n’était plus la même qu’il y a deux ans et que le Canada n’avait plus autant besoin de main-d’œuvre étrangère. Il a ajouté que le temps était à la formation et à l’investissement dans la technologie, et non plus à une dépendance croissante à la main-d’œuvre étrangère, parfois « exploitée » et « maltraitée ». 

Il a invité les entreprises à engager leur personnel parmi la population canadienne. « À ceux qui se plaignent de la pénurie de main-d’œuvre, voici mon message : il n’y a pas de meilleur moment pour investir et pour embaucher des travailleurs canadiens. » 

Les domaines de la santé, de la construction et de la sécurité alimentaire sont exemptés des nouvelles mesures du PTET qui seront appliquées dès le 26 septembre.

Selon les changements mis de l’avant, les employeurs ne devront pas dépasser un apport de travailleurs étrangers temporaires équivalent à 10 % de leur effectif. Ce seuil s’appliquera aux postes à bas salaires seulement.

Les travailleurs embauchés dans cette proportion pourront être employés pour une période maximale d’un an plutôt que de deux.

Par ailleurs, Ottawa signale qu’il ne traitera pas les études d’impact sur le marché du travail qui sont nécessaires pour justifier l’embauche de travailleurs étrangers temporaires si ces demandes sont faites pour des postes à bas salaire dans des zones métropolitaines où le taux de chômage est d’au moins 6 %.
Selon le ministre de l’Emploi, Randy Boissonnault, les changements entraîneront une réduction d’environ 65 000 travailleurs étrangers temporaires.

« Le PTET a toujours été conçu pour s’ajuster à l’économie et c’est ce que nous faisons : nous regardons les données économiques et nous y répondons », a-t-il affirmé.

Un « premier pas »

M. Trudeau a présenté l’annonce de lundi comme une « première étape » en réponse à l’importante hausse d’immigrants temporaires. 

Cet automne, nous allons présenter, pour la première fois, un plan de niveaux d’immigration qui ne parle pas juste de résidents permanents, mais aussi de résidents temporaires, qu’il s’agisse de travailleurs étrangers ou d’autres [catégories d’immigration].

 le premier ministre Justin Trudeau

L’objectif est de « s’assurer que l’ensemble a le plus de sens possible en fonction des besoins des Canadiens et de notre économie », a fait valoir le premier ministre. 

Les niveaux pancanadiens annuels de nouveaux résidents permanents – 485 000 en 2024 et 500 000 en 2025 ainsi qu’en 2026 — incluent des cibles chiffrées de dossiers à être approuvés par Ottawa dans des programmes économiques et de regroupement familial, par exemple, mais pas pour les volets d’une immigration dite « temporaire » et marquée, selon Statistique Canada, par une croissance fulgurante depuis 2022. 

« Je pense que l’époque des voies d’entrée au Canada qui ne sont pas plafonnées en vient à être révolue. C’est une question de planification et de prévision appropriées », a déclaré le ministre de l’Immigration, Marc Miller.

Parmi les nouveaux arrivants non permanents exclus des cibles actuelles, on compte les étudiants internationaux et les travailleurs étrangers qui peuvent vouloir, à plus long terme, élire domicile au Canada. On y retrouve aussi tous les demandeurs d’asile se trouvant déjà au pays qui attendent, face à de longs délais, une décision de la Commission de l’immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada (CISR) sur leur requête ou la conclusion de leur appel après avoir essuyé un refus. 

En tout et pour tout, Statistique Canada évalue qu’il y avait 2 793 594 résidents non permanents partout au pays au deuxième trimestre de 2024. Au Québec seulement, l’agence estime qu’il y en avait 597 140, mais la CISR, qui s’en remet à une définition moins large et une méthodologie différente, en dénombrait plutôt 388 959, a précisé l’équipe du ministre fédéral de l’Immigration, Marc Miller. 

Ottawa a signalé en mars qu’il prévoit réduire le nombre de résidents temporaires à 5 % de la population au cours des trois prochaines années, contre 6,2 % au moment de l’annonce. 

M. Miller a ouvert la porte lundi à ce qu’Ottawa considère de réduire ses cibles de nouveaux résidents permanents dès 2025. « Je dirais que toutes les options sont en ce moment sur la table », a-t-il dit.

Des annonces au Québec

Le Québec, qui détient certains pouvoirs en matière d’immigration, a aussi annoncé récemment des changements au PTET. 

À compter du 3 septembre, le gouvernement imposera un moratoire de six mois concernant les demandes et les renouvellements en lien PTET sur l’île de Montréal. Le gouvernement de François Legault a présenté l’initiative comme une façon de protéger le français. 

Cette décision visera des emplois dont le salaire offert est inférieur au revenu médian du Québec, soit 57 000 $ par an ou 27,47 $/heure. Le gouvernement prévoit des exceptions qui touchent les secteurs de la santé, de l’éducation, de la construction, de l’agriculture et de la transformation alimentaire. 

