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

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

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

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.

Aftab Ahmed: I speak English. Stop asking.

…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.

Industrial Policy Needs an Immigration Policy

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

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

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

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

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

Sabrina Maddeaux: Canada can’t cynically rebrand temporary foreign workers and call it a day 

More commentary from the right (Maddeaux briefly tried to be a Conservative candidate for the upcoming election). But addressing the impact of previous Liberal government loosening of visa and work restrictions will involve politically difficult trade-offs, many which a future Conservative government would also find challenging:

…More details on the change are due in the fall, but the government’s announcement provides clues on how they intend to sell the program to Canadians. It says, “The initiative would support the modernization of the economic immigration system by expanding the selection of permanent residents to candidates with a more diverse range of skills and experience.”

The gist: they plan to fold their TFW scheme into the permanent resident stream, pat themselves on the back for increasing “diversity,” and hope voters don’t pick up on the rebrand.

This move kills several birds with one stone. First, converting a large number of TFWs into permanent residents will help them achieve one of their marquee goals: 500,000 new immigrants per year by 2025. Despite the obvious stresses placed on housing, health care, and other infrastructure by this sky-high target unburdened by any signs of strategic planning, there’s been no indication Liberals intend to rethink it.

Second, low-wage employers will get continued access to these workers, preventing any serious pressure to raise wages.

Third, it will allow Liberals to earnestly claim they’ve cut back the TFW program, which is what’s getting all the bad press, without actually having to do any cutting.

Finally, it allows them to avoid the growing mess of expired work permits, which this government clearly doesn’t have the appetite to enforce. In their worldview, enforcing immigration rules isn’t progressive. Yet, moving a mess to a different room still means it’ll eventually have to be cleaned up—and, if it gets bad enough, someone’s eventually bound to argue the best course of action is to simply throw the entire thing out.

This is why it’s so difficult to take the Liberals’ pro-diversity claims seriously. Their actions, as already evidenced by rapidly shifting public opinion on immigration, continuously undermine long-term shared economic and cultural gains in favour of key stakeholders’ short-term financial interests.

Canada is lucky to still be a country where nuanced and level-headed conversation about immigration is not just possible but desired by voters. The public wants thoughtful solutions from policymakers, not marketers trying to sell them the same failed product in new packaging. That begins with recommitting to immigration in service of shared prosperity, not low-wage employers’ bottom lines.

Source: Sabrina Maddeaux: Canada can’t cynically rebrand temporary foreign workers and call it a day

‘Structural solutions not inflammatory conclusions’ required to fix foreign worker program: Senator Omidvar

More balanced than the special rapporteurs language and reasonable recommendations for the current and likely future government to consider, although finding the right balance between employers and workers remains a challenge:

…While the government and groups like the Canadian Chamber of Commercemay reject the UN rapporteur’s characterization of the program, the recent Senate report found similar abuses within the program. 

On May 21, the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science, and Technology released its own report on Canada’s migrant labour infrastructure, which it said is failing both workers and employers. 

Beginning its study in November 2022, the committee heard evidence and testimony from temporary foreign workers and employers, academics, policy experts, and government officials. Members also visited workplaces in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island on a fact-finding mission. 

While Obokata did not visit any farms or fisheries—as the Senate committee did—Omidvar said the Senators who worked on the report were able to come to their findings with “clear eyes,” having accounted for all perspectives. 

Fittingly, those perspectives informed the first of the committee’s recommendations to provide what Omidvar said are “structural solutions” to a program that has grown in a rapid, disorganized, and often piecemeal manner for decades.

In its report, the committee offered six recommendations, the first of which is the establishment and funding of a tripartite Migrant Work Commission, modelled after the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, that would include a commissioner representing migrant workers, employers, and the federal government. 

“Right now, there is no single place where either an employer or a migrant worker can go to address their issues,“ Omidvar explained. “In particular, there are not enough avenues of complaints for migrant workers that are nimble, effective, and worker-friendly.”

The second recommendation mirrors the UN report, but Omidvar said the committee recommends the full phase-out of closed work permits in the next three years, rather than immediately.

“You cannot go from extreme heat to extreme cold without creating severe cracks and fissures in the system,” Omidvar said, explaining that while the committee had identified closed work permits as an area of concern, the federal government would need time to negotiate with provinces to create regional, sector-wide permits to replace them.

