Jonathan Blaine Musings

Instead of discouraging “Canadian Experience” discrimination, the federal Conservative government entrenches it.  (See my May 2013 update below.)

As part of the Federal Budget announced Friday  — a “politically crazy” budget as Toronto Sun columnist Warren Kinsella called it — Ottawa effectively wiped out a visa waiting list of more than 280,000 educated and qualified foreign workers and their families, and is returning $130 million they paid in processing fees.  Any professional fees these prospective new Canadians paid to lawyers or immigration consultants — often a substantial sum — will, of course, not be reimbursed.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney telegraphed this change three weeks ago, and followed through in the budget.  The government has placed the blame on the bureaucracy being unable to process the applications.  Never mind that most of this problem occurred under the Conservative Party’s watch as a minority government.  So, the obvious solution, at least to Mr. Kenney and his boss, was to take a leaf blower to the top of the application processing desk and start anew.  Sure, that’s what everybody does when they have too much work…  We all just throw this stuff in the garbage, right?  In the same budget, he cut funding for the Immigration department.  So, potential immigrants shouldn’t worry at all about the government’s next plan to process their applications in a timely manner, and that history won’t repeat.  Yeah.  Right.

According to the March 30 Toronto Star newspaper: “Hopeful immigrants who applied before Feb. 27, 2008 to come to Canada as skilled workers will have their fees returned and be told to apply again under new programs that put greater emphasis on their work skills.”  Many of these people have been waiting up to 8 years.  Now, it’s back to the end of the line with everybody else who hasn’t even applied yet.  Of course, Ottawa spun it to say Canada owes new applicants expedited service.  Maybe so, but by killing the dreams of  more than a quarter million people who have been patiently waiting for years is not exactly playing nice, nor “being Canadian” for that matter.  Instead of processing the existing backlog — even under new government admittance rules for whatever system it comes up with (which it hasn’t yet) — and giving applicants the opportunity to fit into that new mold by providing necessary relevant information, it is throwing every previous applicant under the bus.

From The Star: “lawyer Robin Seligman said the government should have first stopped the intake to clear the backlog. Prospective migrants might now think twice before applying to Canada, she added. ‘How can you trust this government?’

This action is a huge insult to immigrants, anti-business, self-defeating and an international black eye for Canada.

This does absolutely nothing about the real immigration issues in Canada, three of which are:

• widespread professional discrimination by “old boy licensing networks” that often bars professionals from working in their profession for close to a decade following arrival (doctors, nurses, and engineers, for example).
• the veiled ethnic discrimination “Canadian experience” excuse used by many Canadian businesses that keeps newly arrived immigrants unemployed or underemployed for many months or years; the current new-immigrant unemployment rate is over 14% compared to 3.5% for individuals born in Canada.  In fact, according to Ottawa on Friday, Canada is intending to put more emphasis on bringing in those with “Canadian work experience,” which will only serve to entrench this practice.
• non-citizen “landed immigrants” (known as “resident aliens” in the US) continue to be allowed to petition for retired or uneducated parents and siblings who add nothing to the economy; in the US, only citizens can do this, but any permanent resident in Canada can petition for mom, dad and siblings, whatever their ages, as soon as he or she steps foot on Canadian soil.  In the US, only a spouse and children under 21 can accompany the immigrant until he or she becomes a citizen.

In fact, even US Republicans say they want to fix the illegal immigrant issue so that the US Immigration agency can concentrate more on legal immigration and even streamline entry for credentialed professionals, unlike what Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper wishes to do, apparently.

The only message to successful and credentialed foreign professionals Ottawa is sending with this utter stupidity: Canada does not want educated and successful immigrants.

Apparently, family immigration for those who are uneducated and unqualified except for menial labour — and perhaps a drain on the economy — is just fine, because that was not addressed in the budget.

In February, I wrote the following response that appears on University of Ottawa economics prof Miles Corak’s article about the challenges immigrants face in Canada:

If I may put on my purely analytical and fiscally logical economic hat for a while, the situation in Canada on many fronts related to immigration would improve if politicians had the courage to implement the following systems (which may be pie in the sky thinking).

