The last two decades have seen a constant and steady inflow of different Asian communities into Canada, who have enriched the socio-cultural fabric of this country with their diverse cultures and languages. Furthermore, Asian Canadians have contributed to all walks of national and social life in their new home. Celebrating the heritage month isn’t just about showcasing the best of the diverse cultures of the vast continent that Asia is. It’s also about building bridges with other communities and offering them an understanding of the distinctiveness of various Asian communities, including the South Asian one.

Even though Asian Canadians have made significant strides, there remain some causes of concern. When it comes to representation in the higher echelons of the corporate and social life, Asians still lag behind and possibly even face discrimination. In this week’s issue, a CUPE (Canadian Union of Public Employees) official reflects on these issues and stresses the need for equality of rights for all Canadians, including those from Asia.

Organizations such as CUPE are important for voicing the opinions and grievances of many new immigrants whose individual voices might be too weak to be heard by those in authority. However, it is upon all of us to question the status quo when it comes to exploitation, be it in the workplace or any other platform. For much as Canada offers to the immigrants who arrive to its shores, the immigrants too give back with their labour, intellect, and resources. It us up to us to ensure that celebrations such as the Asian Heritage Month aren’t reduced to mere tokenism.

Rupinder Kaur

Over the past two months, I have been out of the office, yet have experienced and participated in some exciting events in my political career.

On March 24, the NDP concluded its seven-month federal leadership race to replace Jack Layton. I was proud to be in Toronto at that convention and to be a part of history. Without a doubt, all the candidates who stepped forward brought innovative and fresh ideas on how to expand the work Jack Layton started and move the party towards forming government in the next election. In the end, Tom Mulcair won and I’m confident he’ll continue the Layton legacy.

Immediately after the convention, I left for Edmonton to work on the provincial election. Going into that campaign, my first emotion was sheer panic. I knew nothing about Alberta, especially about its politics. I admit I actually had to Google the name of the NDP leader.

But with the experience of surviving and working in the war room for two federal elections, my confidence steadied and in the end, I grew to adore Alberta.

I definitely can’t share political insights because I’m not in a position to provide analysis or deconstruct how the results unfolded. However, the one lesson I hope all Canadians take away is that you cannot trust pollsters and pundits on predicting an outcome, even if they swear by the crystal ball or the tea leaves they have looked at.

The 29-day campaign was exciting and I was on the tour with the leader, Brian Mason. Traveling around the province gave me a chance to see the real Alberta.

I went into the campaign with some pretty out-dated and unrealistic stereotypes – you know, the whole notion of Alberta being the “Texas of the North” with people wearing cowboy hats, driving huge trucks and munching on giant beef burgers. But what I saw was the opposite. I met people representing every corner of the world, speaking languages I have never heard of, and a warmth that was welcoming.

I didn’t travel the province from top to bottom, but the parts of Alberta which I saw reflected the realities I’ve seen across the country – families struggling to make ends meet, unable to find a family doctor and worried about how to sustain and protect the environment. One of the NDP’s priorities was to ensure that Alberta’s prosperity should allow everyone have access to high quality health care, a good education and first rate public services. In a province as rich as Alberta, the Conservatives continued down the path, carved out over 41 years, to pay more attention to their powerful friends in the oil companies rather than ordinary, hard-working families.

In the end, the Conservatives remain the provincial government and the Wildrose has become the Official Opposition. The Alberta NDP doubled their caucus, going from two seats to four. Overall, it was a great learning experience for me.

And for the record, no, I did not shop at the West Edmonton Mall but I did take advantage of the fact there is no provincial sales tax. So in addition to taking credit for doubling the NDP caucus, I am also taking credit for stimulating the local economy with all the shopping I did.

Now, I’m back in Ottawa – did I miss anything while I was gone?

RupinderKaur is press secretary of the New Democratic Party of Canada

The Canadian immigration landscape is shifting beneath our feet. When the dust settles, where will Canada be?

Some of the proposed changes, such as dealing with the backlog, are long overdue. Other changes may also be necessary. They will nevertheless have a series of unintended consequences for the makeup of Canada’s immigrant population and its ethnic diversity. It is these consequences that we should be concerned about.