Le premier ministre Legault a aussi indiqué qu’un projet de loi sera déposé cet automne afin de donner au gouvernement le pouvoir de limiter le nombre d’étudiants étrangers dans certains établissements d’enseignement « où il y a eu des abus ». 

Depuis plusieurs mois, Québec réclame au fédéral une baisse « significative et rapide » du nombre d’immigrants temporaires sur son territoire, plaidant que la province a dépassé sa capacité d’accueil. 

Source: Travailleurs étrangers temporaires Ottawa va resserrer les règles et les critères d’admissibilité

Translation:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced on Monday changes to the Temporary Foreign Workers Program (TFTP) on Monday morning, as the ministerial cabinet is retiring in Halifax.

“We will reduce the use of the program to bring in low-paid temporary foreign workers,” he said.

“We are also looking at the changes to the aspect of high-wage positions. ”

The Prime Minister justified this decision by explaining that because of inflation, the situation was no longer the same as two years ago and that Canada no longer needed foreign labor as much. He added that the time was for training and investment in technology, and no longer for a growing dependence on foreign labor, sometimes “exploited” and “mistreated”.

He invited companies to hire their staff among the Canadian population. “To those who complain about the labor shortage, here is my message: there is no better time to invest and hire Canadian workers. ”

The areas of health, construction and food safety are exempt from the new PTET measures that will be applied from September 26.

According to the changes put forward, employers will not have to exceed a contribution of temporary foreign workers equivalent to 10% of their workforce. This threshold will apply to low-wage positions only.

Workers hired in this proportion may be employed for a maximum period of one year rather than two.

In addition, Ottawa reports that it will not deal with labour market impact studies that are necessary to justify the hiring of temporary foreign workers if these applications are made for low-wage positions in metropolitan areas where the unemployment rate is at least 6%.

According to the Minister of Employment, Randy Boissonnault, the changes will result in a reduction of about 65,000 temporary foreign workers.

“The PTET has always been designed to adjust to the economy and that’s what we do: we look at economic data and respond to it,” he said.

A “first step”

Mr. Trudeau presented Monday’s announcement as a “first step” in response to the significant increase in temporary immigrants.

This fall, we will present, for the first time, an immigration level plan that is not just about permanent residents, but also about temporary residents, whether foreign workers or other [immigration categories].

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

The objective is to “ensure that the whole makes the most sense possible according to the needs of Canadians and our economy,” said the Prime Minister.

The annual pan-Canadian levels of new permanent residents – 485,000 in 2024 and 500,000 in 2025 and 2026 – include quantified targets of files to be approved by Ottawa in economic and family reunification programs, for example, but not for the components of so-called “temporary” immigration and marked, according to Statistics Canada, by meteoric growth since 2022.

“I think the days of entry routes into Canada that are not capped are over. It is a question of appropriate planning and forecasting, “said Immigration Minister Marc Miller.

Among the non-permanent newcomers excluded from current targets are international students and foreign workers who may want, in the longer term, to take up residence in Canada. It also includes all asylum seekers already in the country who are waiting, in the face of long delays, for a decision by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) on their request or the conclusion of their appeal after being refused.

In all, Statistics Canada estimates that there were 2,793,594 non-permanent residents across the country in the second quarter of 2024. In Quebec alone, the agency estimates that there were 597,140, but the IRB, which relies on a smaller definition and a different methodology, counted 388,959, said the team of the Federal Minister of Immigration, Marc Miller.

Ottawa reported in March that it plans to reduce the number of temporary residents to 5% of the population over the next three years, from 6.2% at the time of the announcement.

Mr. Miller opened the door on Monday for Ottawa to consider reducing its targets for new permanent residents by 2025. “I would say that all the options are currently on the table,” he said.

Announcements in Quebec

Quebec, which has certain immigration authorities, has also recently announced changes to the PTET.

As of September 3, the government will impose a six-month moratorium on PTET-related applications and renewals on the island of Montreal. The government of François Legault presented the initiative as a way to protect French.

This decision will target jobs whose salary offered is lower than Quebec’s median income, i.e. $57,000 per year or $27.47/hour. The government provides for exceptions that affect the health, education, construction, agriculture and food processing sectors.

Prime Minister Legault also indicated that a bill will be tabled this autumn to give the government the power to limit the number of foreign students in certain educational institutions “where there have been abuses”.

For several months, Quebec City has been demanding from the federal government a “significant and rapid” decrease in the number of temporary immigrants on its territory, arguing that the province has exceeded its reception capacity.

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

There’s a values-based case against Canada’s immigration policy. Conservatives should make it

2024/08/26 Leave a comment

While the header conjures images of value tests and “barbaric cultural practices”, the main argument is in favour of permanent rather than temporary immigration, with “a vision of mutual obligation, not temporary expediency,” as much about citizenship as immigration:

As former federal deputy minister Tim Sargent set out this week in a DeepDive for The Hub, Canada’s immigration policy has undergone a fundamental shift over the past decade or so. It’s not just that the number of newcomers has significantly increased, but the composition of who is entering the country has changed too.

