eduzhai > Socail Sciences > Sociology >

The level and trend of temporary foreign workers in Canada: A Sociological Analysis

  • sky
  • (0) Download
  • 20211101
  • Save
https://www.eduzhai.net American Journal of Sociological Research 2013, 3(4): 90-100 DOI: 10.5923/j.sociology.20130304.02 Levels and Trends of Temporary Foreign Workers in Canada: A Sociological Analysis Md Kamrul Islam Department of Sociology, Khulna University, Bangladesh Abstract A lthough prior research on immigrat ion has focused on various aspects of immigrants‘ assimilation and integration into the mainstream society limited attention has been given in examin ing the levels and trends of temporary foreign workers in Canada. This study is a modest attempt not only to explore leve ls and trends of temporary fore ign worke rs but also to e xa mine their gender and occupational variations by country of origin. This study is conducted using secondary data fro m Cit izenship and Immigrat ion (CIC) Canada. The levels and trends of the foreign workers in the Canadian labour market during 1983-2007 show that a substantial nu mbers of foreign workers have co me to Canada co mpared to economic immigrants. Most of them are emp loyed in lo w-paying jobs and are subjected to various kinds of exp loitation. The percentages of foreign workers in professional job have decreased rapidly during 1998-2007, whereas their percentages in intermediate and clerical jobs have increased dramatically during the same period. Policy imp lications are discussed. Keywords Temporary Foreign Workers, Emp loyment, Exp loitation, Canada 1. Introduction Research in Canada and the United States concerning immigrants has explored a variety of issues and concerns. One aspect of this literature has looked at Seasonal Agricultural Worker Programs (SWAP). These studies have examined various experiences of temporary immigrants and evaluated the impact of te mporary migration on the economy of both in sending and receiving countries .[1; 2; 3; 4; 5] Several studies have focused on Canada‘s Non-Immigrant Emp loy ment Authorizat ion Program (NIEAP). [6; 7; 8; 9] However, limited attention has been given in investigating the levels and trends of te mporary foreign workers in Canada. In addition, co mparison of occupational status and gender variations by country of orig in has received limited focus in previous research. This study is a modest attempt to address these aspects of literature and to examine the impact of Canada‘s NIEA P on the p roduction and reproduction of class hegemony in the era of globalization. The research is guided by the question of how does the NIEAP pro mote and facilitate interests of the capitalist society with a v iew to continue and expand the process of globalization. Although NIEAP was designed only in the context of Canadian society, every capitalist country has its own program under the name of temporary ―guest workers‖. Thus, the ru ling block works not only as an agent of the global process but also effectively * Corresponding author: kamrulku@yahoo.com (Md Kamrul Islam) Published online at https://www.eduzhai.net Copyright © 2013 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved formulates regulations and policies for immigration which eventually protect interests of the capitalist class. For this reason, first, historical background of Canada‘s immig ration policy was rev iewed to uncover the role of State in the formulat ion and manipulation of restrict ions imposed on the temporary workers through NIEAP. Afterwards, levels and trends of temporary foreign workers were co mpared with that of economic immig rants arrived during 1983-2007. Finally, the relat ionship between the NIEAP and the larger global process is exp lained in detail in the discussion section. 2. Historical Background of Canada’s Immigration Policy Canada‘s immigration policy has been changed over time. Immigration policy before 1960 was dominated by higher preference fo r immig rants fro mthe United States and Europe. A vast majority of immig rants came to Canada fro m Europe between 1900 and 1920. For example, during this p eriod, 40.0% of immigrants came fro m Great Britain , 34.7% came fro m the Un ited States, and 18.3% of immigrants came fro m other European countries such as Italy, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Germany, Austria, Sweden, France, Finland, Norway, Belgiu m, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Holland and Ro mania. On the other hand, at the same t ime, only 1.2% of immigrants were fro m Ch ina and 0.61% of immig rants were fro m Japan.[10] During the period of 1921–1945, 72.3% of immig rants came to Canada fro m Europe compared to 22.7% of immigrants fro m the United States. Among other countries, only 0.35% of immigrants were fro m Japan. Canada‘s American Journal of Sociological Research 2013, 3(4): 90-100 91 immigrat ion policy befo re 1945 encouraged only farmers, servants, labourers, and miners to apply.[10] The expectation was that immigrants would go to West to farm the Prairies. Scarce industrial jobs were reserved for Canadians. Moreover, immig ration was not open to all. White, anglo-saxons, and Protestant were more likely to be accepted by the government and the people of Canada. Section 38 of the Canadian Immigration Act of 1910 gave the Canadian Govern ment the power to restrict the entry ―of immigrants belonging to any race deemed unsuited to the climate or requirements of Canada‖.[11] People fro m warm countries were considered unsuited for immig ration to Canada. Thus other races were excluded fro m immig rating to Canada. After the Second World War, Canada‘s Immigrat ion Policy was designed to facilitate population growth in Canada for the greater interest of national economy. But immigrants were carefully selected and large-scale immigrat ion fro m Asian and African countries were restricted. On May 1 1947, Prime Min ister Mackenzie King made a statement in the House defending ―objectionable discrimination‖ in Canada‘s Immigrat ion Policy, ―perfectly within her (Canada) rights in selecting the person whom we regard as desirable future citizens….the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immig ration, to make a fundamental alterat ion in the character of our population. Large scale immig ration fro m the orient would change the fundamental co mposition of the Canadian population‖.