Recently, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has spoken highly of the Australian immigration model with its strict language requirements. High levels of language proficiency are a requirement in our labour market. But raising the bar on language competency may trigger an increase in immigration from English-speaking countries – Britain, the United States, Australia and New Zealand – at the cost of immigrants from emerging economic superpowers such as China, India, Russia and Brazil.

Add to this administrative changes such as the closing of visa offices in Bangladesh, Iran and elsewhere and we will begin to see a shift in source countries. Recent media reports show that the numbers of immigrants applying for permanent residence from China, India, the Philippines and Pakistan fell drastically in 2011 – perhaps in response to changes made to our immigrant selection system in the last year.

What implications will these changes have for Canada’s future? One unintended consequence relates to the success of second-generation immigrants. Research shows that the children of immigrants have higher rates of postsecondary education than those of non-immigrant Canadians. What’s more, those born to parents from Africa, China and other Asian countries attend university and college at far higher rates than both non-immigrant Canadians and those born to immigrants from anglosphere countries.

The changes are coming at a furious pace on an almost daily basis. By seeking to eliminate the backlog by expunging those waiting in the queue, we choose efficiency over fairness. By moving to “super visas” and away from permanent residence for our immigrants’ parents and grandparents, we choose transience over inclusion. When employers select workers who will become future citizens with little guidance, we choose head-hunting over nation-building. When we raise the bar on language, we choose homogeneity over diversity. By streamlining the refugee adjudication process, we may well be choosing efficiency over human rights. Finally, when we say to employers, “Pay temporary foreign workers less than you might pay Canadians,” we choose exploitation over fairness.

And yet, no one has asked us what we think about these changes.

Immigration policy touches almost every aspect of Canadian life and is too important to be made in a piecemeal manner. It determines who our neighbours are, who we sit with on the bus and who our children go to school with. It goes to the very heart of our imagination of ourselves as a people.

To simply maintain our population and keep our standard of living, we will need to welcome hundreds of thousands of immigrants each year. To compete with global cities such as New York, London and Hong Kong, our cities must grow substantially and sustainably. Immigration can never be the only solution, but we ignore immigration and its accompanying diversity, including their knock-on effects on issues such as international relations, trade and innovation, at our peril. We need to bear in mind that Canada’s success as a multicultural society is an essential and defining part of our international brand.

It’s important that The Globe and Mail brings focus, debate and discussion to these issues, but this debate cannot take place only through the news media. We need to include all Canadians in this discussion – in Parliament, in committee rooms, at the chambers of commerce and industry associations, labour unions, resident associations, local and provincial governments, not-for-profits and civil society organizations, faith groups, think tanks, academics and in our communities. Together we must answer the questions:

• Why do we have immigration?

• How should we do it?

• How do we achieve our short- and long-term goals?

Let’s have this discussion. Our future prosperity depends on it.

RatnaOmidvar is president of the Maytree Foundation.

Courtesy: The Globe and Mail

Harminder Magon

Over the last two centuries, immigrants have journeyed to Canada from many different parts of Asia, bringing with them a rich cultural heritage with many languages, ethnicities and religious traditions.

This diverse, vibrant and growing community has contributed to every aspect of life in Canada, from arts and sciences to sport, business, and government. In December 2001, the Senate passed a motion to officially designate May as Asian Heritage Month.          

Since the inaugural Asian Heritage Month celebration in Toronto in 1993, cities across Canada have been holding annual festivities during this month to recognize Asian heritage. Ottawa, Toronto, Halifax, Montréal, Calgary, Winnipeg and Vancouver have been holding annual festivities during this commemorative month.           

Canada’s cultural diversity strengthens us socially, politically and economically in many ways. Asian Heritage Month is a great time for all of us to celebrate the beauty and wisdom of diverse Asian cultures. It gives us an opportunity to learn more about the history of Asian Canadians and to celebrate their contributions to the growth and prosperity of Canada.     

Unfortunately, the history of Asian Canadians has too frequently been marred by exploitation and lack of access to basic human rights, such as the exploitation of Chinese railway workers and the internment of Japanese Canadians during the Second World War.          

Today, the Conservative government’s temporary foreign worker program plays a central role in the ongoing exploitation of Asian workers and the denial of human rights. For example, a disproportionately high number of women from the Philippines come to Canada through the live-in caregiver program. In most provinces and territories, these women can’t unionize because the domestic arena isn’t recognized as a workplace. They often lack many basic workers’ rights, earn significantly less than Canadian citizens or permanent residents, work excessively long hours, and face racism and sexism in the workplace. They’re often unable to choose where they live, or to change employers without government permission. They’re vulnerable to exploitation, and because they do not have permanent status, they cannot integrate into Canadian society and contribute to their full potential.  