Changes needed in immigration policy:

• allow in only those with the credentials (education, experience, income) likely to improve the economy and Canadians’ quality of life, and utilizing demand-side economics to determine which professions are most valuable. Australia’s points system springs to mind. The only exceptions: tightly regulated refugee and family immigration programs.
• allow concurrent co-sponsorships for only these immigrants’ immediate families (spouses and minor children).
• allow only citizens to sponsor parents and other immediate family over 21 on an immediate basis. Allow extended family applications, but only allow a limited quota annually. In other words, a landed immigrant would not be able sponsor extended family (including parents) until he or she achieved citizenship (similar to what occurs in the US). And require all prospective citizens be fluent in at least one of the official languages (the lack of which directly affects an immigrant’s chance for economic success).
• all sponsors must have the financial support to petition any immigration application so that sponsored family members will not become a burden on society (at least for 5 years), and be legally required to reimburse the country if this occurs.
• establish extremely stringent rules for determination if a refugee petition is valid, and a much more streamlined approach — in other words, months not many years.
• landed immigrants who arrive as the spouse of a citizen must not have the same rights as occurs now, and do not obtain these rights until they go through an adjustment of status process (this will largely reduce marriage fraud, which often leaves the Canadian citizen on the hook financially — many citizens have seen their “loved one” disappear into the crowd within months, or even at the airport!). Even better, offer a fiancé/fiancée visa, similar to the US (in that country, only idiots, the foolhardy or the ill-informed marry a spouse overseas when this visa option is available).

Changes needed in Canadian society:

• equal employment laws with teeth (including regulatory fines and private litigation) to ensure companies employ the most deserved regardless of where they lived or were educated (perhaps designed along the lines of the US EEOC, but with the requirement of companies tracking and reporting immigration, expatriate, and foreign education status).
• provide governmental financial incentives such as tax breaks for companies bringing credentialed foreign workers on board, or perhaps voluntarily meeting standards.
• legally abolish “Canadian experience” discrimination.
• eliminate the “old boy” networks that are today keeping otherwise credentialed doctors, nurses, engineers, and other licensed professionals, out of the workforce often for close to a decade. For example, incorporate the American Medical Association requirements for foreign doctors (English proficiency, 3 exams and a residency — typically taking 3-4 years for the entire process, while it’s 8-9 years for a doctor to start practicing in Canada).

If these changes were made, I dare say much of the populist bigotry against legal immigrants would greatly diminish, as well, along with making Canada less risk-averse, and more innovative and productive with all this “new blood” from world-class educated, successful and satisfied new immigrants.

Unfortunately, I fear no politician would have the intestinal fortitude to even whisper such a plan, in fear of losing votes from the immigrant community, even if these or similar changes are a dire need for Canada’s future success, as they likely are.

Great questions were asked on a LinkedIn immigration forum — questions that the government likely won’t touch with a 10-foot hockey stick:

• If 80% of jobs are “hidden” and not advertised, and to find a job you must be networking while physically in Canada, how would most people outside Canada find a job while they are overseas?  Short answer:  they can’t.
  
• If resumes are mostly scanned by software according to key words matching the 20% of jobs that are advertised, how would people actually find jobs before moving here?  See answer above.
  
• If the target is 25 year olds who just graduated from university with a couple of years experience, how would they have “Canadian Experience” to get the job here while they’re in their native country?  They won’t.
  

Yes, that last bullet point is the targeted “new immigrant” according to Kenney; all of this makes me wonder if this is actually a stealth Conservative Party anti-immigration policy.

Instead of temporarily closing the door and working on the backlog while developing a new system (as the US has done from time to time for various immigration segments), Canada now simply throws those who were going through the red tape in good faith to the back of the line.  This will only force these highly educated and qualified people — who otherwise could add strength to the Canadian economy and society — to look elsewhere.  And, indeed, they probably should.

UPDATE May 6 2013:  Apparently, my crystal ball was extremely clear a year ago when I wrote that the current Canadian government might have a “stealth anti-immigration policy.”  See my follow-up column at “Canadian Government’s stealth anti-immigration policy endangering country’s economic future.”

Michael Ignatieff wonders the same thing.