[11] In 1951, agreements were signed with the Govern ment of India, and Pakistan. Canada agreed to allow certain number of immig rants fro m these countries subject to the fulfillment of conditions for ―Asiatic countries‖. In 1952, a new Immigration Act was passed which gave the Minister and officials substantial power over selection, ad mission and deportation. ―It provided for the refusal of ad mission on the grounds of nationality, ethnic group, geographical area of origin, peculiar customs, habits and modes of life, unsuitability with regard to the climate, probable inability to become readily assimilated, etc.‖[11] In 1958, the Govern ment of Canada decided that prospective immig rants must apply from their own country. Point system was included into the Immigration Regulations in October 1967. Thus, in selecting immig rants through point system, more emphasis was given on proficiency in Eng lish, education and work experience. In 1970, 24.4% of immigrants were fro m Asia (13.7%) and the Caribbean 10.7%). In 1971, the Federal Govern ment announced the Immigration Policy of ―Mu lticulturalis m‖. Visitors were given the right to apply for immigrant status while in Canada in 1967. Later in 1972, the right to apply for immig ration status while in Canada was revoked.[11] In 1973, Immigrat ion Canada introduced the Non-Immigrant Employ ment Authorizat ion Program (NIEAP) with a v iew to facilitate more wo rkers entry into Canada. The NIEAP was introduced for the purpose of filling particular jobs which Canadians are not interested to work in. ―Since 1973 the Non-Immig rant Employ ment Authorizat ion Program (NIEAP) has facilitated a growth in the numbers of people made to work as migrant workers in Canada. The daily operation of the NIEAP organizes and enforces restrictive conditions of entry, residence, and work. Through it, the majority of people migrating to Canada to work labour in unfree emp loy ment relationship… . The NIEAP permits state officials to save substantially on the costs of training and services for those brought in through it. Meanwhile, the program gives emp loyers greater flexib ility in meeting their labour needs by securing a more disciplined, often cheaper, post-Fordist workforce‖.[6] 3. NIEAP: Distinguishing Characteristics Temporary Foreign Workers are subject to a number of unbending conditions prior to entering Canada. Fo reign workers must prearrange their emp loyer, location, length, and type of emp loyment. They cannot change their conditions of their authorization without prior written permission fro m legal authorities. If foreign workers change their employers, or accept new jobs without the approval of legal authority, they are subject to deportation. Moreover, the foreign workers are not only denied the right of Citizenship and permanent residence status but also exc luded fro m many social services such as unemployment insurance programs or social assistance. The severity of exclusion is compounded by the fact that the Govern ment of Canada receives fees and taxes fro m foreign workers.[12; 11]. Recently there have been some changes in immigration policy and foreign workers can apply for permanent resident status under certain conditions. Sharma[6] argues that workers entering under the NIEAP are denied mob ility rights both in the labour market and, by virtue of being tied to their emp loyer, geographically as well, and they are not free. 4. Previous Research Sharma[6] examined the levels and trends of temporary foreign wo rkers in the Canadian labour market during 1973-2004. Overall, Sharma[6] found that since 1980 the proportion of temporary foreign workers had never fallen below 66 per cent. And the average proportion of unfree wage to the total of all (im)mig rants specifica lly recruited to the labour market in Canada in the period 1980 to 2004 had been 77 per cent. Hence, she argues that unfree forms of labour migration do minate in the recruit ment of migrant workers to Canada. Preib isch (2004) exp lored the worker-co mmun ity relations in the Canadian rural co mmunit ies in which migrant agricultura l workers live, e xa min ing the ties that had developed between non-citizen migrant agricu ltural workers and civil society. In general, Preibisch (2004) found that processes of social exclusion unquestionably mark the experience of migrant agricu ltural workers in rural Canada. ―First, mig rant agricultural workers are non-citizens, non-permanent residents. They are bound to a single 92 M d Kamrul Islam: Levels and Trends of Temporary Foreign Workers in Canada: A Sociological Analysis emp loyer; they do not have the option of finding another job nor the bargaining power associated with such mobility. Temporary workers‘ legal status also denies them the range of services and protections associated with citizenship or permanent residency‖.[4] The author further added that preference in recruit ment had been historically b iased towards married/cohabitating workers or single workers with dependents in order to deter them fro m attempting to secure permanent residency through marriage or seeking to remain in Canada illegally. Ruhs and Martin (2008) examined the relationship between the number and rights of lo w-skilled migrant workers in high-income countries. They argue, ―the relationship between the number and rights of migrant workers employed in low-skilled jobs in high-inco me countries is characterized by a trade-off: countries with large numbers or shares of low skilled migrant workers offer them relatively few rights, while s maller nu mbers of migrants are typically associated with more rights. The primary reason for this trade-off is that rights can create costs for employers, and rising labor costs are typically associated with a reduced demand for labor. A second reason stems from the political imperative in most high-income countries to minimize the fiscal costs of low-skilled immigration, either by keeping migrant nu mbers low or by restricting mig rants‘ access to the social we lfa re system‖.