Our self-image of Canada’s immigration system as being hyper-focused on skills and human capital is no longer supported by the evidence. Among the more than 470,000 newcomers who came through the permanent resident stream last year, only about 40 percent were selected according to economic criteria. The majority were the immediate family members of economic immigrants, family members of those who have already immigrated, or refugees.

And even that only tells part of the story. Non-permanent residents—including temporary foreign workers and international students—are now a bigger share of Canada’s annual population growth. In 2023 alone, nearly 805,000 non-permanent residents were added to the population. Sargent estimates that there are now 2.8 million non-permanent residents in the country—of which just under 2 million are entitled to work.

What’s the upshot here? Less than half of those entering Canada’s much-vaunted permanent resident stream are being selected based on economic criteria and more than two-thirds of the total annual intake aren’t even entering as permanent residents. We increasingly have an immigration system that’s shifted away from the country’s long-term economic interests and towards temporary migration to fill low-skilled jobs and subsidize post-secondary institutions.

The Left and Right have begun to talk about these developments in different ways. Conservatives have rightly tended to focus on the basic economics of an influx of low-skilled labour and its downward pressures—including on employment and wages—on Canadian workers. Progressives, by contrast, have played up the poor conditions and risk of exploitation for temporary migrants themselves.

Conservatives shouldn’t limit themselves to economic critiques here. They should be prepared to make values-based arguments too.

Large-scale temporary migration is incompatible with how conservatives think about society as a web of reciprocal relations between neighbours and family. The late British rabbi Jonathan Sacks frequently referred to society as a “home that we build together.” Former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper used to describecitizenship ceremonies as “joining the Canadian family.”

These metaphors of family and home convey something much richer than a mere transactional relationship between migrants and a society in which the former sells his or her labour to the latter. They reflect a Burkean conception of society in which we’re equal parts of a multi-generational partnership. The Canadian family can and should welcome new people to join it. But it shouldn’t really be in the business of temporarily hiring people to do its landscaping or deliver its food or care for its children.

This richer, more textured understanding of immigration is reflected in Canada’s birth-on-soil policy. We grant citizenship based on birthright rather than blood because we envision making long-term commitments to newcomers and their families and expect them to make similar commitments to our society. It’s a vision of mutual obligation, not temporary expediency.

The Trudeau government’s abandonment of this vision has done serious harm to Canadian immigration policy. It’s probably the government’s single biggest policy failure. The Conservatives are right therefore to criticize it. But they shouldn’t merely rely on numbers and facts to prosecute their case. They can draw on the conservative traditions of family and home to present a better image of immigration and its relationship to our society.

Source: There’s a values-based case against Canada’s immigration policy. Conservatives should make it

Filed under Immigration Tagged with

Canadian residents face the longest waits in the world for U.S. visas

2024/08/26 Leave a comment

Of note:

Canadian residents who require a visa to visit the United States face the longest wait times in the world.

A CBC News analysis of wait times for appointments to obtain U.S. tourist visas shows that while wait times in countries like India and Mexico have been improving since November 2022, wait times in Canada have been getting worse.

Six of the 10 longest wait times around the world were recorded at the U.S. embassy and consulate offices in Canada that offer visa appointments.

Currently, those who apply for a B1/B2 visitor visa appointment in Ottawa or Quebec City face the longest wait times in the world — 850 days. Halifax is not far behind at 840 days, followed by Calgary at 839 days. Getting a visa appointment in Toronto takes 753 days, while in Vancouver it’s 731 days.

Wait times can fluctuate from day to day. Earlier this month, Toronto had the longest wait time in the world — 900 days.

The other locations with the longest current wait times are Istanbul, Turkey (774 days), Bogota, Colombia (677 days), Guatemala City, Guatemala (645 days) and Hermosillo, Mexico (576 days).

Source: Canadian residents face the longest waits in the world for U.S. visas

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Immigration experts say Trump’s ‘mass deportations’ pledge could cause surge in illegal border crossings into Canada if he wins back the White House 

2024/08/26 Leave a comment

Opinions of note, generally reasoned and realistic:

…Michael Barutciski, a lawyer and associate professor of international studies at York University’s Glendon College, says the situation will depend on how the Canadian government responds to Trump and his immigration policies.

“If there’s a general sense that people who are not legally in the U.S. will be removed or deported, it’s logical that anyone unsure about their status in the U.S. will think it might make sense to go north to Canada,” Barutciski said.

Barutciski noted that the key question is: “What does the government do?” which he sees as “an indication of how this potential flow will be handled. Will it be stopped or will it be encouraged?”

He warned that “If Canada sends a welcoming signal—tweets about how everyone is welcome here—we’ll get tens of thousands, maybe 100,000 or even millions.”

