News   Jul 15, 2024
 645     3 
News   Jul 15, 2024
 789     1 
News   Jul 15, 2024
 614     0 

PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

Agricultural employers are not keen on proposed reforms to the TFW programs on which they rely:


The gist of the objection is that the government is considering letting TFWs in the sector move between employers who are permitted TFWs at their discretion.
Some employers are concerned this could lead to 'poaching'.

I believe the word they meant to use was 'competition'.

They justify the status-quo on the basis that most TFWs are paid comparably to Canadians in the sector and most employers are compliant with health and safety regulations, and therefore, employers should be able to be assured of cost recovery for recruiting/training any TFWs.

The above, is, of course, somewhat misleading because the reason we need so many TFWs in this sector is that wages are low, and working conditions difficult.

Truthfully, I wish we didn't have to use TFWs in this sector, but as the United States relies heavily on 'undocumented' labourers in agriculture as well as documented temporary workers as well, it would be extremely difficult to be cost-competitive in the sector with what would otherwise be market wages.

I think this reform is a gentle nudge in the right direction, one that would penalize the worst employers and discourage over-use of the TFW program.
 
Last edited:
One thing to note is that much of our farming is now corporate owned. So, labour exploitation can be assumed.
According to StatsCan and AgCanada, only 2.4% of farms are owned by non-family corporations. Family corporations make up 17.4%; the rest are sole proprietorships. This is farms, not acreage.
 
This is an opinion piece but it is in my view the closest glimpse we have at the moment into why young voters are veering towards populist Right-wing parties.

What ails the young is a novel concern – economic uncertainty, or rather “livelihood insecurity”. If older people are living in fear of job loss, younger generations fear they will never land a job, no matter how many master’s degrees they might invest money, effort and hope in. Authors of the 2024 study Jugend in Deutschland (Youth in Germany) established that fears about future prosperity (rather than cultural chauvinism) were driving a shift to the right. The exasperation of poverty might foster a desire for radical change and support for the political left, but fear of loss of social status nourishes conservative instincts for stability and safety.

There is also something else at play here. It could be that young people do not navigate politics with the same ideological compass that their parents and grandparents have been using – with arrows pointing either to the left pole of cultural liberalism and social justice or the right pole of cultural traditionalism and economic freedom.

Despite how we usually view “populist parties”, they are not uniformly culturally conservative, nor do they embrace the free market, as their denomination as “rightwing” would suggest. Parties such as the French National Rally and the Dutch Party for Freedom typically marry an allegiance to liberal values (from freedom of speech to gender equality) with appeals for social, economic, cultural and physical safety. Marine Le Pen’s 2022 manifesto promised to scrap taxes for the under-30s, provide financial assistance to student workers and boost student housing. Geert Wilders campaigned last year on investing in healthcare and housing, as did the leadership of AfD.

It is western liberalism that such parties vouch to protect from the supposed threat of Muslim traditionalism that they claim is hostile to women’s emancipation and LGBT rights. Thus, they combine features of cultural liberalism and racist xenophobia into a defence of a “European way of life”.

So has Europe’s youth turned reactionary? Let us not rush to this conclusion just yet. For now, all we can glean from the populist revolt of the young is that the political mainstream is not providing satisfying answers to their grievances. The left’s promises for inclusive prosperity aren’t so convincing when weighed against the social cost of the green transition. The moderate right’s promises for fulfilling lives of professional achievement and economic comfort are less believable when weighed against a job market of insecure employment. It is the populism of the political centre, with its facile and implausible answers, that may be fuelling the rightful rage of the young. It is clear, then, what the adults need to do – square the circle of stable livelihoods, ecological sustainability and cultural freedoms for all. As long as no such plan exists, young people in Europe will vote for the next best thing – for forces that tell them how to preserve what they already have, at the risk of losing who they would like to be.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...r-right-seduced-young-voters-europe-elections
 
This is a strange tact for the Liberals. Paywall free here: https://archive.is/HCihw


Freeland paints us a dystopia where only the rich do well, but the Liberals have been in power since 2015. If the country is out of cash, maybe look to the expansion of program spending?

And the capital gains increase does not only impact the 1%, but anyone who owns property and wants to pass it on.

