MANAGED
MIGRATION BEST PRACTICES AND PUBLIC POLICY
Executive Summary
In the changing
world of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, where
rapid advancement in transportation and communication is taking place and where
new trading relationships of a bilateral or multi-lateral nature are being
forged, human capital and the movement of people is becoming increasingly
important. It is not surprising given
the magnitude of change taking place that the protection of migrant worker’s
basic rights and that the acceptance of migrant workers by host populations is
becoming increasingly important.
The Canadian
experience in managing a large movement of low-skilled migrant agricultural
workers, what we have chosen to refer to as “managed migration”, is being put
forward, as one possible model, for managing migrant worker movements.
We believe that this
formal arrangement facilitates public acceptance of the movement and is
supportive of worker’s basic rights. Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC),
as been able through the administrative infrastructure it has put in place, to
enhance the understanding of relevant labour legislation by the
employer/employee community and to positively influence decisions taken by
other departments that impact upon the workers.
In 1966, as a
response to sustained labour shortages faced by Canadian farmers, HRDC in
co-operation with Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) developed the
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program[2]. This program allows for the organized
movement of foreign workers to meet the seasonal needs of Canadian agricultural
employers during planting and harvest periods when shortages of qualified
Canadian workers have traditionally occurred.
During the 1970’s
and the first half of the 1980’s a program quota was set by the department and
announced each year. This arrangement
certainly helped to alleviate some of the labour shortages but by the mid
1980’s the system was beginning to breakdown.
The department
realized that setting an annual quota was arbitrary at best and difficult to
defend. By this time we also recognized
that despite the time, effort and money invested by the department at resolving
the labour shortages, our efforts were costly, labour intensive and largely
ineffective.
Seasonal
agricultural labour shortages were continuing to grow as the labour market
heated up, Canadian agricultural workers were continually being lost to
competing sectors which offered better wages, better working conditions and
full time status rather than seasonal employment.
It had become
obvious that the status quo was no longer an option and that fundamental
changes would need to be made to the program if we were going to remove the
quota in favour of a supply and demand driven model.
One final but
critical step remained in the evolution of the managed migration program. This step was taken in 1987 when HRDC
decided to give the private sector an active role in the administration of the
program.
The employer
community dependant on the programs were required to set-up a not-for-profit
corporation, separate and distinct from any existing agricultural
organization. The agencies operations
were to be governed by a Board of Directors representing major commodity groups
with ex-officio representation from HRDCs’ national and regional office. The agency would be solely responsible for
the timeliness of processing all foreign worker requests authorized by
HRDC. This suited the department’s
purposes not only because it reduced significantly federal government delivery
costs but also because it provided HRDC with a data base of program
participants (both employers and employees) that could be continually updated
and was readily accessible.
BEST
PRACTICES AND PUBLIC POLICY
Let’s begin our
examination of best practices and public policy by taking a few moments to
consider the fundamental policy issue, namely whether a managed program for the
admission of large numbers of seasonal agricultural workers is in fact in the
national interest.
You might be asking
yourself why is he bothering to talk about public policy interests when we are
here to discuss best practices. Well
the answer is very simple, I believe that public acceptance of foreign workers,
particularly the significant numbers we are talking about, is improved when the
public understands through clearly articulated policy the value-added foreign
workers bring to the workplace, to the community and to the national economy.
I am convinced that
this can contribute significantly to the whole question of worker’s rights and
best practices.
So lets have a very
quick look at the question of “national interest.” To do this we need to ask
ourselves five questions:
1
How such a program will affect domestic workers
2
How such a program will affect employers
3
How such a program will affect agriculture and agri-related
business
4
How such a program will affect trade
5
How such a program will affect our ability to control irregular
immigration
The answers to these
five fundamental questions viewed in terms of today’s economic realities will
form the basis for sound public policy.
Lets briefly look at
each of these in turn, first how a migrant worker program will affect the
domestic workforce.
Labour certification
of employment opportunities ensures that Canadian agricultural workers are
provided first access to employment opportunities. Consequently the domestic workforce will not be negatively
impacted so long as those foreign workers admitted are reimbursed and treated
in a fair and equitable manner.
In fact, our
experience has demonstrated that the employment of domestic seasonal workers can
not be expanded to replace foreign workers given that qualified domestic
workers are continually being lost to competing sectors offering better wages,
working conditions and longer employment periods.
Secondly, how will
such a program affect employers? The
assurance that employers would have access to the labour needed to see their
crops harvested has encouraged Canadian farmers to expand their horticultural
production. In many cases this has led
to an increase in the number of year- round jobs farm employers are able to
offer to Canadian workers.
When we examine the
impact of these migrant worker programs on agriculture and agri-related
businesses it is evident that industry expansion has created additional jobs in
upstream (chemicals, seed etc.) and downstream occupations (trucking, packing,
storage, etc.) that are dependent on the production and handling of farm
product.