There are 2,800,000 Canadians living abroad — 9 percent of Canada’s population — and more of those live in the USA than in any other country.

Expatriate “global” Canucks like me are just as Canadian as the guy who lived in Moose Jaw all his life, and perhaps more so, as many proudly wear our Maple Leaf on our sleeves abroad, cheer on Team Canada from Atlanta, London or Tokyo, seek out Canada Day celebrations in New York or Moscow to simply be around other Canadians if only for a few hours (and say “eh!” without people looking at us strangely), and often are Canada’s unofficial ambassadors in foreign lands. We have also seen Canada — and Canadian business — from afar in a way someone living inside the borders may not be able to.

Expat Canadians are seven times more likely than those in Canada to have a professional or doctoral degree and more than twice as likely to have a bachelor’s degree; I left Canada “glass ceilinged” in my career, with only a high school education and received both my B. Sc. in Marketing (a “Honours B. Comm” in Canadianese) and MBA in Management & Strategy south of the border. Just as with my profession where I received an excellent trial-by-fire on the job education from the intense competitive environment in the US, I had more formal educational opportunities in that much more populous country. However, my “Canadianism” has helped me immensely during that career — my typically conservative and socially responsible Canadian business upbringing coupled with my learned rough and tumble American capitalism capabilities bring an “added value” for my employers not available from a born and bred American who only knows that country, or a Canadian who stayed in the Great White North. Many expats are adaptive hybrids of the countries they’ve lived and worked in, so should be highly valued, whether in business or politics. Or, so you’d think.

Whether you like him and his politics or not, former national Liberal party leader Michael Ignatieff makes an excellent point in his June 29 Globe & Mail column: Many Canadians who never left the country — and Canadian companies — wonder “Why would anyone come home, unless you were in it just for yourself?” For an expat, this is a puzzling and disquieting attitude. For readers not in Canada, Ignatieff was successfully painted by the opposition Conservatives of being someone coming home from a life outside Canada at Harvard and in the United Kingdom only to further his career. He was never able to overcome this stigma, deserved or not.

When we expats left, we simply were curious about life outside our borders, or were handed a professional opportunity that we could not refuse. Others may have had a wanderlust, or were just young and “bulletproof” and thought they’d like to see if they could conquer the world instead of comfortably staying close to home while getting a job at the Ford plant. Me? I won a green card in a US government visa lottery I entered on a whim and forgot about for 2 years until I got a letter in the mail from Uncle Sam. Even then, I threw the invitation in the drawer for about a year until a month before it expired, and when I realized that damned glass ceiling was going to keep hitting me in the head I decided to throw caution to the wind and headed south. Some of us, like I did in the USA, received a foreign citizenship to accompany our Canadian one, as it simply made life easier. Personally, I would never give up my Canadian passport; the thought of American citizenship never crossed my mind until I learned that Canada wouldn’t strip me of citizenship if I obtained citizenship in the US.

Expats who return to Canada after 10 or 15 years away mostly want just that: to go home after we experienced life beyond the country’s borders, or got an education and/or professional success not available to us in Canada.  As one very accomplished but frustrated, jobless expat, who spent successful years in Europe, Latin America and the Middle East, recently wrote on her blog “all too often, these same people are met with ignorance and disinterest, or worse, suspicion and thinly disguised resentment, making it hard to re-integrate into Canadian society. A job candidate is now perceived as a threat or as someone ‘unable to commit’ instead of an asset. Such narrow-mindedness on the part of employers compounds the already difficult challenge of finding work.” She plans to head back to Europe as soon as her family obligations that brought her back to Canada are no longer an issue. And that’s a shame.

Too often, returning Canadian expats are stymied in their professional aspirations, almost like being immigrants in their own country. Many simply give up and leave forever after 6 months or a year of fruitless searching for a career position, disappointed and frustrated. Why are we thought of as something else, something not quite Canadian or an interloper of some sort, when we only wish to return home and bring our global experience with us to, perhaps, improve the country or our new company? As Ignatieff wrote in an email to me concerning this article: “It can hurt to come ‘home’ and be treated as if you were a stranger.”