Last year, the International Labour Organization (ILO) adopted the convention concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers that would grant basic labour rights to domestic workers, like reasonable hours of work, weekly rest of at least 24 consecutive hours, and clear information on terms and conditions of employment. It’s up to us now to ensure that governments recognize this agreement and ensure that these basic rights are protected.

We stand in solidarity with Asian workers and proudly celebrate Asian Heritage Month. Celebrating this month in your local area helps raise awareness of the exploitation of Asian workers and acknowledges the unique contributions of our Asian members. It’s a great way to build solidarity across cultural lines and strengthen our collective fight for social and economic justice.

Have a great Asian Heritage Month.

Harminder Magon the National Anti-Racism Coordinator for Canada’s largest Union CUPE – Canadian Union of Public Employees. He came to Canada in 1966 from Nairobi – Kenya, with roots in North India.

  Lahore

    Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf established itself as the rising political star of Pakistani politics after its impressive public meeting in Lahore in the last week of October 2011.

   This marked a new beginning for the Tehrik-i-Insaf that was set up in 1996. Though Imran Khan was always a crowd puller because of his background in the game of Cricket, his party never attracted much attention. It was often described as a party on the sidelines. For over two years, Imran Khan sided with the military government of General Pervez Musharraf. He moved away from him after his April 2002 presidential referendum.

  Imran Khan’s new incarnation in October 2011 caused major turbulence in Pakistani politics. He held public meetings in December and later in different cities to reaffirm his newly discovered popular support. A large number of political activists belonging to other political parties, especially the PMLN, PPP, PMLQ, Jamaat-i-Islami and others, joined the Tehrik-i-Insaf during November 2011-April 2012.

  Today, the Tehrik-i-Insaf is dominated by these newcomers and it includes impressive names from Pakistan’s politics and society. Most of those working with the party since its early stage have now been pushed to the sidelines. There are few exceptions but, in public meetings, Imran Khan is surrounded by new entrants. The Tehrik-i-Insaf has established various committees to prepare outline of work to be done in various sectors of governance, including the making of the election manifesto. These committees are also dominated by new comers. This has caused resentment among the older workers.  

 Imran Khan’s public meetings in Karachi, interior Sindh and Quetta were very successful. In Karachi, the meeting had the blessings of the MQM. The Quetta rally was more impressive given the troubled law and order situation in Balochistan. He attracted people of diverse ethnic background.

  Imran Khan’s unrestrained criticism of the leadership of the PPP and the PMLN helped him to win over the political activists who had been alienated from these political parties or had been sidelined by them. Now these people got a new opening and they wanted to show to their previous party leadership that they have options for pursuing their political careers.                                                                             

   The inclusions of well-known names upgraded the political profile of the Tehrik-i-Insaf but with so many diverse elements from other political parties the Tehrik-i-Insaf look like any other political party in Pakistan.

   Unlike the old guards, a good number of the new entrants are electable and have enough money to throw around for the cause of the party and to build their support within the party. A large number of young and middle aged people that are flocking the Tehrik-i-Insaf are professionals or technocrats that have a naïve view of politics. They think that the current political leaders lack vision to conceive public service programs or improve governance. They are of the view that they can conceive such programs and implement them because they have no negative political baggage. They fail to realize that the issues of governance cannot be separated from politics that involves working with diverse people and their interests. What matters most in politics is not what is theoretically best but what is most possible and acceptable in a context.   

   Further, it is not clear that this new breed engaged in sending party messages through new communication and electronic technology from their homes or offices will also be willing spend time in villages for election campaigning and come out on the polling day for voting in crowded polling stations.

 The initial upward mobility graph of the Tehrik-i-Insaf has virtually stopped; it is now moving in straight line, if not declining. Its performance in the next general elections will be determined by several factors.

 First, its political orientations range from Right of the political spectrum to Islamist and pro-Taliban with anti-United States themes. This overlaps with the PMLN, Jamaat-i-Islami and other Islamic parties. They will compete with each other for getting votes from the same type of populace. They are likely to weaken each other unless they develop electoral alliances.  

