[published in March 2013. Corrected for typos in Dec 2013. All substantive errors are preserved for future consumption of humble pie]
Mr. Walkom,
I read your article, as I often do, and found that I disagree with some aspects of it that I would like to point out. The Canadian system I think for a few decades was very broad-based on simply getting bodies in and sometimes schizophrenic. Because of that an uncle of mine who got a MBA in the 1970s from Windsor, settled (and flourished) in the US, because Canada's immigration system actively prevented students moving seamlessly from their studies into settling in the country (they made it difficult to switch streams.) I settled here under a more liberal framework as a skilled worker under the points system. That system (still existing to a large degree) was based on allowing people in who the government thinks might be able to make their way, and then generally leaving them to their devices (which often lead to them impoverishing themselves relatively quickly as they tried to settle in.) The focus of the present system over the last few years has been to slowly close that large pipe and bring in immigration through universities and employer sponsorship, and through other vetting such as the provincial nominee programmes.
Each of the systems have their strengths and deficiencies. The ones the Liberals had was possibly a an historic desire to settle a vast country combined with a generosity in the treatment of the less fortunate, such as refugees from different parts of the world. The ones the Conservatives have fashioned seems influenced by the American system, greater suspicion towards the less fortunate, more interest in Canadianising immigrants both in their and society's interest, and a belief (which I don't share) in the power of private enterprise to pick the best entrants to Cdn society. The downside of the American system is the unconscionable power it can give to employers over their employees.
I liked the older system and its openness that I came in under but I also recognise that Canada, for new immigrants, is a very closed job market. I have lived in Canada, the US, the UK, Denmark, Nigeria and India (and had work permits in three of those countries.) Canadian society and its networks are close-knit, relationship based and closed to newcomers. It is incredibly difficult to break in. Denmark as a society is more closed but as a job market can be more open (or rather used to be about 15 years ago.)
I recognised this early and at great cost (even with subsidy) went back to university and got into the "mainstream" (I worked at a downtown law firm until last year) but I've seen so many people have such a tough time getting their first job (suited to their qualifications) that I have started to think that perhaps the present approach focussed on work and education as the primary streams of immigration is a good one, and that if the general category is being squeezed then the work permit entry process should be made easier (the education gateway is very very expensive for outsiders and appears to simply be a way to suck the savings out of people who aren't permanent residents- I never studied as an outsider but I see the outrageous difference in fees.)
People who come in under temporary work permits are being given an opportunity to find their way to an appropriate place in society. If the people on work permits, are people who would previously have entered the market under the previous system with plenty of money to spend but no way to break in, then those people on work permits may not just be "scabs" bringing down wages and destroying society, as you seem to imply, but better immigrants, those who have the ability to satisfy needs, and the confidence to know that before they become Canadians that they have the ability to contribute effectively.
People on work permits may actually be "real immigrants." They may not be white but they are as real as the English, Italians, and Portuguese that came before. My cousin is a "real immigrant" who did his masters degree here, has a work permit and will hopefully get permanent residence here.
The cheap nannies and welders you despise, have children who will settle here and enjoy living here.
You may not like the Conservatives and their love of the needs of businesses but in this attack on them you are sounding like an Arizona Republican.
Pim Fortuyn was a marxist before he became a fascist. It is very easy to cross that line.
Instead of attacking the incentive for businesses to train locals as irrelevant or insufficient, you have chosen the easy and parochial path of attacking cheap foreigners.
Sincerely,
Hari Balaraman