[13]. Preib isch and Bindford (2006) investigated the replacement of Caribbean workers by Mexicans in Canada‘s Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program. They focused on the role o f racialized understandings in imp lementing fo reign workers programs in Canada. They argued that the racial discrimination was evident in selecting and explo iting temporary foreign workers in Canada. They added, ―we saw how racialized and gendered notions of the efficiency of different groups of people have been and are deployed as a labour strategy, evidencing how the racializat ion- or the gendering, for that matter- of the production process operates as a discursive process to produce the labourers demanded by agricultural producers in the high inco me countries of the North‖.[14] Sassen (2002) examined the g lobal migrat ion and trafficking of wo men in the context of current globalization of economies in both the north and south. The author considered the global migrat ion and trafficking of wo men as alternative ―global circuits‖ for making a living, earning a profit, and securing government revenue. The author argued that the emergence and strengthening of those global circu its were lin ked to majo r dynamics of economic globalizat ion, which had significant impacts on developing economies. ―Key ind icators of such impacts are the heavy and rising burden of government debt, the growth in unemploy ment, sharp cuts in government social expenditure, the closure of large nu mber of firms in often fairly traditional sectors oriented to the local or national ma rket and the pro motion of export-oriented growth‖.[15]. Sassen (2002) called those circuits counter-geographies of globalizat ion because they were d irectly or indirect ly associated with some of the key programs and conditions that were at the heart of global economy. Thus, with a view to make profit and enhance government revenue, the developing economies pro mote and facilitate ―the illegal trafficking in wo men for p rostitutions, as well as for regular work, the organized export of wo men as brides, nurses and domestic servants, and the remittances of an increasingly female emigrant workforce‖.[15] On the other hand, the receiving countries also become benefitted through the explo itation of these foreign workers. Thus the flow of foreign workers and trafficking of wo men of prostitution is lin ked to the global economy. 5. Data and Methods This study is conducted using secondary data fro m Citizenship and Immigrat ion (CIC) Canada. In addition, some aggregated data used by Sharma[6] are also used to make a co mparison among relevant data collected from various sources. Economic immigrants are the category of immigrants selected based on their skills and ability to contribute to Canada‘s economy. Skilled workers, business immigrants, provincial and territorial nominees and live-in caregivers are included under the category of economic immigrants. ―The skilled worker co mponent includes immigrants who are able to demonstrate their ability to enter the labour market and successfully establish in Canada by meet ing selection criteria that assess factors such as Education, English or French language abilit ies and work experience. The business immigrant co mponent includes those who invest their money in an approved venture, those who intend to run their own business, or those who intend to be self-emp loyed. The provincial and territorial no minees are permanent residents designated by provinces and territories that have entered into agreements with the Govern ment of Canada to select immigrants who will meet their local economic needs…. Live-in caregivers are former temporary foreign workers granted permanent residence after their participation in the Live-in Careg iver Program. Initially, live -in caregivers must be qualified to provide care for children, sick, or elderly people, or persons with a disability. Successful candidates are granted temporary resident status and a work-permit, and after two years, they are eligib le to apply for permanent resident status.‖[16] In this research, economic immigrants are selected for study in order to make a co mparison with temporary fo reign workers. A mong permanent residents, Family Class, Refugees, Other Immig rants, and Category not Stated were excluded fro m the analysis. In itially, spouses and dependents for each category of economic immig rants (i.e. skilled workers, entrepreneurs, self emp loyed, investors) are also taken into account for data analysis. Afterwards spouse and dependent categories were excluded fro m economic immigrants, and only principal applicants for each category of economic immigrants were taken into account to make a comparison with temporary foreign workers. In addition to permanent residents, Canada‘s immigrat ion program provides legal authorization for the temporary entry American Journal of Sociological Research 2013, 3(4): 90-100 93 of foreign workers and business people, foreign students and visitors. According to CIC Canada[16], ―these temporary residents contribute to Canada‘s economic development by filling gaps in the labour market, enhancing trade, and purchasing goods and services. Foreign nationals wishing to come to Canada as temporary residents must satisfy the visa officer abroad that they meet all applicab le requirements under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) including that they will leave Canada voluntarily at the end of their authorized stay‖. Among different categories of temporary residents, only ―foreign workers‖ were selected for th is study. ―Foreign workers‖ are those other than Canadian Citizens or permanent residents, who enter Canada exclusively for work and have arranged employ ment under the Non-Immigrant Emp loy ment Authorizat ion Program (NIEAP). For this research, there are two exclusions. First, other temporary residents such as foreign students, refugee claimants, other humanitarian cases, humanitarian population, and other temporary categories were excluded fro m data analysis. Second, foreign workers who were under the category of ―still present‖ for each year were excluded fro m data analysis, and only two categories of foreign workers (init ial entry, and re-entry) were included for data analysis. The reason for exclusion of ―still present‖ category was to make foreign workers category consistent with economic immigrants. Also for economic immigrants, I did not consider the ―still present‖ category for each year. I have looked into the levels and trends (1983-2007) of immigrants authorized to enter into Canada under the categories of ―economic immigrants‖ and ―foreign workers‖ for each year by immigration Canada. 