  Second, Imran Khan may get enough votes throughout Pakistan but he can win seats only if his party gets the maximum votes in each constituency separately.

  Third, Imran Khan and his colleague are excellent when it comes to criticizing the PPP and PMLN leaders. However, they have not come forward with any alternate plan of action to cope with the major socio-economic and foreign policy problems? If alignment with the U.S. is not acceptable what practical steps they have to offer to salvage the economy and security interests? They need to go beyond slogans.  

  Fourth, given Pakistan’s polarized and fragmented politics, no party is expected to get a clear majority in the next general elections. The next government is expected to be a coalition. If Imran Khan gets into the coalition, how would he implement his novel vision of governance?  If decides to stay in the opposition, he is likely to lose support in the post-election period.

  Fifth, many people have joined him with the hope that he will sweep the elections the way ZAB swept the 1970 elections in Western Pakistan. This is not expected to happen because the political context has changed a lot. Pakistan’s politics is more fragmented and ethnic and other divides have increased socio-political incoherence. Further, the PPP and the PMLN, despite their failings, continue to be the commanding political parties. Imran will face tough competition.

  Tehrik-i-Insaf is a credible political force now but it is difficult to suggest that it will override the two major political parties. It will enter the parliament and some provincial assemblies but would not overwhelm the political system. 

Dhaka

Through the visit of Hilary Rodham Clinton, the US Secretary of State, and particularly through the signing of ‘Bangladesh-US Partnership Dialogue Agreement’, many argue that it is a new beginning of Bangladesh-United States relations as, before, there was no formal framework of relationship. But it raised several questions to my mind. Are we going to be benefitted from this agreement? If we are, then what are the opportunities as well as the challenges in this regard? Why is the lonely superpower, USA, interested to promote its bilateral relations with Bangladesh? Is the importance of Bangladesh growing in the arena of international politics? Let’s see the answers of these questions.
First of all, we have to keep in mind the geo-strategic importance of Bangladesh. As a student of International Relations I see our country as small in terms of territory but large in terms of population. Bangladesh is the seventh largest country in the world and fourth largest Muslim country. Without a doubt, Bangladesh is one of the peaceful countries in the world. Bangladesh’s growing contribution on the regional and global stage is recognised. Our country’s world-renowned experts on cholera travelled to Haiti, Somalia and elsewhere to help fight deadly outbreaks. Furthermore, Bangladesh sends more personnel to United Nations peacekeeping operations than any other country in the world.
We have huge potential in our huge population. We have homogeneity of race, common language, communal harmony, fertile lands, less demanding population and, particularly, availability of natural gas. And after the ITLS verdict, the geostrategic importance of Bangladesh has been significantly increased. Now we see that the United States of America is willing to accelerate its bilateral relations with Bangladesh, from high ranking visits of US officials in the ongoing year. In February, two senior officials of US State Department, under secretary of state for civilian security, democracy, and human rights, Maria Otero, and assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, Robert O Blake, visited Bangladesh. On April 5, US under secretary of state for political affairs, Wendy Sherman, visited Dhaka to discuss bilateral issues with top government officials, opposition leaders and civil society members. The two-day official tour of Wendy Sherman, third-ranking official in the State Department, was considered crucial. And through the visit of Hilary Clinton, the relationship got a new impetus.
On the other hand, the newly appointed Russian Federation Ambassador to Bangladesh, Alexander A Nikolaev, has already said that his country is keen to increase cooperation with Bangladesh. So, the importance of Bangladesh is easily understandable. And against this backdrop, Bangladesh must adopt a shrewd, dynamic foreign policy so that it can handle any situation tactfully/ skilfully, for the sake of upholding its national interest.
Secondly, as a student of International Relations, I see that USA is interested in Bangladesh for several reasons, most importantly, for the geostrategic importance of Bangladesh which the United States understands. We have to keep in mind that the 21st century is often hailed as the Asian century, because of the rise of China and India. And many often argue that there is a tremendous shift in global geopolitics from Middle East to the Asia-Pacific region and particularly South Asia. I think US wants to show the international community that US is willing to build a better, sound, bold and prosperous relationship with the Muslim world and does not hate Muslims. So, the United States has a long-standing supportive relationship with Bangladesh and views Bangladesh as a moderate voice in the Islamic world. Moreover, many claim that from a global geostrategic perspective the US wants to contain the rising powers of Asia.
Thirdly, Hilary Clinton provided some assurances in the meeting about looking into providing duty free access to Bangladesh garment exports. If we get this duty free access our foreign exchange reserves will increase tremendously. Last year Bangladesh reportedly paid $ 652 million in duties, to the US treasury, on exports of $ 4.27 billion (Syed SaadAndaleeb, ‘Hilary Clinton’s Visit: NRB musings’, The Daily Star, May 10, 2012)
Furthermore, Bangladesh now has a framework for discussing numerous issues on a yearly basis. So, it is positive for Bangladesh. If I quote from Hilary then it will be more pertinent: ‘So there is a great, deep, rich, comprehensive agenda between the two countries, and that is why we have decided to create a U.S.-Bangladesh Partnership Dialogue. This dialogue institutionalises the many discussions we are having. There was a very successful security discussion between our two nations’ experts just last week. We have many conversations and high-level meetings on issues concerning the economy and human development. We want to try to maximise our bilateral cooperation on a wide range of issues that are important to us, including disaster management, counterterrorism, food security, climate change, cooperation between our militaries. This new agreement should leave no doubt how much the United States values the partnership between our two countries’.
Against this backdrop, I see a number of opportunities as well as challenges ahead. First of all, we know very well how efficient we are in diplomacy. We must enhance our diplomatic and negotiating skills, as working with USA in a yearly basis without efficiency is quite difficult. At the discussion table, we could raise the issue of duty free access of our garments in US markets, the issue of Millennium Challenge Fund that will be beneficial to our country and most importantly the long pending water sharing disputes with India. So, there are a number of opportunities as well as challenges.