Christian Leuprecht, a professor at the Royal Military College and Queen’s University and a Munk senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, also said a Trump presidency could result in an uptick at Canada’s southern border but does not think it would go beyond the tens of thousands.

“The bulk of people who presented irregularly at the border [during Trump’s first term] were people who always intended to cross into Canada and were not fleeing the Trump administration,” he said.

That being said, he explained that if Trump is re-elected, “the small portion of people fleeing the Trump administration would likely increase, but that increase would not be particularly significant, possibly in the thousands, possibly in the tens of thousands.”

Like Barutciski, Leuprecht said the way the Canadian government handles the situation will impact our borders. He said there is a risk the Trudeau government will forgo the rule of law in an attempt to turn the border issue into an American-style wedge for domestic political gain.

“The risk is not actually masses of people showing up on the border here, because Canada can simply invoke the rule of law and say that the better part of 90 percent of the people who would show up would not qualify,” he said. “The risk here is that the Trudeau government will actually violate its own provisions and the rule of law for political reasons so that he can use it as a wedge issue.”

The Trump refugee narrative “is one that the current federal government loves to propagate.”i

Muzaffar Chishti, a lawyer and senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, an American non-partisan pro-immigration think tank, casts doubt on the American government’s ability to deport people en masse.

“There are legal impediments that the former president seems generally unaware of. There are constitutional provisions of habeas corpus and due process of law, which strongly impede removing anyone without sending them to a court,” he said.

“Second, there are operational realities—they are not all in one place, not in a camp where you could just extract them. They are intermingled in communities across the country, and getting them out is very, very operationally difficult. Third, there will be a political backlash. Almost all of them are employed, and if they are taken out of their jobs. There could be outcries even from Trump’s own base.”

Chishti also noted that he doesn’t think that the goal of a potential second Trump administration would necessarily be to successfully deport 11 million people, it would rather be “to instill a sense of fear,” which one assumes would discourage other border crossers.

“I think people who respond to that instinct of fear may want to move to Canada. There’s a real possibility of that happening,” he said, given Canada’s reputation as being more receptive to asylum seekers.

What about the Safe Third Country Agreement?

In March 2023, Canada and the U.S. modified the Safe Third Country Agreement so that individuals could no longer make asylum claims from unofficial ports of entry, closing the loophole used by asylum seekers.

However, experts consulted by The Hub said the new March 2023 deal is not a silver bullet and could lead to new problems.

Leuprecht said those who qualify under the exemptions will take advantage and apply, leading to an increase in legal asylum claims.

“We will see a small increase in people who have a legitimate claim to refugee or asylum status, who will present at ports of entry,” he said.

He is also concerned that those without legitimate asylum claims will attempt to cross into Canada illegally at unsupervised, unofficial ports of entry, similar to how illegal immigrants enter the United States from Mexico.

“We will see a small increase in human smuggling across the border.”

Chishti echoed this sentiment, which he said will be a concern of the Canadian government.

“If there is a Trump administration, you could see much more of a commercial enterprise, where you’ll have criminal ranks getting involved,” he said.

“That, I think, will create a sense of chaos and disorder when you will see people being caught in the woods, you know, trying to sneak through, and then you will see the people’s private farms being encroached on, and all that.”

He added that this “is the kind of disorder that creates a political backlash.”

…Experts told The Hub it was crucial for Canada to be prepared and take a series of actions to promote the rule of law and orderly legal immigration, in light of a possible second Trump administration.

“We actually have to start controlling the border with more resources,” said Barutciski. “More border control sends the signal that there are rules to get into Canada.”

“Don’t give off the image to the earth that the integrity of the system has been undermined. That you’re generous and that you don’t really control this. You can’t continue like that.”

He also urged Canada to address its immigration policy issues regardless of who wins the U.S. election. “The current numbers and the way people are coming here is not sending a good signal. It’s a system that is losing credibility. Even if Kamala Harris wins and Trump isn’t President, Canada still has a very difficult situation.”

Leuprecht said Canada needs to be willing to deport those who are not in this country for the right reasons. “We want to make sure we send the right message: “[That] Canada is not the country to go to unless you have a legitimate claim and that you will be deported if you show up here if you do not qualify under the rules.”

He noted that this “would be a significant change in narrative, because, in Canada, we traditionally do not deport people, even when they don’t qualify under the rules. The deportation numbers are tiny in Canada.”

Chishti meanwhile stressed that Canada must do its best to avoid a chaotic situation like the one the U.S. has faced at its southern border.

“The sense of disorder never works, even if it’s a small number of people,” he said. “People like immigrants, but they don’t like chaotic scenes about immigrants, because it creates a sense that we no longer have control.”

Source: Immigration experts say Trump’s ‘mass deportations’ pledge could cause surge in illegal border crossings into Canada if he wins back the White House

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

ICYMI: Concerns mount over new federal immigration policy that would grant permanent residency to low-wage workers 

2024/08/26 Leave a comment

Valid concerns:

Economists and policy experts are expressing growing concern over a potential new federal immigration program that would immediately grant permanent residency to temporary residents who are in low-wage jobs.