6. Levels and Trends of Foreign Workers in Canada Canada‘s labour market shows that a substantial number of foreign workers have entered into Canada between 1983 and 2007 co mpared to economic immig rants. For example, Table 1 shows that 72.4% (N = 63,441) o f foreign workers have come to Canada in 1983 as foreign workers compared to only 27.6% (N = 24,187) of econo mic immigrants. Table 1 also shows that for the next few years (1984-1992) the percentages of foreign workers are higher than that of economic immig rants. Moreover, the percentages of foreign workers have increased in recent years (for 2006 and 2007) compared to economic immig rants. In 2007, 55.73% of foreign wo rkers have come to Canada compared to only 44.27% o f economic immigrants. It is evident fro m the table that the number of foreign workers has again started to go upward fro m 2006. Table 1. Canada Labour Market by Immigration Status, 1983 – 2007 Canada Labour Market: Economic Immigrants and Foreign Workers Year Economic Immigrant s Foreign Workers Tot al Economic immigrants Foreign Workers (%) (%) 1983 24187 63441 87628 27.60 72.40 1984 26079 65176 91255 28.58 71.42 1985 26112 72124 98236 26.58 73.42 1986 35839 80101 115940 30.91 69.09 1987 74103 86641 160744 46.10 53.90 1988 80220 99358 179578 44.67 55.33 1989 90145 99831 189976 47.45 52.55 1990 97930 112295 210225 46.58 53.42 1991 86507 109422 195929 44.15 55.85 1992 95803 108866 204669 46.81 53.19 1993 105662 100963 206625 51.14 48.86 1994 102312 96125 198437 51.56 48.44 1995 106632 88514 195146 54.64 45.36 1996 125370 89824 215194 58.26 41.74 1997 128351 95132 223483 57.43 42.57 1998 97911 100520 198431 49.34 50.66 1999 109251 107221 216472 50.47 49.53 2000 136292 116651 252943 53.88 46.12 2001 155718 119775 275493 56.52 43.48 2002 137864 111011 248875 55.39 44.61 2003 121045 103426 224471 53.92 46.08 2004 133748 112720 246468 54.27 45.73 2005 156312 122848 279160 55.99 44.01 2006 138251 139279 277530 49.81 50.19 2007 131248 165198 296446 44.27 55.73 Source: Facts and Figures 2007: Citizenship and Immigration Canada Analysis of Canada labour market by sex shows that there are no significant differences in percentages for male economic immigrants and female economic immigrants. For examp le, in 1983, 50.75% of economic immig rants are female co mpared to 49.25% of male economic immig rants. The percentages of economic immig rant who are females have decreased to some extent since 1994 than male economic immig rants but there is no trend of rapid decline in percentages. In 2007, 48.30% of 94 M d Kamrul Islam: Levels and Trends of Temporary Foreign Workers in Canada: A Sociological Analysis economic immig rants are female co mpared to 51.70% of male econo mic immigrants. Table 2 shows that there are no substantial differences in percentages of male economic immigrants and female economic immigrants during 1983–2007. Part of the reason might be that the principal applicants of economic immig rants can bring their wives in Canada under spouse category. On the other hand, a vast majority of the foreign workers are male co mpared to their female counterparts (Table 2). For example, Table 2 shows that in 1983, 80.02% of foreign workers are male co mpared to only 19.98% of female foreign workers. Ho wever, the percentages of female foreign workers have increased gradually fro m 1984 to 1992. Subsequently there are some declines in percentages for female foreign workers co mpared to their male counterparts. In 2007, 67.02% of foreign workers are male co mpared to only 32.98% of female foreign workers. This table clearly shows the differential t rend of foreign workers by sex. Table 2. Canada Labour Market by Immigration Status and Sex, 1983 – 2007 Canada Labour Market: Economic Immigrants and Foreign Workers by Sex Economic Immigrants Foreign Workers Economic Immigrants Year Male Female Tot al Male Female Total Male (%) Female (%) 1983 11913 12274 24187 50766 12672 63438 49.25 50.75 1984 12058 14021 26079 51743 13431 65174 46.24 53.76 1985 12500 13559 26059 56168 15954 72122 47.97 52.03 1986 18603 17194 35797 60072 20025 80097 51.97 48.03 1987 39913 34164 74077 64638 21992 86630 53.88 46.12 1988 40662 39538 80200 73404 25922 99326 50.70 49.30 1989 45738 44396 90134 68488 31309 99797 50.74 49.26 1990 49929 47995 97924 71891 40374 112265 50.99 49.01 1991 43137 43354 86491 69850 39534 109384 49.87 50.13 1992 47818 47983 95801 69083 39745 108828 49.91 50.09 1993 51011 54644 105655 66883 34017 100900 48.28 51.72 1994 50609 51700 102309 67323 28756 96079 49.47 50.53 1995 53726 52905 106631 65867 22600 88467 50.38 49.62 1996 64496 60873 125369 67585 22192 89777 51.44 48.56 1997 66827 1998 51402 61524 46509 128351 97911 72123 76995 22956 23453 95079 100448 52.07 52.50 47.93 47.50 1999 57837 51410 109247 81665 25538 107203 52.94 47.06 2000 72679 63612 136291 88672 27945 116617 53.33 46.67 2001 82536 73182 155718 90018 29741 119759 53.00 47.00 2002 73666 64198 137864 80959 30051 111010 53.43 46.57 2003 63945 57099 121044 72904 30521 103425 52.83 47.17 2004 70080 63668 133748 77571 35148 112719 52.40 47.60 2005 80906 75406 156312 84655 38190 122845 51.76 48.24 2006 71891 66360 138251 95228 44050 139278 52.00 48.00 2007 67853 63395 131248 110713 54482 165195 51.70 48.30 Foreign workers Male (%) Female (%) 80.02 19.98 79.39 20.61 77.88 22.12 75.00 25.00 74.61 25.39 73.90 26.10 68.63 31.37 64.04 35.96 63.86 36.14 63.48 36.52 66.29 33.71 70.07 29.93 74.45 25.55 75.28 24.72 75.86 76.65 24.14 23.35 76.18 23.82 76.04 23.96 75.17 24.83 72.93 27.07 70.49 29.51 68.82 31.18 68.91 31.09 68.37 31.63 67.02 32.98 Source: Facts and