In today’s trade
environment, characterized by the removal of tariff and trade barriers through
negotiated trade agreements, reducing access to adequate labour would simply
result in the reallocation of production from labour-short producers to
producers in countries with adequate labour.
Failure to have a regime in place to provide adequate labour would consequently
simply reduce Canadian farm production and ancillary agri-business employment.
With respect to
control of irregular immigration Canada believes that effective non- immigrant
control can best be achieved through the development of policy, which
recognizes and responds to legitimate labour shortages in the economy.
Consequently, from
a public policy perspective we believe that the choice is clear and that the
decision to introduce and manage a seasonal agricultural worker movement is in
the national interest.
It is important that
we understand and put some perspective around the whole question of migrant
labour. We need to debunk the notion
that the movement of migrant workers somehow threatens the indigenous
workforce. In fact the contrary is
often the case.
Properly managed,
migrant worker movements contribute to economic and employment growth. Understanding this is the first step towards
the elimination of the xenophobia that so often accompanies such movements.
Such recognition can also serve as a catalyst for national governments to enact
and enforce measures which provide adequate protection of migrant worker’s
basic rights.
As
I commented earlier, the Canadian experience in managing large movements of
migrant workers, what we have chosen to refer to as “managed migration”, is
being put forward as one possible replicable model (best practice) for managing
migrant worker movements.
Its
strength lies in the formal structure that has been put in place which ensures
that all the key players are engaged and are fully committed to the process.
Parties
involved adhere to terms set out in bilateral memoranda of understanding
(MOU). Annexed to these MOUs are a set
of operational guidelines and an employer/employee agreement.
MOUs provide for the
organized movement of workers to Canada when and where such a movement is
determined to be of mutual benefit to both countries. Workers are to be employed at premium cost to employers, be
provided with adequate accommodation and receive treatment equivalent to that
received by Canadians.
Operational
guidelines governing the movement provide for the stationing of a Government
Agent in Canada whose task it is to assist in the smooth functioning of the
program. Many of the appointed
Government Agents also have consular responsibilities. These officials work with and enjoy the
support of HRDC regional managers monitoring contract compliance, resolving
misunderstandings, ensuring workers have registered for social insurance
numbers, have applied for medical coverage and complete and file income tax
returns on their nationals behalf.
These guidelines also obligate Canada and the respective governments to
hold Annual Operational Policy Review meetings which have proven very helpful.
The employer/employee
agreements cover the scope and period of employment, lodging and meals, payment
of wages, deduction from wages, insurance for occupational and non-occupational
injury and disease, maintenance of work records, statement of earnings, travel
and reception arrangements and identify specific obligations of both employers
and employees.
The
employer/employee agreements are signed by every employer and employee and by
the Government Agent prior to the worker’s arrival. I think it’s important to note that these contracts and
agreements are available in the worker’s native language.
Workers destined to
Canada are selected and counselled by their respective Ministries of Labour in
order to ensure that workers are aware of their rights and are as prepared as
possible for working conditions in Canada.
The management of
these Seasonal Agricultural Workers Programs is undertaken by HRDC and its
partners (and I include here both the foreign governments and the private
sector) in a very hands on way.
HRDC national office
networks with its foreign and domestic partners brokering arrangements that
enhance the program’s administration, identifying new developments expected to
impinge on the program and ensuring employer and employee rights and interests
are respected and understood.
The active measures HRDC has taken to ensure Worker Rights are respected and understood include:
I.
Social Insurance Numbers
Ensuring all program participants were properly registered to
satisfy legal requirements and to ensure pension plan contributions were
credited appropriately.
II.
Income Tax Returns
Worked closely with Revenue Canada to produce a tax guide
specifically for the programs in order to ensure tax witholding and tax filing
are properly done.
III. Vacation Pay
Sought clarification of provincial labour legislation policy in
both Ontario and Quebec regarding worker entitlement and ensured such
information was provided to employers and shared with Government Agents
IV. Worker’s
Compensation
Brokered an agreement to have migrant workers admitted under
these programs covered despite such coverage being only voluntary in Alberta
and Manitoba.
V.
Health Coverage
Brokered arrangements with Ministries of Health in Ontario and
Quebec to provide workers with immediate coverage in order that the customary
three month waiting period could be waived.
We also secured agreement that workers would continue to be covered
after contracts ended and until such time as they boarded planes to fly home.
VI. Access to Airport
Security Zones
Secured agreement from colleagues CIC to provide access to
secure areas for accredited Governments Agents servicing the program who are at
the airport to meet incoming program participants and to assist them with
customs and immigration matters.
Conclusion:
This paper has
argued the merit of national governments developing clearly articulated policy
with respect to the admission of migrant workers and taking proactive measures
to manage large scale movements.
It is suggested that
serious consideration be given to “managed migration” programs as a practical arrangement
to improve the movement of foreign labour.
We are convinced
that “managed migration” can contribute to the advancement of migrant worker’s
rights that it is replicable.
Our experience has
shown that managed migration through formal government to government arrangements
promotes co-operation and goodwill amongst participanting countries.