The program, if launched, would target people who already have Canadian work experience in what Ottawa classifies as TEER 4 and TEER 5 occupations – delivery service drivers, caregivers, food production workers and retail staff, to name a few.

TEER stands for Training, Education, Experience and Responsibilities, and it is a job categorization system the government uses for immigration purposes. TEER 4 and TEER 5 workers typically have a high school diploma or little or no formal education at all.

….This is perhaps exactly why Ottawa is thinking of introducing a new path to permanent residency for low-wage workers, Prof. Skuterud and Toronto immigration lawyer Ravi Jain both say.

“The easiest way to deal with this problem is to create a new pathway to permanent residence,” Prof. Skuterud said. “But it’s not smart policy. It will more likely suppress wages and undermine public support for immigration.”

Source: Concerns mount over new federal immigration policy that would grant permanent residency to low-wage workers

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Le Devoir Éditorial | Sur la question de l’immigration, la stratégie des petits pas

2024/08/24 Leave a comment

Worth reading. Money quote: “Le dossier de l’immigration demande qu’on l’aborde avec franchise, lucidité, bienveillance et mesure. (The immigration file requires that it be approached with frankness, lucidity, benevolence and measure.)”

Lassé peut-être de vociférer son message à Ottawa sans être réellement entendu, le gouvernement du Québec a joint le geste à la parole cette semaine en annonçant deux mesures censées permettre de réduire le flux d’immigration temporaire. Un moratoire de six mois sur le programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires à bas salaire, dans la région de Montréal ; et un projet de loi destiné à limiter le nombre d’étudiants étrangers par établissement d’enseignement.

Cette stratégie des petits pas ne contribuera pas à faire fléchir de beaucoup les tendances. Mais dans cette joute que se livrent sans résultats Québec et Ottawa sur le dossier migratoire, ce petit geste fait foi de grand symbole.

« Le fédéral ne manque pas une occasion de dire qu’il faudrait que [le Québec] donne l’exemple », a expliqué mardi le premier ministre François Legault, flanqué de sa ministre de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration, Christine Fréchette. Québec a donc décidé de donner l’exemple. Responsable de 180 000 des 600 000 immigrants temporaires sis au Québec, le gouvernement de François Legault tente depuis des mois de convaincre Ottawa de l’aider à juguler les entrées, car, selon lui, elles exercent une « pression énorme » sur les services publics, la crise du logement et l’avenir du français à Montréal. Le moratoire et le projet de loi tout juste annoncés constituent l’exemple qu’offre Québec au fédéral, sur qui reposent les 420 000 autres entrées.

Les mesures annoncées ne changeront pas le portrait de manière radicale. Québec concède que le moratoire sur le programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires à bas salaire (sous la barre des 27,47 $ l’heure) ne viserait, dans la région montréalaise ciblée, que 3500 personnes, sans plus. Quant au projet de loi visant à mieux encadrer l’entrée d’étudiants étrangers dans certains établissements, il cherche à faire diminuer le flot que représentent ces 120 000 étudiants, mais on ne sait pas de combien.

Ce geste symbolique constitue « un premier pas ». Qu’il ait des répercussions mathématiques importantes ou non, il vient confirmer une fois de plus l’encroûtement du dossier de l’immigration dans la joute Québec-Ottawa. Il révèle aussi une certaine mauvaise foi : le Québec a beau plaider aujourd’hui l’urgence nationale et faire porter le poids de plusieurs maux aux nouveaux arrivants, il ne faut pas reculer bien loin dans le temps pour constater qu’il a lui-même contribué au problème, puis a sciemment choisi d’en ignorer les incidences.

Novembre 2021. Le Devoir titre : « Québec veut stimuler l’immigration temporaire ». Sous la plume de notre journaliste spécialisée Sarah R. Champagne, une première phrase qui parle d’elle-même : « Québec presse Ottawa de faire sauter les plafonds de l’immigration temporaire. » Il y a donc moins de trois ans, l’urgence était tout autre : il s’agissait de rehausser les seuils de travailleurs étrangers temporaires dans 71 métiers et professions à bas salaire.

Les temps ont changé. Les chiffres confirment que, de 2021 à 2024, les migrants temporaires sont passés de 300 000 à 600 000. Une « explosion » que le système ne peut prendre en charge, fait valoir le premier ministre. « Ça fait mal à nos services publics [éducation et santé], ça fait mal à notre crise du logement, ça fait mal à l’avenir du français. » Même s’il se veut le plus « factuel » possible, le premier dirigeant du Québec use d’une rhétorique pour le moins glissante en laissant entendre que les engorgements que subit notre système sont le fait des nouveaux arrivants. C’est regrettable. « Je sais qu’il y en a que ça choque quand je dis ça, mais c’est factuel. »

Le gouvernement a raison d’agir pour ne pas aggraver une situation déjà sous haute tension. Il est également en droit de fouetter Ottawa pour obtenir un peu plus de soutien dans ce dossier — la régulation du nombre de demandeurs d’asile et une meilleure répartition de leur entrée sur le territoire canadien, le Québec en accueillant en ce moment plus de la moitié. Mais il est très discutable de tout faire porter sur les épaules du fédéral sans concéder sa propre part de responsabilité.