Figures 2007: Citizenship and Immigration Canada Although economic immig rants can bring their families in to Canada under ―spouse and dependent‖ category, foreign workers are not allowed to bring their spouse into Canada. For this reason, spouse and dependent categories are excluded in Table 3 fro m economic immigrants, and thus only principal applicants are selected to co mpare with foreign workers. After exclusion, the data (Table 3) shows that a vast majority of the labour force in Canada in 1998– 2007 have come under foreign workers category as compared to economic immig rants (principal applicants only). Table 3 shows that the percentage of foreign wo rkers in Canada in 1998 is 70.64 co mpared to only 29.36% of the economic immigrants. In 2007, only 24.57% of labour force is economic immigrants compared to 75.43% of fo reign workers (Table 3). These data clearly depicts the diffe rential trend in Canada labour market for economic immigrants and foreign workers. Immigrat ion Canada has facilitated higher number of foreign workers compared to economic immig rants. This is consistent with previous research conducted by American Journal of Sociological Research 2013, 3(4): 90-100 95 Sharma (2005). Overall, Sharma has shown that most workers have entered Canada during 1973-2004 as foreign wo rkers who are not free due to several restrictions. The percentages of the foreign workers range fro m 58 to 78 regulated by NIEAP. After the e xclusion of spouse and dependent categories, the distribution of economic immigrants (princ ipal applicants) by sex shows that a vast majority of economic immig rants are male. For examp le, Tab le 4 sh ows that 70.2% of economic immigrants were male co mpared to only 29.8% of female economic immigrants in 1998. On average, during the period of 1998–2007 about 30.0% of economic immigrants are female. Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Table 3. Comparison between Economic Immigrants (PrincipalApplicants) & foreign workers (1998 – 2007) Economic Immigrant s* 41752 Foreign Workers 100448 Tot al 142200 Economic Immigrants (%) 29.36 Foreign Workers (%) 70.64 47294 107203 154497 30.61 69.39 58095 116617 174712 33.25 66.75 65275 119759 185034 35.28 64.72 58222 111010 169232 34.40 65.60 51222 103425 154647 33.12 66.88 55181 112719 167900 32.87 67.13 61618 122845 184463 33.40 66.60 55721 139278 194999 28.58 71.42 53823 165195 219018 24.57 75.43 Source: Facts and Figures 2007: Citizenship and Immigration Canada Table 4. Comparison between Economic Immigrants (PrincipalApplicants) & foreign workers by Sex, (1998 – 2007) Economic Immigrants Year Male Female Total 1998 29308 1999 34205 12444 13089 41752 47294 2000 43208 14887 58095 2001 48256 17019 65275 2002 42823 15399 58222 2003 36556 14666 51222 2004 38405 16776 55181 2005 42254 2006 37584 19364 18137 61618 55721 2007 35196 18627 53823 Foreign Workers Male Female Tot al 76995 81665 23453 25538 100448 107203 88672 27945 116617 90018 29741 119759 80959 30051 111010 72904 30521 103425 77571 35148 112719 84655 95228 38190 44050 122845 139278 110713 54482 165195 Economic Immigrants Male (%) Female (%) 70.20 72.32 29.80 27.68 74.37 25.63 73.93 26.07 73.55 26.45 71.37 28.63 69.60 30.40 68.57 67.45 31.43 32.55 65.39 34.61 Foreign Workers Male (%) Female (%) 76.65 76.18 23.35 23.82 76.04 23.96 75.17 24.83 72.93 27.07 70.49 29.51 68.82 31.18 68.91 68.37 31.09 31.63 67.02 32.98 Source: Facts and Figures 2007: Citizenship and Immigration Canada Table 4 shows the differentia l trend of economic immigrants by sex. However, Table 2 (before e xc lusion) shows that there is no significance d ifference in percentages of male economic immig rants and female econo mic immigrants. Table 5 shows that Asia and Pacific are the major source area for economic immigrants follo wed by Africa and Middle East. The lowest percentage of economic immigrants comes fro m the Un ited States. It is evident that the percentages of economic immigrants for Africa and the Middle East have increased over time. In 2007, 47.5% of economic immigrants are fro m Asia and the Pacific Region followed by Africa and the Middle East (21.5%), Europe and the Un ited Kingdom (20.2%), South and Central America (7.2%), and the United States (3.6%). On the other hand, the Un ited States has the highest percentages of male foreign workers during 1998–2007 followed by Mexico, United Kingdom, Jamaica, India and Philippines (Table 6). The percentages of male foreign workers fro m the United States have decreased gradually during 1998-2007. However, the percentages of male fo reign workers fro m Philippines, India, and Mexico have increased gradually over t ime (1998 -2007). Although the percentages of male foreign workers have decreased in recent years for Jamaica, still it is the third largest source country for male foreign workers in Canada. Ho wever, a significant number of male foreign wo rkers came to Canada during 1998– 2007 fro m other countries. 96 M d Kamrul Islam: Levels and Trends of Temporary Foreign Workers in Canada: A Sociological Analysis Table 5. Economic Immigrants by Source Area, 1998 – 2007 Source Area 1998 1999 2000 Africa & Middle East 19.7 17.4 17.2 Asia and Pacific 50.1 54.1 57.7 South and central America 4.5 4.6 4.4 United States 2.1 2.3 1.9 Europe & United Kingdom 23.6 21.6 18.8 Total 100 100 100 Source: Facts and Figures 2007: Citizenship and Immigration Canada 2001 2002 2003 19.7 22.2 21 56.3 51.7 51.4 4.8 5.8 6 1.4 1.4 1.4 17.7 18.9 20.2 100 100 100 2004 20.6 49.7 6.3 2.2 21.1 100 2005 2006 2007 18.3 22.7 21.5 56.1 50.2 47.5 5.2 5.2 7.2 2.4 3.3 3.6 17.9 18.7 20.2 100 100 100 Table 6. Female Foreign Workers by Source Countries, 1998 - 2007 Source Countries Philippines United States Japan United Kingdom Aust ralia France China Germany Korea, Republic of India Mexico 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 23.1 21.9 21.3 24.9 27.7 27.7 28 28.1 28.7 32.6 16.9 15.8 16 14.7 12.7 12.1 11.3 10.9 10.3 8.6 11.8 15 12.6 11 12 11.5 10 9.3 7.8 5.7 7.1 7 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.6 7 6.7 6.2 5.6 7.5 7 7.1 7.7 7.8 7.7 7.4 6.7 5.9 5 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.1 4.8 5.3 5.7 5 1.8 1.7 1.8 2 