Omidvar said the third most important recommendation is that workplace inspections be unannounced as a standard, adding that the current practice allows for unscrupulous employers to engineer a compliant workplace to give the illusion of compliance when inspectors arrive.

While Omidvar recognized that could also be true for the workplaces the committee visited—or at the very least, that only already compliant “good workplaces” would have even accepted their request for a visit—she said the workplaces she did see were undoubtedly having a positive impact on its workers and community.

At one seafood processing plant, Omidvar recalled speaking with employees who had arrived as temporary workers and successfully applied for permanent residency with the aid of sponsorship from their employer. She said that the new influx of residents had reinvigorated and revitalized the community with “new families, teachers, and parishioners” filling the local church every Sunday.

On the other side of the spectrum, Omidvar said the committee also met with migrant workers in closed-door meetings in other communities who detailed instances of abuse, including withholding access to health care. She explained that those abuses can be particularly problematic in rural and remote communities without nearby doctors or medical facilities.

Additionally, many of those workers said that there was a lack of clarity on the pathways to permanent residency, she noted. 

“They’re operating in a fog of information, and we need to make those pathways crystal clear,” Omidvar said, adding that Canada needs an annual migrant worker level plan, as it has for annual immigration. 

“The whole system post-COVID has been kind of bent out of shape with exceptions that we made to meet various needs,” Omidvar said. “Now, we need to get back to the drawing board and reconfigure this in a sensible, pragmatic, and doable manner that ensures the rights of migrant workers are paramount.”

Source: ‘Structural solutions not inflammatory conclusions’ required to fix foreign worker program: Senator Omidvar

Canada to pause approval of temporary foreign workers for low-wage jobs in Montreal

Of note. Will be interesting to see the details of which groups most affected (e.g., fast food restaurants or personal support workers):

Canada will freeze the approval of new temporary foreign workers in low-wage jobs in the Montreal area starting in September, CBC News has learned.

A senior government source said the processing of Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) applications will be suspended for six months, starting on Sept. 3, for job offers with wages below $27.47 per hour — currently Quebec’s median hourly wage.

The decision is expected to be made public on Tuesday.

Premier François Legault and Quebec Immigration Minister Christine Fréchette are scheduled to make an announcement about the temporary foreign worker program tomorrow at 10 a.m.

Low-wage temporary foreign workers in Quebec must both be approved by the province and have their employer’s LMIA application approved by the federal Immigration Ministry.

Ottawa says the move is an attempt to “ensure the integrity of the temporary foreign worker (TFW) program” which is designed to be used when workers already in Canada aren’t able to fill vacancies.

Quebec Premier François Legault has been asking Ottawa to curb temporary immigration in the province for months.

Canada will freeze for six months the approval of new temporary foreign workers in low-wage jobs in the Montreal area starting in September, CBC News has learned. The announcement is expected Tuesday morning.

Source: Canada to pause approval of temporary foreign workers for low-wage jobs in Montreal

After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about our country. This is why he won’t | Nesrine Malik

Notable rant:

Far-right thuggery. Marauding mobs. The prime minister’s descriptions of those who brought one of the worst episodes of violence on to the country’s streets captured their actions, but not their motivations or origins. Where did the rioters come from? Why now? Why are they attacking those they are attacking? If many people in this country are now, in Keir Starmer’s words feeling “targeted because of the colour of your skin, or your faith”, how does such a colossal violation come about, and how will it be addressed? The only answers we have been given treat the problem as one of security, of a troublesome minority who “do not represent” the country, and which will be stamped out by a heavy security response and prison sentences. A freak event triggered by the Southport stabbings. And that’s that.

But it will not be that. Because that minority reflects, and draws on, decades of racism, Islamophobia and anti-immigration rhetoric and policy broadcast by parts of the rightwing media, the Conservative party and the Labour party itself. Those years will not be swept aside by a policing crackdown. And their legacy will not, more importantly, be dismantled without its narratives being taken on and confronted.

“What Keir Starmer should do now” has been a preoccupation since the violence erupted. And yes, this is a moment – clearly presented, desperately needed, ripe for the taking – in which Starmer could, on the back of a large majority and fresh in government, mount a campaign against the notions that precipitated this month’s events. The things he should say are obvious, but he will not say them.

