Canadian politics

Mapping Temporary Foreign Workers in Canada

UPDATE: Regrettably the creator of the map described in this post has discontinued the map website. Thank you for your hard work, anonymous map-maker. The federal government data that were used to make the map, and that are regularly updated, are posted here.

__________________________________

In the last few weeks, there has been a lot of discussion around the Canadian federal government’s Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) program. This program allows eligible employers to hire temporary workers from outside Canada. To be eligible to hire a TFW, an employer usually has to obtain a “positive” Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA), which is a confirmation that the employer cannot find qualified Canadian workers to fill its vacant job. A worker entering Canada on a TFW permit can only work for the employer that received the LMIA for the job.

Part of the reason for the increased attention to the TFW program is the release of a new report commissioned by the United Nations’ Human Rights Council. The report calls the TFW program “a breeding ground for contemporary forms of slavery”. It alleges that employers having control over TFWs’ immigration status in Canada leads to worker exploitation and abuse, with workers afraid to report mistreatment for fear of being fired and deported. It’s also been suggested that Canadian employers turn to using TFWs when they aren’t willing to pay the higher wage rates that Canadian workers expect.

Other critics of the program have alleged that the LMIA process is being corrupted by unethical employers and immigration agents.  These employers create non-existent jobs, get positive LMIAs for those jobs, and then, with the help of the agents, “sell” the LMIAs to individual immigrants. The immigrant pays the employer a fee – allegedly often in the tens of thousands of dollars – and the employer hires the immigrant to fill the vacant “job”. The immigrant can then (more…)

“I’m Not An Expert”

A number of American media commentators have recently taken aim at the fallacy of the “I’m not a scientist” argument. “I’m not a scientist” is an increasingly popular statement from American politicians who don’t believe in climate change. Whenever these politicians are presented with evidence that suggests climate change is real, they say “I’m not a scientist”, and think that excuses them from commenting on the evidence that contradicts their position. But, as several commentators have pointed out, it’s not acceptable for politicians who make legislative decisions on climate change to not be informed about it – and they don’t have to be scientists to do that. Politicians don’t have to be experts on everything, and they shouldn’t be expected to, but they do have the responsibility to know something about the issues they vote on.

North of the border, we in Canada now seem to have our own version of the “I’m not a scientist” argument. It’s the “I’m not an expert” reasoning. The “I’m not an expert” reasoning tends to arise whenever a member of the Conservative federal government uses questionable information, and then claims that the information must be accurate because it came from “experts”.

A few weeks ago, Finance Minister Joe Oliver used this reasoning while testifying at Canada’s House of Commons Finance Committee. At the Finance Committee meeting, he was asked about (more…)

Bill C-377: New Information on “The Bill That Nobody Wants”

Two researchers have uncovered some new and very troubling information about Bill C-377, the proposed Canadian law that would impose exceptionally rigorous financial reporting requirements on unions. “The bill that nobody wants”, as it was called in the researchers’ lecture last week, is now the center of an even more appalling story of misinformation and deception – a story that should concern not only anyone who cares about Canadian unions and workers, but also anyone who cares about the integrity of Canada’s democratic legislative process.

The first version of this bill was introduced in the House of Commons in 2011 as Bill C-317, and the Speaker of the House dismissed it as being out of order. The bill was then re-introduced in the House as Bill C-377 – a private member’s bill sponsored by Member of Parliament Russ Hiebert. It was approved in the House of Commons and sent to the Senate. The Senate refused to vote on it, and returned a heavily amended version of the bill to the House in mid-2013. The House returned the original, unamended bill to the Senate, where it is currently being debated again. It’s extremely unusual for private members’ bills to make it this far in the federal legislative process, or to be on Parliament’s agenda for so long. So what’s really going on here? (more…)