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.6 3.2 3.8 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.6 3.2 3.2 1.5 1.7 2 2.1 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.9 2.9 2.9 0.9 1 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.8 2.5 3 3.2 2.8 1.5 1.6 2 2.3 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.9 Romania Top 10 Source countries Other countries Total 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.8 1 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 76.1 76.8 75.5 77.6 78.9 77.7 78 78.1 77.1 75.2 24 23.2 24.5 22.5 21.1 22.3 22 21.9 22.9 24.8 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: Facts and Figures 2007: Citizenship and Immigration Canada Table 6 shows that Philippines has the highest percentages of female foreig n workers in Canada during 1998– 2007. In 2007, 32.6% of female foreign workers are fro m Philippines followed by the United States (8.6%), Japan (5.7%), the United Kingdom (5.6%), Australia (5.0%), France (5.0%), China (3.8%), Germany (3.2%), Republic of Korea (2.9%), India (2.8%), and Mexico (2.8%). However, a significant nu mber o f female foreign workers (24.0% in 199 8, 22.5% in 2001, 21.9% in 2005, and 24.8% in 2007) also have come fro m other source countries. Table 6 also presents that Philippines has an increasing trend of female foreign workers in recent years (2001 to 2007) compared to the United States, Japan and the United Kingdom. Although the United States is the second largest source country for female foreign workers it has exhibited a declin ing trend in female fo reign workers during 1998–2007 like Japan, the United Kingdo m and France. Similar findings are reported by Sharma.[6] Sharma[6] found that the proportion of temporary foreign workers in Canada fro m the economically advanced countries ha d declined during 1973-2004. On the other hand, the proportions of temporary foreign workers fro m less economically developed countries have increased during the same period. Pa rt of the reason might be the increasing demand for temporary foreign workers in occupations with lowest payments. Temporary foreign workers form less developed countries are more likely to be e mployed in lowest paying occupations compared to foreign workers fro m economically advanced countries.[6]. Table 7 shows that majority o f male economic immigrants (57.7%) intended to work in professional jobs followed by skilled and technical jobs (25.2%), managerial (11.8%), and intermediate and clerical jobs (3.1%) in 2001. A mong female economic immigrants, 55.9% intended to work in professional jobs which is followed by skilled and technical (26.5%), managerial (8.4%), and intermediate and clerical (5.7%) in 2007. It can be seen that the percentages of professional jobs among economic immig rants have declined both for males and females during 1998–2007. However, the percentages of skilled and technical jobs among economic immig rants have increased both for males and females during the same period. Overall, ma jority of economic immigrants intend to work in professional jobs compared to technical and cle rica l jobs. American Journal of Sociological Research 2013, 3(4): 90-100 97 Table 7. Skilled workers intending to work by Gender and Occupational skill level (PrincipalApplicant) Occupational level Managerial Professional Skilled & Technical Intermediate & Clerical Elemental & Labourers Level not stated Males Managerial Professional Skilled & Technical Intermediate & Clerical Elemental & Labourers Level not stated Females Managerial Professional Skilled & Technical Intermediate & Clerical Elemental & Labourers Level not stated Total 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 1.7 2.4 3 3.5 3.8 4.2 6.8 9 10 11.8 64.8 71.1 72.2 70.9 69.8 72.9 69.3 65.2 60.8 57.7 27.1 21.3 20.9 21.6 22.4 20 20.2 21.3 23 25.2 3.8 2.7 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.6 2.1 2.6 3.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 2.6 2.4 1.7 1.6 1.3 0.6 1.1 2.3 3.5 2.1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.3 2.1 2.6 3 2.9 3.3 4.9 7.4 7.8 8.4 47.5 58.8 64.2 64.1 64 70.2 66.9 64.6 59.1 55.9 38.6 27.7 23.9 22.4 24 20.4 21.8 23.4 24.2 26.5 6.2 5.7 5.2 5.4 5.6 4.9 4.8 4 4.2 5.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 6.3 5.5 4 5 3.4 1.2 1.6 3.6 4.6 3.3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.6 2.4 2.9 3.4 3.6 4 6.2 8.5 9.4 10.7 60 68 70.3 69.2 68.3 72.2 68.6 64.2 60.3 57.2 30.2 22.9 21.6 21.8 22.8 20.1 20.7 21.9 23.4 25.6 4.4 3.5 2.9 3.1 3.3 3 3.2 2.7 3.1 4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 0 3.6 3.2 2.2 2.5 1.8 0.7 1.3 2.7 3.8 2.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: Facts and Figures 2007: Citizenship and Immigration Canada Table 8 shows that 23.8% of male foreign workers (init ial entry) are e mp loyed in professional jobs followed by skilled and technical (22.3%), intermediate and cle rica l (14.1%), ele mental and labourers (8.9%), and manageria l (5%) in 2007. On the other hand, majority of female foreign workers (29.5%) are employed in intermediate and clerical jobs which is fo llo wed by professional (12.5%), skilled and technical (5.7%), elemental and labourers (4.9%) in 2007. In both cases, significant percentages of foreign workers (25.8% and 45.7% fo r males and females, respectively) did not mention their occupational status in 2007. The percentages of professional jobs, both for male foreign wo rkers and female foreign wo rkers, have decreased rapidly during 1998 – 2007. However, the percentages of intermediate and clerical jobs, for both male foreign workers and female foreign workers, have increased remarkably during 1998–2007 (Tab le 9). Table 8. Initial Entry of Foreign Workers by Gender and Occupational Skill level Occupational level Managerial Professional Skilled & Technical Intermediate & Clerical Elemental & Labourers Level not stated Males Managerial Professional Skilled & Technical Intermediate & Clerical Elemental & Labourers Level not stated Females Managerial Professional Skilled & Technical Intermediate & Clerical Elemental & Labourers Level not stated Total 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 5.2 4.7 