Recently on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau described the composition of Canada’s identity as: “a mosaic or a tapestry… [with individual] differences in stories, differences in perspectives. Every day you get to meet a Canadian you get a different approach.” The current Canadian political climate in which Prime Minister Trudeau speaks is one where he stands in the middle of the turmoil. Current frustrations with how the Canadian government handles the economy and its labour force has stirred up discourse about who performs what labour and to what extent.
Disillusionment lies within how the federal government has administered its Temporary Foreign Worker programme, which as of 2018 made up only 4 percent of the total Canadian labour force. As the nature of the program sees a firm claim it cannot find an apt Canadian applicant to complete the job, for reasons such as the job being precarious in nature, or too hard of labour. The use of temporary foreign workers can be seen as antagonistic and harmful for Canadian citizens who are seeking employment. Yet, the inclusion and acceptance they face within Canada can be equated to how integrated they have become in white Canadian society. Managing the economy to avoid these types of exploitative, low-wage, precarious jobs cannot be effective without the knowledge that this is how Canada has created and designed its labour market since its formation.
An element missing from mainstream discussion about Canada’s immigration and labour is that these processes are built on historical precedent. Canada has been utilising Black and brown bodies to perform labour to expand the country, physically and economically, even before its confederation. The expansion of coast-to-coast colonial British Canada into the Commonwealth would not have been possible if not for cheap, abusable labour. This labour was performed at the behest of the Canadian settlers, as they did not want racial integration into their nation. The uncomfortable truth is that there would not be a developed, modern Canada if it had not been for the permission of Asiatic immigrants.
These processes of racialization have been consistently simmering throughout Canadian history, influencing the means of immigration and domestic economic planning. The notion of the foundational Canadian identity was deemed inclusive of only European settlers, according to Canada’s first prime minister John A. MacDonald, who deemed Canada ‘a white man’s country’ in 1867. This notion was slightly relaxed to meet the demand for labour to continue settling the land. Within Western Canada, Chinese and Indian labour was utilised to expand the agricultural industry where it could not meet the demands of the settlers. The subsequent introduction of Asiatic and Black immigrants was seen as mutually exclusive to the Canadian purpose and identity, as anti-Asiatic sentiment and beliefs were continually propagated. The fear of an integrated, diverse society was antagonistic against the foundation of the Canadian nation. Immigrant work was thus structured in a manner where there were no paths to becoming ‘Canadian.’ This fear in contemporary times has found a new home in populist, reactionary Canadian rhetoric.
Currently, this hostility has developed toward disparaging temporary or immigrant workers, for similar reasons. Presently, this antagonistic view has been directed toward South Asian communities, as there has been a rise (and subsequent backtracking) of government-issued permits allowing South Asian people to reside and work in Canada. Families and individuals who give up their way of life in pursuit of the western promise find themselves ridiculed and antagonised by the citizens of the country that brought them there for economic gains. With these workers being regarded so low that they appear un-human, un-civil, and propped up to be accused for all of Canada’s issues.
Xenophobic misconceptions, such as temporary workers absorbing all the aspects of the social safety net Canada provides to their citizens, or taking advantage of the Canadian economy at the expense of the Canadian citizen, have also increased hostility towards temporary foreign workers. Perhaps the reasons for the Canadian public’s distrust in the distribution and accessibility of public services can be found in the policies of their provincial governments, as it is their responsibility. Growing provincial Tory interests have seen failures to invest in the public good, especially within the healthcare and housing sectors, further eloping with private development interests. This is demonstrable within Ontario’s Ford government, where most temporary foreign workers reside.
The rise of anti-South Asian and general xenophobic attitudes are not new to Canadian culture, yet integral. The history of exploiting and subjugating brown bodies to lesser-than is intertwined with Canadian identity and often goes unchallenged. The temporary workers within the low-wage and agricultural sectors are continually exploited and left to suffer for the benefit of Canadian business profit margins. In a similar fashion to the reasoning of the twentieth-century federal government, modern restrictions on temporary migrant work comes with a trade-up of the immense value it provides to the economy and capital interests.
Presently, the evolution of utilising precarious, hard labour has been reported as a potential breeding ground for slavery within Canada. This summer, a UN special rapporteur deemed that Canada’s temporary foreign worker program “created a significant power imbalance, given that if workers are fired, they may be deported back to their countries of origin. Employers may have limited incentive to ensure decent working conditions, as workers do not have a meaningful choice of alternatives.” The incentive to not improve the working conditions of those who face harsh work environments at the cost of profits sums up the Canadian labour equation. They may arrive to perform hard labour in an unsafe environment, but they cannot be afforded any niceties or respect on the basis of their legal status.
