The human sciences are going through a protracted crisis. Canadian universities produce excellent graduates from doctoral programs for permanent jobs that simply do not exist. The main factor is the growing proportion of undergraduate teaching that is provided by part-time or casual teachers employed in a precarious manner. As a result, few permanent jobs are advertised.
That said, the fact that a growing number of people hired are foreign nationals who have not been trained in Canada does not help. This situation demonstrates the unfortunate tendency of the academic world to equate excellence with the school a candidate has attended, which puts Canadian graduates at a distinct disadvantage. It is not uncommon to have only foreign applicants in recruitment competitions with more than 100 candidates.
The feeling of anger, even betrayal, is palpable among highly qualified young graduates and precarious teachers.
The controversy surrounding the under-representation of Canadians in our universities is not new. By one estimate, the proportion of Canadian professors had fallen from 75% in 1961 to 49% in 1968. Once established in Canadian universities, foreign scholars tended to hire people who looked like them. The controversy led to the creation of the “Canadians First” policy in university hiring in 1981.
Between 1981 and 2001, Canadian universities were required to first conduct a Canadian search before opening the position to non-citizens or permanent residents if they could not find a qualified candidate. Naturally, there have always been exemptions for disciplines such as biotechnology and computer science, where there was a proven shortage of Canadian talent or where the university was able to attract a major academic star.
The two-tier policy, first adopted by the Pierre Trudeau Liberals, survived the Brian Mulroney years and the free trade agreement to die under the Jean Chrétien Liberals.
Labor shortage?
The 2001 policy change, which followed the blanket exemption granted to the new Canada Research Chairs program the previous year, was prompted by doomsday predictions about the upcoming shortage of qualified candidates, given the predicted increase in university enrolment. In 2000, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada released a report that warned of a severe labor shortage, predicting that 32,000 new faculty would need to be hired by 2010.
In response, the federal government relaxed the policy, allowing universities to advertise nationally and internationally at the same time. But with the promise that qualified Canadians would always be the first hired. The “Canadians First” policy therefore remains in force today, at least in theory.
After getting the go-ahead, Canadian universities used the federal government’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program as their primary means of hiring permanent employees from outside the country. However, the program is supposed to be limited to sectors where there is a proven labor shortage, and that is where the problem lies.
The argument that there is a humanities labor shortage in Canada is simply untenable.
It’s strange to read the old predictions about the upcoming labor shortage, because things didn’t turn out that way. It was all just a mirage.
Canadian priority
The resulting inequalities are striking. The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) raised this issue as early as 2015 when it accused universities of abusing the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. According to CAUT President David Robinson, “the reality is that there are dozens of qualified Canadian academics employed on temporary and part-time contracts who should be considered for full-time positions.” .
Currently, Canadian law requires that all faculty job offers include the following statement: “All qualified applicants are encouraged to apply; however, priority will be given to Canadians and permanent residents. In practice, however, what does it mean to be “qualified”? Is this anyone who is a strong candidate, actively publishes and teaches effectively, or is this the best candidate available from the international candidate pool? The meaning of the term “priority” given to Canadians is not more precise.
Most universities, however, seem to be following the example of the University of Alberta, which insists that Canadian citizenship or permanent residency only matters when two applicants have “the same qualifications under the criteria advertisement “. This formulation effectively enshrines a basic international job search, although it necessitates the subsequent bashing of Canadian candidates to justify the final choice.
Another important factor to consider is the long-desired prioritization of equality, diversity and inclusion criteria in recruitment. Therefore, any reinstatement of the “Canadians First” policy should not be an impediment to these efforts. One way to do this, while supporting our own graduates, is to recognize foreign students trained in Canada in the priority employment pool.
I believe it is time to reinstate the two-tier policy, as there is no shortage of well-qualified, if not excellent, candidates already in Canada. To say that there are no qualified Canadians or permanent residents for these positions is not a very subtle lie. Our PhD graduates deserve more than precarious part-time or casual work.