On average, Canadian companies are known to be risk averse — many of them to a fault — which negatively affects the country’s productivity according to professional services firm Deloitte in a June 2011 report; it says Canada must expand beyond its resource base to ensure and enhance the level of prosperity enjoyed today, and the country has a very short window to take advantage before the US stabilizes — and it will. The majority of US companies, on the other hand, are known for the complete opposite, and have often come out on top due to that risk-taking mantra.

Canadian companies — dismally behind the US in risk-taking by 18% according to Deloitte, and achieving only 70% of that country’s productivity rate largely due to lower corporate investments in training, machinery and research and development — could arguably use at least a small injection of that “risk tolerance” skill set that a successful expat brings in spades. Canada’s complacency and obsession with less productive work without corporate-driven innovation is self-defeating, argues Queen’s University’s Don Drummond in “Confessions of a Serial Productivity Researcher.” Drummond should know; he was Senior Vice-President and Chief Economist at TD Bank from 1978-2000. Back then, he blamed much of the country’s productivity failings on public policy and not industry but has recently dramatically changed his tune.

Ignatieff is spot-on when he writes: “Young Canadians know which way the world is going, and they want to be out there, at the heart of the action. They are thinking about what a good life looks like and they know a good life might take them beyond our borders. Some won’t come home again, but others will, because they realize being away made them more Canadian, not less.”  Expats like me — and my 2.8 million friends — were simply years ahead of the curve.

To Canadian employers: inject some new blood and global thinking into your company. Look closely at a returning Canadian with international experience who’s lived in the same markets you need to sell into. Your bottom line will thank you, especially since economists agree that Canada must venture globally — and certainly not only inwardly and south of the 49th Parallel — or risk future economic stagnation or disaster.

If nothing else, don’t punish us for our worldly travels and points of view. The vast majority of us are not “Canadians of convenience” who carry the passport solely for the socialized medical care.  We are, simply, Canadians.

Article chosen as a    Best of the Web

Removal of functionality significantly reduces service’s value for majority of users.

Apparently, LinkedIn’s new slogan adopted yesterday is: “Your Business Anti-Social Network.”

Once upon a time, LinkedIn was all about business networking, whether or not you could afford its pricey premium service (which only recruiters or HR people seemed to buy).  It was perfect if you simply wished to use a social media service that was more business oriented than Facebook or where you could connect with folks formerly found in your Rolodex.  For me, my public face is LinkedIn, while my Facebook account is hidden under a rock, right next to my “me wearing lampshade at party” snapshots. Basic users still had to look at advertisements, just like Facebook.  It also developed communities, where volunteers or trade groups established virtual meeting places for like-minded professionals where they could exchange messages like business cards at an after-work networking gathering.  Or, someone could reach out to these communities and ask for advice, and then perhaps follow up directly with the member giving the advice by clicking “send a message” on his or her profile.  These communities (or “Groups”) also attracted many people to LinkedIn who would otherwise never consider joining.

The huge amount of Basic users made LinkedIn lots of money by it becoming one of the premier job posting sites, and made these users ideal targets for advertising.  Now, that reality, usefulness and capability is diminishing every day.  The company is now, seemingly, attempting to drive that important base of Basic users away by requiring them to pay for something they had received for free for years: messaging to Group members.  The cheapest Premium monthly membership is $25 and provides only 3 “InMails.”  According to an email I received from LinkedIn, the company only “allows you to take a group conversation and move it to a private one… but we did remove the link from the profile.”  Group memberships have helped a myriad of job hunters ask a question of the hiring manager, or someone close, or simply ask if he or she received the email, and not rely on the Black Hole of HR.  According to the email, we can only “reply privately” by “clicking under the member’s comment within a group discussion.”  So, there’s no more networking with people unless they say something. The only method of free messaging remaining is going through somebody who knows somebody, or might know somebody, and hoping Kevin Bacon forwards it.  Yeah, like that’s going to happen.  I think that worked twice for me in 5 years.