Où étaient le sentiment d’urgence et la pression intolérable sur les systèmes publics quand, au printemps 2023, en pleine étude des crédits de son propre ministère, la ministre Fréchette a choisi de rejeter la demande de l’opposition d’étendre la réflexion sur l’immigration au Québec aux travailleurs temporaires, aux étudiants étrangers et aux demandeurs d’asile, préférant se restreindre à l’immigration permanente seulement ? Où est la préoccupation pour l’avenir du français à Montréal quand on sait que la demande explose en francisation, signe d’une volonté d’intégration, mais que les budgets et l’offre sont en diminution ? Pourquoi avoir refusé de nommer la crise du logement quand il était encore temps d’agir pour en atténuer les effets ?

Gare aux envolées catastrophistes qui pourraient faire peser (trop) lourd sur les épaules des principaux intéressés. Ceux-ci ne sont coupables de rien d’autre que d’avoir voulu savoir s’il faisait bon vivre au Québec. Le dossier de l’immigration demande qu’on l’aborde avec franchise, lucidité, bienveillance et mesure.

Source: Éditorial | Sur la question de l’immigration, la stratégie des petits pas

Tired perhaps of shouting its message in Ottawa without really being heard, the Quebec government joined the gesture to the floor this week by announcing two measures supposed to reduce the flow of temporary immigration. A six-month moratorium on the low-wage temporary foreign workers program in the Montreal area; and a bill to limit the number of foreign students per educational institution.

This strategy of small steps will not help to bend trends much. But in this joust that Quebec and Ottawa are taking place without results on the migration file, this small gesture is a great symbol.

“The federal government does not miss an opportunity to say that [Quebec] should set an example,” explained Prime Minister François Legault on Tuesday, flanked by his Minister of Immigration, Francisation and Integration, Christine Fréchette. Quebec has therefore decided to set an example. Responsible for 180,000 of the 600,000 temporary immigrants in Quebec, François Legault’s government has been trying for months to convince Ottawa to help it curb entries, because, according to him, they exert “enormous pressure” on public services, the housing crisis and the future of French in Montreal. The moratorium and bill just announced are the example that Quebec offers to the federal government, on which the other 420,000 entries are based.

The measures announced will not radically change the portrait. Quebec concedes that the moratorium on the low-wage temporary foreign workers program (below $27.47 per hour) would target, in the targeted Montreal region, only 3,500 people, no more. As for the bill to better regulate the entry of foreign students into certain institutions, it seeks to reduce the flow represented by these 120,000 students, but it is not known how much.

This symbolic gesture is “a first step”. Whether it has significant mathematical repercussions or not, it confirms once again the encrusting of the immigration file in the Quebec-Ottawa joust. It also reveals a certain bad faith: although Quebec today advocates national urgency and carries the burden of several evils on newcomers, we must not go far back in time to see that it himself contributed to the problem, then knowingly chose to ignore its implications.

November 2021. Le Devoir headlines: “Quebec wants to stimulate temporary immigration”. Under the pen of our specialized journalist Sarah R. Champagne, a first sentence that speaks for itself: “Quebec urges Ottawa to blow up the ceilings of temporary immigration. So less than three years ago, the urgency was quite different: it was a question of raising the thresholds for temporary foreign workers in 71 low-wage trades and professions.

Times have changed. The figures confirm that, from 2021 to 2024, temporary migrants increased from 300,000 to 600,000. An “explosion” that the system cannot support, argues the Prime Minister. “It hurts our public services [education and health], it hurts our housing crisis, it hurts the future of French. Even if he wants to be as “factual” as possible, Quebec’s first leader uses a slippery rhetoric to say the least by suggesting that the congestions that our system undergoes are caused by newcomers. It’s regrettable. “I know it’s shocking when I say that, but it’s factual. ”

The government is right to act so as not to aggravate a situation already under high tension. He is also entitled to whip Ottawa to get a little more support in this file – the regulation of the number of asylum seekers and a better distribution of their entry into Canada, with Quebec currently welcoming more than half. But it is very questionable to put everything on the shoulders of the federal government without conceding its own share of responsibility.

Where was the feeling of urgency and intolerable pressure on public systems when, in the spring of 2023, in the middle of a study of her own ministry’s appropriations, Minister Fréchette chose to reject the opposition’s request to extend the reflection on immigration in Quebec to temporary workers, foreign students and asylum seekers, preferring to restrict herself to permanent immigration only? Where is the concern for the future of French in Montreal when we know that demand is exploding in francization, a sign of a desire for integration, but that budgets and supply are decreasing? Why did you refuse to name the housing crisis when there was still time to act to mitigate its effects?