4.4 5 5.4 6 6.3 5.8 5.7 5 48.1 43.6 41.5 44.3 40.3 35.3 32.8 32 30.3 23.8 21 22 20.4 21.7 21.3 20.2 19.6 20.7 21.6 22.3 11 15.7 20.8 13.9 15.5 15.6 13.8 14.5 13 14.1 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.7 1.6 2.6 4.5 8.9 13.6 12.9 12 14.2 16.3 21.1 25.9 24.5 24.9 25.8 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.1 2 1.7 33.5 32.3 34 31.7 25.7 20.7 17.9 17.3 16.2 12.5 9.7 10.6 12.7 10 10.1 9.7 8.1 8.2 6.9 5.7 18.1 16.7 16.3 21.7 22.5 22.9 24.9 24.9 27.2 29.5 1.3 1.3 1 1.2 1.1 1 0.8 1.2 2.2 4.9 34.6 36.6 33.6 33.1 38.3 43.5 46.1 46.4 45.5 45.7 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 4.6 4.1 3.9 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.7 4.4 4.3 3.7 43.9 40.4 39.4 40.4 35.4 29.8 26.9 26.3 24.8 19.3 17.8 18.8 18.3 18.1 17.5 16.2 15 15.8 15.9 15.8 13 16 19.6 16.3 17.9 18.4 18.2 18.5 18.5 20.2 1.1 1.1 0.9 1 1.1 1.5 1.3 2 3.7 7.3 19.6 19.6 17.8 20 23.8 29.6 34 33 32.9 33.7 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: Facts and Figures 2007: Citizenship and Immigration Canada 98 M d Kamrul Islam: Levels and Trends of Temporary Foreign Workers in Canada: A Sociological Analysis Sharma[6] found that most temporary female foreign workers in Canada were in service and clerical occupations. On the contrary, majo rity of temporary male foreign workers were emp loyed in Natural Science, Engineering and Mathematics, managerial, and fabricat ing and repairs. Sharma[6] argued, ―overall, men are highly overrepresented in professional occupations while wo men are concentrated and overrepresented in the Service —particu larly the personal serviceoccupations such as domestic work. Thus, it seems that the N IEAP reflects and further entrenches the gendered division of labour already in operation in Canada‖.[6] Co mparison of occupational status between economic immig rants and foreign worke rs shows that foreign workers (init ial entry) have lower percentages in professional jobs compared to economic immig rants during 1998 -2007. However, foreign workers (init ial entry) have higher percentages in intermed iate and clerical jobs compared to economic immig rants during the same period. Similar findings are also reported by Sharma[6]. Analy zing data fro m Citizenship and Immig ration Canada (CIC), Sharma [6] has shown that majority of temporary foreign workers are emp loyed in service (17.2%) fo llo wed by farming (13.3%), and fabricating assembly and repairing (11.4%) in 1973. In 1983, the percentage of foreign workers in service sector increased to 29% followed by fabricat ing, assembly and repairing (13.2%), and farming (9.5%). And Sharma has reported consistent findings for these occupational categories for the next two deca des. Co mparison within foreign workers (Table 9) shows that the percentages of professional jobs for re -entry category have decreased remarkably during 1998-2007. However, the percentages of intermed iate and clerical jobs have increased gradually for re-entry category during the same period. In addit ion, the re-entry foreign workers have significantly higher percentages in intermediate and clerical jobs than that of initial-entry category workers. Sharma (2005) has found that temporary foreign workers fro m Economically Advanced Countries (EACs) are mo re likely to be emp loyed in professional occupations during 1973-1993. In contrast, temporary foreign workers fro m Less Economically Developed Countries (LEACs) are more likely to be employed in lowest paying occupations with the poorest documented working conditions like domestic workers. Table 9. Re-Entry of Foreign Workers by Gender and Occupational Skill level Occupational level Managerial Professional Skilled & Technical Intermediate & Clerical Elemental & Labourers Level not stated Males Managerial Professional Skilled & Technical Intermediate & Clerical Elemental & Labourers Level not stated Females Managerial Professional Skilled & Technical Intermediate & Clerical Elemental & Labourers Level not stated Total 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.2 3.6 4 4.2 4.4 4.1 4.2 39.9 41 46.4 37.4 34 28.4 26.3 25.5 25.3 22.6 15.8 18 21.3 17 16.9 16 16.2 16.8 16.3 17.4 37.4 34.5 25.1 39.3 42.9 47.7 48.6 48.4 48 47.3 1 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.6 1.1 1.5 1.8 2.6 3.8 2.4 2.3 2.7 2.2 2 2.8 3.2 3.1 3.7 4.6 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 5.3 5.5 5.6 5.7 4.8 6.2 6.4 6 5.2 4.6 53 50.4 50.2 47.2 45.7 38.8 36.9 35.9 32.4 26.9 14.8 14.8 15.7 17.2 16.2 18.4 16.9 16.3 16.4 14.6 14.4 14.4 11.9 14.3 17.3 15.9 15.2 15.5 17.3 22.9 1.2 1.4 1 1.3 1.2 0.7 1.6 1.9 2.1 3 11.3 13.5 15.5 14.2 14.9 20.1 23.1 24.5 26.6 28 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3.8 3.8 4.1 3.5 3.8 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.3 4.3 41.6 42.4 47 38.7 35.6 29.9 27.9 27.1 26.4 23.3 15.6 17.5 20.4 17 16.8 16.4 16.3 16.7 16.3 16.9 34.3 31.6 23 36 39.4 43.1 43.7 43.3 43.1 42.9 1 0.8 0.8 1 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.8 2.5 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.7 3.8 3.7 5.3 6.1 6.4 7.4 8.8 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Data Source: Facts and Figures 2007: Citizenship and Immigration Canada 7. Discussion The levels and t rends of the foreign workers in the Canadian labour market during 1983-2007 show that a significant nu mber of foreign workers have come to Canada compared to economic immigrants. Moreover, the flow of foreign workers has increased in recent years while the trend of economic immig rants has decreased gradually during the same period. When only principal applicants are taken into account, it shows that foreign workers comprised of the majority category in the Canadian labour market. What is evident fro m the above trends is that Government of Canada facilitates higher flow of temporary foreign workers compared to economic immigrants. American Journal of Sociological Research 2013, 3(4): 90-100 99 Co mparison of foreign workers by sex shows that although a vast majority of the foreign workers are males, they have a downward trend during 1983-2007. On the other hand, the proportions of female foreign workers have increased gradually during the same