Courtesy: New Age

India

The buzz in Delhi, depending on who you consider among the cognoscenti, and many parts of India is that Pranab Mukherjee is the front-runner for the post of the first citizen. He is the best man Congress can offer which the Opposition, and more importantly UPA allies, cannot refuse. Imagine Mamata Banerjee refusing to back the candidature of a Bengali for the top job!

The Opposition is happy too. BJP leader Yashwant Sinha let the secret desire of his party out of the bag when he openly declared Mukherjee as the best man for the job on the floor of the Lok Sabha. Many feel that Mukherjee has been denied his due by the Congress, and by inference the BJP believes the veteran will not be anybody’s pawn when confronted with a hung house after the next polls. Ergo, the BJP and regional satraps like the idea of Mukherjee for President.

Nobody, however, is quite sure if it will come to be; indeed many regulars at Akbar Road doubt it. This is because there is also a counter-buzz. The thesis is that it is this all-round acceptability that will make him unacceptable to his own party and the Congress will balk at the idea. This buzz is explained, in political circles, with a delectable riddle. Would you appoint a person to a post you cannot remove him from when you did not appoint the person to a post that you could dismiss him from? The logic, derived from an episode in the eighties and the apparent consequence of trust deficit, seems irrefutable.

The contest between the two constructs has led to a lull in the mill of speculation on who will bag the Congress nomination for the next President. The Congress Party seems trapped between the merit of the candidate and the merits of political expediency. The stalemate of competing compulsions affords the Congress a solution, provided it is willing to interrogate history and integrate the wisdom of thinkers.

The Congress needs to consult Joseph Alois Schumpeter. Creative destruction, Schumpeter has told us, leads to creation of economic wealth, even as it wrenches away rent from existing players and reallocates new opportunities to new players. The principle is applicable in politics too, particularly in the management of change. For eight long years, there has been little disruption; the UPA suffers from linear complacency and needs to jolt those who have arrogantly appropriated their position as a given. The UPA needs to liberate itself from non-performers, send the superannuated to write their memoirs and the recalcitrant to rethink their politics.

The opportunity for disruption is here and now. There is a need to make a distinction between the opportunity and the circumstance. The election for President creates room for creative destruction. There is no denying that the Congress—ensnared as it is in the self-engineered crisis of confidence—is confronted with a governance deficit. It stems from the lack of political quotient. And unless it is addressed, and more importantly seen to be addressed, there is no hope for Congress in 201-whenever.