Beware of catastrophic flights that could weigh (too) heavily on the shoulders of the main interested parties. They are not guilty of anything other than wanting to know if it was good to live in Quebec. The immigration file requires that it be approached with frankness, lucidity, benevolence and measure.

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Aftab Ahmed: I speak English. Stop asking.

2024/08/24 Leave a comment

…There is also an obvious inconsistency in how language proficiency is treated for permanent residency versus citizenship. Those seeking citizenship are not required to retake the language test if they have passed it once, even if their test results have expired. Permanent residency applicants, however, must retake the test if their results are no longer valid, despite having lived and worked in Canada. This variation further weakens the logic of the current system.

There are simple solutions to this issue: First, remove the two-year validity rule. Second, remove the language proficiency requirement for those who have studied or worked in Canada for a reasonable period. Define that period. Third, for those arriving on a work permit without a certified letter from a recognized international post-secondary institution that provides education in English or French, language testing would be necessary.

Some argue that a steady flow of international students is vital for economic growth, given the billions they contribute to the higher education sector and the labour force. Others claim the influx worsens the housing crisis. Whatever the federal government’s target for permanent residents from this pool may be in the coming years, it is absurd to think someone could study in Canada without knowing one of the official languages. The same principle should apply if they have studied and then worked here. The current system is poor policy….

Source: Aftab Ahmed: I speak English. Stop asking.

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Industrial Policy Needs an Immigration Policy

2024/08/23 Leave a comment

The case for higher skilled immigration as part of industrial strategies:

As the face-off between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris draws nearer, the United States is awash in partisan rancor, with the candidates and their supporters fighting bitterly over abortion, the southern border, taxes, health care, and more. Yet even though Democrats and Republicans are miles apart on most policy matters, they have nevertheless demonstrated a common renewed faith in one particular tool of economic statecraft: industrial policy….

If the United States wants to succeed in the global competition for talent, there is little time to waste. Other countries are already rushing to poach workers that are unable (or unwilling) to settle in the United States. Last June, Canada unveiled a new Tech Talent Strategy, which grants a three-year work permit to up to 10,000 people who hold H1-B visas in the United States to come to Canada, with work or study permits for accompanying family members. The program reached 10,000 applications in less than 48 hours. Germany, for its part, has rolled out a job seeker visa that grants temporary entry for foreign workers so that they can find employment.

In the past year, the Biden administration has taken modest steps to streamline processing for highly skilled workers. In October 2023, the Department of Homeland Security announced several changes to the H1-B program, including extending the grace period for graduates seeking to stay in the United States as they transition from student to work visas. The administration also issued an expansive executive order providing guidance to simplify visa applications and processing times for noncitizens with experience in critical and emerging technologies.

For years, Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill have been unwilling to consider high-skilled immigration reform outside of a comprehensive immigration solution. Biden deserves credit for waking up to the United States’ talent crunch. But his administration’s tepid position is no longer tenable. Any viable solution will require both executive and legislative action.

If congressional leaders can break this impasse, there is plenty of low-hanging fruit to grab. For starters, Congress could increase the annual cap for H1-B visas. There is precedent for this. In the 1990s, Congress temporarily increased the annual cap from 65,000 to 115,000 visas and later to 195,000, as the United States scrambled to find computer programmers to address the dreaded “Millennium Bug,” a computer flaw that experts worried could wreak havoc because the original code used by most machines could not deal with dates beyond December 31, 1999.

Even if the number of temporary visas were increased, the H1-B lottery has other shortcomings: it creates significant uncertainty for job seekers and lacks any sense of prioritization. No private-sector firm would randomly select their future employees, nor does it make sense for the U.S. government to do so when admitting its workers. The U.S. government should set up a system that prioritizes individuals working in sectors or possessing skills that are uniquely in high demand in any given year, a system made possible by the growing sophistication of AI-driven predictive analytics.

Even without congressional action, the executive branch could provide automatic work authorization for the spouses of H1-B workers, who currently must apply separately for permission to work in the United States. One study has shown that 90 percent of H1-B spouses have at least a bachelor’s degree, and half of those degrees are in STEM fields. The Department of Homeland Security has the authority to immediately extend work authorization to H1-B spouses, an action it could take if it wanted to.

When it comes to permanent residency, it is unlikely that there will be much political appetite to increase the overall number of green cards. It is easier, however, to envisage a change that would reduce the number of family reunification–related green cards and increase the number of work-related green cards—a rebalancing that would enhance the larger national interest.