period. Part of the reason might be that the demands for female fo reign workers have increased in Canada. Analysis of foreign workers by source countries shows that although the United States was the major source country for male foreign workers in Canada during 1998-2007, it has experienced a declin ing trend during the same period. On the other hand, the percentages of male foreign workers fro m India, Jamaica, and Philippines have increased in Canada during the same period. Ho wever, Ph ilippines has the highest percentages of female foreign wo rkers in Canada during 1998-2007. In the same period, the percentages of female foreign workers fro m developed countries (i.e. United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and France) show a declining trend. What is evident from the above trend is that developing countries are emerg ing as major sources for temporary foreign workers for the Canadian labour market. Co mparison of foreign workers by occupational categories shows that economic immigrants have higher percentages in professional jobs compared to foreign workers during 1998-2007. However, foreign workers have the higher percentages in intermediate and clerical jobs compared to economic immigrants during the same period. Overall, foreign workers are employed in lo w-paying occupations in the Canadian labour market co mpared to economic immigrants. In fact, in many cases, foreign workers have limited access to professional jobs . For example, the percentages of foreign workers (fo r re-entry category) in professional job have decreased rapidly during 1998-2007, whereas their percentages in intermediate and clerical jobs have increased dramat ically during the same period. 8. Conclusions ―Government policies and regulations play an important role in shaping the immig rant population and defining the rights accorded to migrants. Settler societies such as Canada, the United States, and Australia stress permanent migration and institute varying levels of control over how and how many people enter, fro m where, and when‖.[17] The analysis of Canada‘s Non-Immig rant Emp loyment Authorization Program shows that although foreign workers have to leave Canada after a certain period of time, they can re-enter to Canada again as ―temporary‖ foreign workers. Recently there have been some changes in immig ration policy and temporary foreign workers are allowed to apply for permanent residency status after the fu lfillment o f certain requirements. However, there is a lack of enough policy initiat ive in Canada to integrate temporary foreign workers into the mainstream Canadian society. Both the government and non-government organizations should come forward to design strategies in order to reduce the vulnerabilities of temporary foreign workers in Canada. So me argue that various institutional mechanisms have not only restricted the mobility of these foreign workers but also have excluded them fro m many of their rights and benefits. This is clearly the man ifestation of explo itation to foreign workers by the so called ―ruling b lock‖. The review of h istorical background of Canada immig ration policy shows that various institutional mechanis ms were used to impose some sort of restrictions in each stage of immig ration with a v iew to exclude certain race and class fro m immigrat ing to Canada. However, recent immigrat ion policies have eliminated these discrimination practices to a greater extent. The NIEAP was introduced to fill the ―temporary shortage‖ of workers for selected occupations in the Canadian job market. ―Migrant workers do not take the jobs seen as belonging to Canadians. The Employ ment Validation Process (EVP) helps to legitimize the notion that only when Canadians refuse a particular job should a migrant worker be able to take it. Th is reinforces the nationalist view that jobs in Canada belong, first and foremost, to Canadians. Such notion helps to construct the common sense that there exists two labour markets in Canada – one that is Canadian and other that is foreign – each with their differential entitlements and rights.‖[6] The important question that remains to answer is why the State has facilitated the NIEAP program? In fact, State has worked as an agent of global capitalis m with a view to protect the interest of the capitalist class. The State has continued the supply of labour at a comparat ively lower wages to maximize the profit for certain class in the global economy. Canada‘s NIEAP is not an isolated fact fro m the world -economy rather it is very much part of the globalization process through which the production and the reproduction of class hegemony is continued. The creation of nat ional identity and nationalism is very much related with the pract ice of racism.[18]. Govern ment should take proper init iatives to ensure that temporary foreign wo rkers have equal access to obtain citizenship similar to the economic immig rants in Canada. But one aspect of the literature on globalizat ion argues that formal organizations and institutions work effectively to ensure various kinds of exclusion for the workers class. The reason is simple, to ensure the endless capital accumulat ion in the global economy through consent and coercion. State cannot ensure capital accu mulation without some sort of exclusion. Wallerstein[19] argued, ―as a consequence, the politics of inclusion and exclusion became a center-piece of national politics through the following two centuries. Those who were excluded sought to be included, and those who are already included were most often inclined to keep eligib ility for cit izens‘ rights defined narrowly, maintaining the exclusions‖. For this reason, Sharma[6] argued, ―the NIEAP, therefore, should be considered as a means of institutionalizing nationalized discrimination informed by unequal relationship of racism and sexism. It is a labour market tool more clearly understandable with in the context of the global expansion of capitalist social relations and the

... pages left unread,continue reading

Document pages: 11 pages

Please select stars to rate!

         

0 comments Sign in to leave a comment.

    Data loading, please wait...
×