What he should say is that immigration is not “out of control”. That we do, in fact, have control of our borders, and that the vast majority who come to the country are allowed in after meeting an extremely high visa threshold. That we do in fact, invite many of them in, to fill gaps in our health and care sectors, and that those who come as students, or to work in the private sector, pay hefty residence permit fees and pay twice for the NHS, in taxes and in NHS surcharge.

He will not say this, because the illusion that immigration is something that a government can fully “control”, that is not subject to economic dynamics and the needs of public infrastructure, is important to maintain. Shattering this illusion makes it difficult for a government to present itself as having a “solution” to the problem of a country that, as Starmer previously said, needs to be “weaned” off immigration.

What he should say is that those who are not allowed or invited in constitute a tiny fraction of overall immigration. That asylum seekers are not merely an administrative processing concern, but a human rights one. That the UK has obligations, and moreover, values and convictions, that necessitate looking fairly and humanely upon the resettlement needs of those fleeing war, persecution and the devastation of their countries. He will not, because, well, it feels like heresy just to have typed the above. The Tory party’s Rwanda scheme, its “stop the boats” sloganeering, Nigel Farage’s jaunts to Kent to witness the “invasion”, and an almost total failure by the media and politicians to humanise asylum seekers, makes pointing out their needs and real numbers forbidden.

What he should say is that people have been fed lies. That he is going to finally tell us the truth. That immigration is not responsible for the housing crisis, or for the one in the NHS. That asylum seekers being housed in a hotel is not the reason your high street is empty, your industries mothballed, your public spaces scorched, your councils bankrupt, and your community spaces shuttered. That we have laid at the door of immigrants the consequences of an entire economic model that has defunded the state and privileged big businesses and private capital, and concentrated asset accumulation in the south of the country with no foresight or plan. That immigration is not the biggest problem we face; that would be the disgrace of inequality and rising child poverty in the sixth wealthiest economy in the world. He will not say any of this, because Labour cannot be seen to threaten higher taxes or higher spending. Better to blame a lack of growth, and then be muzzled by the implicit cosigning of austerity when immigration is blamed for its consequences.

And what he should say is that this is a country that for too long has allowed the most small-minded, parochial, cynical and mendacious parties to dictate who we are allowed to be. That there is another country, exemplified by those who turned up against far-right violence spontaneously, that has been forbidden from expressing its truth and texture in our politics, policies and discourse. That immigration is in fact a quotidian reality, a question already settled through the peaceful merging, blending and cross-pollination of millions of people over not just the past century, but throughout Britain’s history as a territory. That “concerns” about immigration are not to be pandered to, that promises to reduce it, and even actually reducing it, will never be enough. That even Brexit and the end of free movement did not mollify those in search of perpetual grievance. And yes, that racism is behind many of those concerns, an undeniable fact now that they have been manifested in attacks on Muslims and people of colour. That Islamophobia is a real, powerful threat to social cohesion, one that has passed without condemnation or consequence in the highest offices of the land, and which now must finally be confronted.

He will not say it, because Starmer’s weakest feature is his inability to paint a rousing vision of our modern country. One that isn’t just about safe streets and working hard and paying the bills and getting on, but that appeals to a fundamental need for belonging and belief in a higher quality that binds us in nationhood.

We don’t live in Gotham City, waiting for a mayor to clean the streets of villains. We are not just atomised individuals running our own public limited companies, but part of something bigger, part of a nation that has miraculously expanded, absorbed and assimilated people from all over the world, one that has manifested the best and most natural of human impulses – to get along and make a common home.

This truth must be said not just by Starmer, but the entire senior ranks of our government, consistently and unflinchingly, without fear of what that will unleash. Because what is the cost of saying it? Will it, maybe, bring angry thugs on to our streets? Will it provoke people so much that they will, perhaps, attack the police, mosques, businesses and individuals? Will it trigger even more invective from the rightwing media and claims of treachery and “two-tier policing” on the part of the Labour government? No – that is the cost of silence. We are already there. And we will remain there, because of all the things our leaders are afraid to say.

Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist

Source: After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about our country. This is why he won’t | Nesrine Malik