Mukherjee is currently their best bet to redress the situation. The Congress should make Mukherjee the prime minister, instead of waffling around on whether they can nominate him for President. A minister since the sixties, when he was inducted by Indira Gandhi while he was yet a member of the Bangla Congress, Mukherjee fits the demands of the circumstance that the Congress finds itself entombed in.

His biggest asset is his willingness to engage within and outside, which explains why he is the first choice to head GoMs and has headed over 75 in eight years. He is also the rare UPA minister who can take the Opposition head on, with some credibility. Last week, when the Finance Bill 2012-13 was being discussed, the Opposition ranted about the ethics of retrospective amendments to laws to overcome a Supreme Court judgment. Mukherjee silenced them by informing the House that the very first amendment to the Constitution was aimed at overcoming an adverse judgment by the Supreme Court. The illustration is not about the merits of retrospective amendment, it is about Mukherjee’s recall of history and his ability to deploy it politically.

Of course Mukherjee’s brand of politics is located in the seventies and the socialist pattern that Congress once advocated (and is now in vogue in Europe). He subscribes to the thesis of State-knows-the-best, celebrates when government expenditure crosses `10 lakh crore and credits bank nationalisation for saving Indian banks from the 2008 financial crisis. The management of the economy under his watch has been disastrous, partly because of untrammelled profligacy and partly because the UPA killed investment-led growth by dodging decisive action and legislation. So it would be churlish to lay all the blame at his door. It would also be erroneous to expect him to produce out-of-the-box solutions to reinvent governance.

The idea should be to anoint Mukherjee as the Prime Mentor preferably without distracting portfolios, list critical objectives, blood young MPs into positions of responsibility and make them accountable for what management consultants call key result areas. The NDA regime derived its dynamism from the willingness of Atal Bihari Vajpayee to blood youngsters into the ministries and let them confront old ideas with new ones. The UPA needs to do similarly. If and when the youth brigade does invent solutions for outstanding issues, they will have a guide to navigate their ideas politically. Unlike now, Mukherjee will have something to prove, and the Congress something to show in 201-whenever.

That leaves the question of who will be President unattended. How about Manmohan Singh?

Courtesy: The New Indian Express

Mehdi Rizvi

Human resources Minister Diane Finley announced recently that Canada would now allow employers to pay temporary foreign workers wages that are 15 percent less than Canadians earn. In March budget, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said employers would have to make every effort to hire local Canadians before they would be allowed to bring in temporary foreign workers.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney further added that unemployed Canadian workers who refuse to accept low-wage jobs would lose EI benefits. He said that, if they accept these jobs, our need for temporary foreign workers would be reduced.

This vision appears on paper to have some merit. But it is not easy to understand, foresee, forecast and analyze what the federal government really wants to achieve from this research-deficient rapid transformation from permanent to temporary immigration.

When it comes to reforms in any area of immigration policy, most of the time we have seen a mismatch between government claims and accuracy, as seen in a recent claim by Jason Kenney during a discussion with the Toronto Star‘s editorial board last month.

He said “We are committed to maintain intake of more than 250.000 immigrants a year, benefiting from their skills, resources, energy and fresh ideas that newcomers bring.”

Immigrants have long memories. They remember repeated failures of past immigration policies for their huge waste of immigrants’ talent, reduced opportunities, poor outcomes, increased poverty and permanent frustration found in millions of highly educated and skilled immigrants who have been living here for years with out finding proper jobs in relevant fields. They could neither move forward in career advancements, nor they could positively contribute their education, experience and skills they had brought with them, to Canadian economy.

On the policy side, the temporary foreign workers’ program was started in 2000 to deal with shortage of software specialists in a limited area. The government later extended the program to various other skills and avenues of economic development, probably with the aim of acquiring cheap laborers with minimum needs, maximum outputs and minimal rights.

According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada website, the Temporary Foreign Workers program allows eligible foreign workers to work in Canada for an authorized period of time, if employers can demonstrate that they are unable to find suitable Canadians/permanent residents to fill the jobs and that entry of these workers will not have a negative impact on the Canadian labour market. Employers from all business types can hire foreign workers with a wide range of skills to meet temporary labour shortages (CIC2009)

CIC’S publication Facts and Figures shows, in 2008, the number of temporary workers in Canada (251,235) exceeded the total number of permanent residents admitted in the same year (247,243). By 2011 there were 300,111 temporary workers serving in various areas, from agriculture to coffee shops.