There has been quite a bit of talk about a forthcoming LinkedIn IPO (initial public offering).  Before that even gets out of the gate, LinkedIn has starting slicing at its nose to spite its face.  LinkedIn’s most recent profitable year was 2005, and is projecting another loss this year.  So, is that what is driving the latest moves?  Implementing the charging of users for any usable information or connecting with other members may not be too far off.  If you read BNET’s “Hey, LinkedIn: Where Did Those Profitable Years Go?“ January 28 story, you might be thinking the same things I am.  Only a bean counter would promote ideas that disenfranchise members, but that is exactly what LinkedIn is doing.

LinkedIn has been built by its members.  There is no LinkedIn content whatsoever; it’s all been written by members, and mostly Basic members.  That leads to another question: if it can’t make money without paying for content, then will it ever?

I’m wondering if potential investors will be as excited if they realized LinkedIn is removing functionality and is heading towards a completely paid model that will simply chase away the vast majority of users, as Ecademy did years ago.  Once Basic users abandon the site, the usefulness of the service to Premium members and value to advertisers will quickly erode. CEO Jeff Weiner may soon be looking for another job. He was EVP at Yahoo, and apparently helped drive that company into mediocrity.

As of yesterday, members of groups can no longer message other members without buying a premium membership.  Members cannot even contact the group owner for free! I often did that to report spammers; now, the spammers can take over.  Messaging to fellow Group members was present from Day One, and could be controlled by users if they didn’t want to receive such messages.  This ill-advised decision changes the usefulness for many, many members, including me.  Along with being an obvious attempt at a money grab, this is a huge blow to job seekers and small business people who use the site for business development. I, for one, have added many people to my network from introductions received (and a few sent) via groups. Now, these groups are close to meaningless.

Previously, I could send a message to almost everyone in any group I belonged to, except for the very few people who had that function turned off. The gold box for group members had previously read “send a message.”  Now, the only option is to ask the member to become part of your network.  Since people should think of their network as something that reflects on themselves (as goes the LinkedIn corporate gospel), becoming part of someone’s network is usually not that easy.  Personally, I am quite selective.  So, using that button is not the answer.

UPDATE December 6, 2012: LinkedIn apparently, and very quietly, restored this functionality at some point, but it is hidden. You must go to the group, then the list of group members. Off to the right side beside their names you’ll see “Connect” or “Send a Message.” Beats me why this is not on profile pages if both members share a group.

Also, a few weeks ago, the last names of people found in searches were truncated to just initials.  Another recent change: many groups converted to being “open,” which only resulted in many being havens for spam.  What’s next?

While researching this blog entry, I discovered that group managers have been barred from accessing their members’ email addresses, which is ridiculous.  Again, this suggests that LinkedIn will be forcing the paid model: if group managers don’t have access to this information, they will not be able to take their member list elsewhere. Door64.com addresses that here: LinkedIn Groups and Shooting Yourself in the Foot.

You may also be interested in this result of a new poll now under way: 87% of LinkedIn users will stop using the service if forced to pay.  See the poll here: http://linkd.in/enSPjc (accessible when logged into LinkedIn); a summary is below.

As one voter on the poll commented: “The value of Linked In is inextricably linked to the breadth of the user base. Surely creating a walled/paid for environment will ultimately limit the reach and, in turn, devalue their offering.”

Another extremely valid comment left by a voter: “Anyone going for the paid-subscription model for a social networking site has little common sense, and even less understanding of how fickle Internet users are… It would take Facebook a few weeks to come up with a valid alternative using their existing customer base and then hey presto, goodbye Linkedin.” Actually, I thought the same thing about Facebook while writing this article.  They’d love for LinkedIn to fall on its face so they could pick up the pieces.

LinkedIn may well be the next meaningless MySpace.

Let’s hope this isn’t true.  C’mon LinkedIn, open things up again to prove I’m reading my tea leaves wrong.

UPDATE March 3, 2011: Apparently, I’ve been reading the tea leaves just fine.  Users today are getting incensed that LinkedIn is now, as of March 2, barring any Basic user from seeing more than 10 or 15 of their last incoming or outgoing messages without getting out their credit cards.  LinkedIn is now pretty much useless, except as a database for recruiters.

UPDATE March 23, 2011: LinkedIn seems to have backed off its requirement that members pay to see older messages, perhaps due to an outcry.  The banner that blocked these messages has been removed.  Unfortunately, the other restrictions remain.