Anything to not acknowledge the fact that their policies have substantially increased inequality and destroyed productivity and competitiveness by parking 90% of this country's wealth in one unproductive sector: housing.


I am so done with this government and their ridiculous gaslighting. Sadly, the next one will be equally bad, just in other ways.
 
I am so done with this government and their ridiculous gaslighting. Sadly, the next one will be equally bad, just in other ways.
Yes, unfortunately Poilievre will likely not be making the difficult moves needed to right the ship, and will be just be the Conservative neoliberalist flavour of the day.
 
Yes, unfortunately Poilievre will likely not be making the difficult moves needed to right the ship, and will be just be the Conservative neoliberalist flavour of the day.

Poilievre is definitely not going to be better. But letting this government's arrogance and gaslighting pass is probably not good in the long run. It's going to teach them there's no consequences for poor governance.
 
And attracting the best students and keeping them in the country, is a major part of why the US has been so successful at innovation.
Well, now they're not coming at all. Let's hope those that are coming and wish to stay are the high skills, innovative class. https://archive.is/ugiuk

Putting aside the diploma mills, the public universities and colleges will need to demand more money from the provinces and/or their students to cover the loss. Or shrink their programs. The UK seems to be following our example.

My bigger worry, who is going to deliver my Door Dash?
 
Last edited:
We've discussed the problem of exploding numbers of TFWs in Canada and what that does to hamper wage and productivity growth........

CBC has a new story out and it adds some meat to the bone:


Have a look at the largest percentage growth in TFWs by sector: (from the above)

1719233318223.png


Nurses Aids/Orderlies is tops..........but look at number two....with a 4802% increase....... Food Counter attendants etc.

But we're also bringing in Retail Sales supervisors, Light Duty Cleaners and Food Processing factory workers in big numbers.

This is ridiculous, and offensive and there's no hyperbole in that description, its really too kind.
 
Nurses Aids/Orderlies is tops..........but look at number two....with a 4802% increase....... Food Counter attendants etc.

But we're also bringing in Retail Sales supervisors, Light Duty Cleaners and Food Processing factory workers in big numbers.

This is ridiculous, and offensive and there's no hyperbole in that description, its really too kind.
Those percentages are shocking, but misleading without the context of the low base. A grand total of 170 people growing by 48x.
 
We've discussed the problem of exploding numbers of TFWs in Canada and what that does to hamper wage and productivity growth........

CBC has a new story out and it adds some meat to the bone:


Have a look at the largest percentage growth in TFWs by sector: (from the above)

View attachment 575041

Nurses Aids/Orderlies is tops..........but look at number two....with a 4802% increase....... Food Counter attendants etc.

But we're also bringing in Retail Sales supervisors, Light Duty Cleaners and Food Processing factory workers in big numbers.

This is ridiculous, and offensive and there's no hyperbole in that description, its really too kind.
A minor point for clarity, that figure above represents approvals for hire and not actual sector growth figures. I think the pont still stands generally what sectors were looking to take advantage...
 
Those percentages are shocking, but misleading without the context of the low base. A grand total of 170 people growing by 48x.

To over 8,000! That's statistically significant and ridiculous.

You also have to take the numbers collectively, and then layer on all the foreign students working similar jobs off-campus, and the increasing number of people here illegally.

For further clarity the percentage of the labour force that is 'temporarily' in Canada has at least tripled since 2006.

1719236380856.png


From:


Note that I am, of course, aware of CD Howe's bias, but the stats above are not theirs, but the government's.
 
Last edited:
Stats. Can is out with their latest long term population forecast model.

Long term, essentially means 50 years or through to 2073.

Of course, this is mostly an attention-seeking vehicle for Stats. Can as so much can and will change in the world over such a period as to render the margin of error nearly infinite.

That said........

They project, under a medium growth scenario, that Canada will be 63M in 2073; which for argument's sake, I modeled out with 1% growth per year thereafter and you get 82.5M and change by the dawn of the 22nd Century.

****

They also have low growth and high growth scenarios, which betray the rather made-up nature of the thing showing a range of 47M at the low end (just a bit less than 6M above current levels) all the way to 87M; the latter of which would model out (at 1% annualized growth post 2073) to ~114M in the year 2100.

Source:

 

Back
Top