The increase in temporary migration levels in the last few years have led to a sharp debate over a shift in policy. There is no doubt that temporary workers are the most exploited and least cared-for workers in Canada, because fact, they are permanently temporary. Denying them equal pay will further exploit the already exploited and may in fact bring down overall pay levels for all Canadians. Employers would prefer to hire cheap labour and recession-hit Canadian workers will be forced by circumstances to accept any available job — as Jason Kenney advised.

Paying unequal wages for equal work does not meet any ethical standard of a civilized society, especially Canada, which has a track record of respecting the dignity of labour and equality of all human beings. It’s obviously a new kind of discrimination with old excuses in 21st century. All workers serving the country should be entitled for the same opportunities, protections and rights.

In addition to the exploitation of workers, there are many other hidden cultural, social and humanitarian issues that need to be researched and debated, before the government expands of the temporary workers program.

Living away from families on a single status employment visa for many years with limited income, no benefits and supporting two households — one back home and the other here — costs a lot, and creates serious socio-cultural and psychological problems for temporary workers here as well as their families back home.

The true colours of the temporary workers program can be seen in oil-rich Arabian Gulf states. Hundreds of thousands of temporary workers who come from Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Sudan and many other poor countries suffer from all kinds of stress-related diseases, psychological disorders and family issues.

The current living and working conditions of most of the temporary workers, in remote, and snow covered provinces and territories of Canada, are deplorable, with practically no health, social or vacation benefits.

Jenna Hennebry, Associate Director of the International Migration Research Centre at Wilfred Laurier University, says that her survey of 600 migrant farm workers in Ontario revealed that many were fearful of telling their employers that they were sick or injured. Others were afraid to report unsafe work conditions, because they worried about being fired — which could lead to losing their immigration status and participation in the temporary work program. The penalties imposed by government don’t work. Actually, official records don’t really show any punishment given to employers for violations of rules.

Why can’t we make a national pool of locally available talent from immigrant newcomers who are searching for any kind of available job and try to absorb them before expanding temporary workers program and creating more unemployment in immigrant communities and chaos in labour market?

Sophia Lowe, a research and policy analyst at World Education Services (WES) Toronto who graduated from Ryerson University’s MA program in Immigration and Settlement Studies, has explored the recent shifts in directions in immigration policy — from nation builders (permanent residents) to economic units (temporary workers) — in response to the challenge of matching the selection process to the labour market and labour markets failure to fully utilize many of Canada’s more skilled immigrants.

She says immigration policies are being revised and changed to address problems that are not fully studied and understood. Without proper evaluation of current and past policies, and an in-depth analysis of real issues, such changes blur our understanding where gaps and issues lie in the system and how to address real needs.

Mehdi Rizvi is a former member of the Community Editorial Board, Toronto Star and an affiliate of the Center of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement, which is a consortium of three Toronto universities. He is a chemist who has worked in the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals, cement and UV printing products for the last 35 years.

eMail: smehdir@yahoo.com

According to a federal immigration survey, more than 200 taxi drivers, mostly from the Toronto-area, were found to be doctors in their homelands before arriving in Canada. Last year, the department last year surveyed 50,101 cabbies, through the use of their tax forms. Another 55 Canadian-born taxi drivers were found to be doctors or to have PhDs.The study, which is one of the most comprehensive into the cab industry, found one of every two taxi drivers are immigrants and one of every three of them were born in India or Pakistan. The study results, published in Toronto Sun, have not been released publicly by Ottawa. The study shows that the most educated drivers arrive from India, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, the U.K., Bangladesh, Haiti and the U.S.

Alarge-scale battlefield picture of conversing corpses by acclaimed Canadian photographer Jeff Wall has become the single most valuable photographic artwork ever produced in this country, breaking the artist’s all-time price record. The 1992 photograph is titled “Dead Troops Talk,”and depicts a group of Soviet soldiers talking to each other after being killed in the Soviet-Afghan war in 1986. It sold last week for more than $3.6 million at a Christie’s auction in New York. Wall took the photograph at a suburban Vancouver studio after arranging a group of actors dressed in military garb. “Dead Troops Talk” is hailed as the world-renowned B.C. artist Wall’s single most important creation.The fictitious image shows the unit of Red Army soldiers somehow reanimated after their deaths at the hands of rebel mujahedeen.