Another relatively simple fix would be to reform or remove the country-specific caps built into the green card process. The statistics, compiled by the economist William Kerr, are undeniable: Chinese and Indian inventors are responsible for 20 percent of all U.S. patents; around half of all international students come from China and India and are disproportionately concentrated in STEM fields; and immigrants from these two countries account for eight in ten H1-B visas issued each year. In the face of these numbers, and with China and India accounting for one-third of the world’s population, limiting each country to seven percent of the United States’ total annual pool of green cards makes little sense.

Another idea that has been proposed is the “recapturing” of unused green cards, another move within the executive’s purview. For bureaucratic, financial, or other reasons, including pandemic-era delays, there have been years when green card caps have not been met. Some experts have called for the administration to recapture those unused green cards (more than 200,000 in number), which would make an immediate dent in the backlog. There is precedent for this maneuver, and, best of all, it would not require legislative action, although explicit congressional approval could expand the total number of unused green cards put back into circulation.

WITHIN REACH

For the past several decades, the political class in Washington has been obsessed with managing and controlling illegal immigration. It is high time policymakers devoted the same degree of attention to legal—and especially high-skilled—immigration.

Just as there is a bipartisan consensus behind industrial policy among politicians, there is also a bipartisan consensus among voters that the United States should do more to encourage high-skilled immigration; three of four respondents in a December 2022 Bipartisan Policy Center survey embraced expanding high-skilled immigration, including 68 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of independents, and 85 percent of Democrats. And in the past, Democratic and Republican lawmakers have joined forces to adjust immigration rules that would strengthen the United States’ standing at a time of geopolitical stress and technological upheaval.

Today is another such time. In a globalized world, top talent goes to the highest bidder. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the United States’ unique ability to attract immigrant labor facilitated the country’s rise as a manufacturing powerhouse. In the twenty-first century, maintaining a position of technological dominance will require the United States to retain its status as the destination of choice for the most skilled workers. The bipartisan “Made in America” vision can become reality, but only if it is built by harnessing the talent of immigrants.

Source: Industrial Policy Needs an Immigration Policy

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Trump H-1B Visa Wage Rule Gives Clue To Second-Term Immigration Policy

2024/08/23 Leave a comment

Of note:

A Trump administration rule in 2020 designed to price H-1B visa holders and employment-based immigrants out of the U.S. labor market offers clues to U.S. immigration policy if Donald Trump wins in November. Although blocked on procedural grounds, the rule alarmed companies by boosting the required minimum salary for foreign-born professionals far beyond the pay of similar U.S. employees. The rule may give pause to those who expect a second Trump administration to be different from the first one on business immigration.

How The Trump Rule Aimed To Price Immigrants Out Of The U.S. Labor Market

On October 8, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor published a rule that significantly raised the minimum wage required for employers to pay H-1B visa holders and employment-based immigrants. Currently, the law requires employers to pay H-1B professionals the prevailing wage or actual wage paid to similar U.S. workers, whichever is higher. Employment-based immigrants need a prevailing wage determination for employers to sponsor them for permanent residence. Despite no change in the law, the Trump administration wrote a regulation that caused the salaries required to be paid to foreign-born scientists and engineers to skyrocket.

After the rule was published, immigration attorneys discovered Trump officials had directed DOL to “hijack” the mathematical formula used to determine prevailing wages. After changing the formula, the rule required employers to pay high-skilled foreign nationals far higher than the market wage. That became clear when private sector salary surveys were compared to federal government wage determinations under the Trump rule.

The prevailing wage is “the average wage paid to similarly employed workers in a specific occupation in the area of intended employment,” according to the DOL website. “That means statistics, not politics, should control the prevailing wage,” said Kevin Miner of Fragomen when the rule was published. “The new DOL regulation artificially pushes the prevailing wage well above what the data shows it to be.”

Close examination found many cases under the rule when hiring an H-1B visa holder or sponsoring a foreign national for permanent residence would likely become impossible….

Source: Trump H-1B Visa Wage Rule Gives Clue To Second-Term Immigration Policy

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Ottawa agrees to pause low-wage stream of Montreal temporary foreign worker program – with several exceptions 

2024/08/22 1 Comment

Exceptions are reasonable. The degree to which these restrictions are enforceable, or are enforced, remains to be seen. But, as some Quebec commentators have noted, major step in giving Quebec a larger say with respect to Temporary Foreign Workers:

Ottawa has approved a Quebec request to impose a six-month pause on new applications to the low-wage stream of the temporary foreign worker program in Montreal, with exemptions for several sectors.

Employment Minister Randy Boissonnault announced the decision on Tuesday, saying the pause will not apply to the construction, agriculture, food-processing, education and social-services sectors.

Quebec Premier François Legault said the six-month pause would only apply to about 3,500 workers filling low-wage jobs on the Island of Montreal. During a Tuesday news conference, Mr. Legault presented this as a first step and acknowledged that it represents only a small fraction of Quebec’s temporary residents….

Source: Ottawa agrees to pause low-wage stream of Montreal temporary foreign worker program – with several exceptions

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →