Canada’s migrant farm workers need better protection. A new program could help — if grocery chains and consumers buy in

Private certification programs certainly can have a role. Ironically, industry concentration can help their effectiveness if they become accepted:

The proposed fair farmwork certification is designed to complement authorities’ enforcement of employment standards, a stick that’s imperfect at best. The certification is meant to be the carrot, rewarding operators who treat their employees well and helping them attract and retain workers in an industry with chronic labour shortages.

Although such voluntary programs by non-governmental organizations already exist in other jurisdictions, they need buy-in from grocery retailers and even consumers. Advocates and experts say this initiative can help address issues of food security, food processing quality standards and labour exploitation.

“What we eat matters. There are so many other human beings involved who do not have the same rights as we do, and they deserve to have better conditions,” said University of Windsor Prof. Tanya Basok. Basok led the project with Anna Triandafyllidou, Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration and Integration at Toronto Metropolitan University.

“A lot of businesses nowadays have social responsibility statements and that’s how they buy their customer loyalty.” 

The launch comes just as Ottawa is about to give these workers the freedom to change employers within the agricultural sector.

Researchers examined current social certification projects for food production and explored how best to introduce such a program in Canada. This month, the Fair Farmwork Toolkit will be released as a step-by-step guide.

Basok, whose research focuses on migrant rights, said a lot of Canadians started to recognize the role of migrant farm workers in the food supply chain and their precariousness and working conditions during the pandemic.

Despite government attempts to improve labour protection, she said many migrant workers remain silent because they are afraid to be sent home and denied work by employers if they speak out.

“The working conditions have to improve,” Basok explained. “Inspections would be one way. But there has to be something more. What would encourage growers to provide better conditions for the worker? So that’s where we’ll bring some kind of market mechanisms to improve working conditions.”

Researcher Erika Borrelli said the fair-farmwork certification could highlight the work of good growers and help improve their competitiveness in attracting and retaining high-quality workers, especially as changes are underway by Ottawa to introduce sector-wide work permits for migrant farm workers. The research was supported by The WES Mariam Assefa Fund.

What different certification models have in common, she noted, is they all provide a way for workers to express their needs and concerns.

The Equitable Food Initiative, for instance, started in the U.S. as a coalition by Oxfam America, Costco Wholesale and United Farm Workers. It was launched as an independent non-profit social enterprise in 2015 that offers a comprehensive certification audit, covering labour conditions, food safety and pest management.

An Equitable Food Initiative label signifies that the food comes from a grower that meets the standards in compensating and treating the workers fairly.

“Let’s say Costco has a few big farms in Ontario or B.C., and they say, ‘We now want all of our suppliers to abide by social certification standards and otherwise we’re not buying your product,’” said Borrelli, who prepared the tool kit.

“So what’s the grower going to do? When Costco, Walmart, Target and all these retailers demand more from their suppliers, there’s that level of enforcement.” 

Sunrite Greenhouses, a farm in Kingsville, Ont., learned about the EFI program over a year ago after one of its U.S.-based customers requested it to complete a social responsibility audit. Two trainers provided training to 20 leadership team members at the farm, which drew from all levels of the company from worker to the CEO.

The one-time training was followed by an audit, which identified issues and gave the management an opportunity to fix them. The Equitable Food Initiative certificate was then issued upon compliance. The workers have a voice on the leadership team and there is an anonymous reporting system to let them report issues, make comments and suggestions in their native languages. The training cost $20,000 (U.S.), which is separate from the audit fee.

“We are starting to see a culture shift in the company where employees are prioritizing safety and the well-being of all workers more, and there has been a slight boost in morale,” said Amanda Sharman, food safety compliance and regulatory specialist and EFI co-ordinator for Del Fresco Produce Ltd.

“When workers are happier because they feel like they are heard, and they can see improvements being made … we see productivity, camaraderie and safety culture all increase.”

Del Fresco operates Sunrite, which hires 170 foreign workers and 20 domestic workers during the peak of the season. The 46-acre farm produces tomatoes, peppers and organic mini-cucumbers.

Migrant worker advocate Gabriel Allahdua said that when he makes presentations to university students about workers’ rights, the audience is often interested in how to buy food that is ethically sourced and what they can do as consumers to support workers.

“Consumer power can certainly create changes in the market,” said Allahdua, who first came to Canada from St. Lucia in 2012 under the seasonal agricultural worker program. “So this is filling a void for Canadians, who are increasingly raising concerns.”

Having another tool to hold growers and grocery retailers accountable is welcomed, he said, but no matter how a certification mechanism is shaped, farm workers must be actively involved in decision-making.

Chris Ramsaroop, an organizer of Justicia for Migrant Workers, said a certification process can never replace legislative protections because participation is voluntary and it fails to address what he called the indentured nature of migrant worker schemes.

“It is imperative that the necessary structural measures are undertaken so that agricultural workers can exert their rights to organize and collectively bargain,” said Ramsaroop. 

“It is imperative that these type of fair food programs do not impede or become an obstacle to the advocacy and organizing that address larger structural reforms to our food system, our agricultural system and our immigration system.”

Source: Canada’s migrant farm workers need better protection. A new program could help — if grocery chains and consumers buy in

Ottawa warned release of names of Nazi war criminals who settled in Canada could help Russia

Of note (hard to satisfy both groups…):

…A report by LAC on its consultation in June and July, seen by The Globe and Mail, says many stakeholders it spoke to were concerned about the implications “of associating Ukrainian names with Nazis, especially considering that this was part of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.”

They were worried that Russia could use the report to “further these allegations or conduct disinformation campaigns in Canada,” which might affect public support here for Ukraine.

Ihor Michalchyshyn, chief executive officer and executive director of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, said he thought the government is bound by Justice Deschênes’s view that Part 2 of the report should “remain confidential.”

But he added that all alleged war criminals, regardless of when or where they committed their crimes, should be brought to trial under Canadian criminal law. “If evidence of wartime criminality by any person found in Canada exists, that information must be communicated to the proper authorities for investigation,” he said.

The report by LAC on its consultation said some people expressed concern that people who committed atrocities during the Second World War “were allowed to live peacefully in Canada and never faced any justice measures due to insufficient evidence.”…

Source: Ottawa warned release of names of Nazi war criminals who settled in Canada could help Russia

SCOTUS ruling on citizenship proof for new voters has an outsized impact for Native voters

Interesting wrinkle:

With the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that now requires potential voters to provide proof of citizenship with their state-created voter registration forms, Indigenous voting rights advocates want Indigenous people to know that they can still register to vote as tribal citizens.

Patty Ferguson-Bohnee said that Indigenous people living in Arizona who are enrolled in a federally recognized tribe can use their tribal identification numbers to prove their citizenship.

“As long as a tribal member is an enrolled member of their tribe, they can use that tribal ID number to register on the state form, and that will prove citizenship for purposes of voter registration,” she said, adding that it’s because all Indigenous peoples were declared citizens of the United States in 1924.

Ferguson-Bohnee is the Director of the Indian Legal Clinic and a Clinical Professor of Law at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. She also coordinates the Arizona Native Vote Election Protect Project, which focuses on protecting the right to vote for Indigenous voters in Arizona.

“If you prove you’re a Native American through using your enrollment number, your citizenship is verified,” she said because there is a space for Indigenous peoples to include that specific information on the state voter registration form.

“The people who are registering voters need to know that we can’t leave that blank because if you do not provide that on your state form, they will reject it,” Ferguson-Bohnee added.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Aug. 22 that Arizona can enforce part of a voter registration law being challenged in federal court, allowing the state to bar legal voters from registering weeks before the election.

Ferguson-Bohnee said the law will cause some confusion among organizations and people out in the community trying to register voters, and it may discourage voters from registering.

“The goal of the law was to create barriers to the ballot box,” she said. “And even to prevent eligible voters from registering to vote.”

Lower courts initially blocked the Arizona law in 2022, but in a 5-4 order, the Supreme Court reinstated a portion of the law that allows the state to stop accepting state-created voter registration forms from Arizona residents unless they provide proof of citizenship.

The ruling means that potential voters who register to vote in Arizona using the state-created voter registration forms will need documentation proving citizenship for the registration to be valid. If no proof is provided, the state will reject the form — without informing them.

Ferguson Bohnee said there is no option to correct the form once it gets rejected, so she suggests that people register with the federal forms first. Then, when they have all the documentation readily available, their registration can be promoted to full-ballot voters.

“It’s very discouraging because it’s making a change right in the midst of the election process when people are registering people to vote,” Ferguson-Bohnee said. “This decision by the court is revising the playing field for election law.”

Not all Indigenous peoples may have their enrollment numbers available, but that shouldn’t discourage them from trying to register to vote. Ferguson-Bohnee said that is when they should register using the federal voter registration form.

She said that registering with a federal form only requires people to affirm their citizenship, not provide document proof, so people will be registered to vote in federal elections, including the presidential and senate races.

However, Ferguson-Bohnee said that if the voter can provide documentary proof of citizenship later, their status will be moved to a full ballot voter, which includes state elections — but that has to be done the Thursday before Election Day.

The court ruling has left some voting organizations baffled about their best course of action because it disrupts the plan of action that has been in motion within Indigenous communities for months.

Arizona Native Vote Executive Director Jaynie Parrish said it has left her team in limbo.

“We’re waiting to hear more directions on what our team needs to do,” Parrish said, adding they haven’t been provided a clear path forward on how this impacts Indigenous voters in Arizona.

Source: SCOTUS ruling on citizenship proof for new voters has an outsized impact for Native voters

Angus-Reid Federal Politics: Concern over immigration quadruples over last 48 months

Of note, again linked mainly to housing and employment concerns:

…When parliament resumes seating later this month, there will be a full docket of issues waiting to be addressed. A majority of Canadians (57%) believe the cost of living is one of the top issues facing the country at the moment, while more than two-in-five (45%) say the same of health care. Behind that, one-in-three worry over housing affordability. Other concerns trail far behind those three, but at least one-in-five say climate change (21%), immigration (21%), and crime and public safety (19%) are key challenges for Canada:


Concern over immigration nearly quadruples over past two years

Some issues are lingering – cost of living, health care, and housing affordability have consistently been selected by Canadians as top issues over the past two years – while others have grown more pressing according to Canadians. The proportion of Canadians that select Immigration / Refugees as a top issue has nearly quadrupled over the past two years.

Perhaps at issue is growing attention over the ripple effects of the federal government’s Temporary Foreign Workers program, which had been expanded as the country dealt with a post-pandemic labour shortage. In 2023, the federal government allowed employers to hire nearly 240,000 temporary foreign workers, more than double the amount it allowed in 2018. After a cabinet retreat focused on housing and immigration, the federal Liberal government announced plans to scale back the program. There will be more to come on Canadian public opinion on the Temporary Foreign Workers program in a forthcoming report.

Those who say they will vote Conservative if the election were held today are the most likely to be concerned about immigration. It’s the second most chosen issue behind the high cost of living among those likely voters. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has said a government led by him would reduce immigration, keeping population growth lower than the number of new homes.

The issues concerning likely Liberal voters remain consistent from two years ago, while those who say they will vote NDP are becoming increasingly concerned with housing affordability (+9) and less so with climate change (-11)…

Source: Federal Politics: Concern over immigration quadruples over last 48 months

The Muslim Choice: Integration or Confrontation

Could also be written for many religions, the fundamentalist vs moderate:

…Two narratives about Islam have developed in western European countries, where Muslims are now a substantial minority presence. The first is of people from various countries settling into their new homes determined to live in peace with (if often at a distance from) their neighbours and the state. In several cases, these newcomers make a considerable contribution to public life: 25 Muslims were elected to the UK parliament in the July general election. The second narrative is of a group aggressively insisting upon their religious rights while they assert that they are the victims of comprehensive Western racism. Occasionally, atrocities are committed, usually by young Muslim men invoking Allah and at the deliberate cost of their own lives.

Likewise, parallel narratives have developed among the Muslim communities themselves. The first understands the West as a place in which they can live relatively well, practise their religion (or not) with little or no opposition, and enjoy freedoms often not available in their own—or their parents’—birth countries. A quite separate view sees relations with state authorities and native citizens in adversarial terms—a constant struggle against a colonial legacy of Islamophobic prejudice, hostility, suspicion, and barriers to freedom of expression and female dress that demand a militant response.

The attacks on mosques and individual Muslims during the August riots demonstrate that bigotry is still a problem among some cohorts of the UK population. But Islamophobia is also a much-abused and hotly contested term. Long before the summer riots, accusations of Islamophobia were used by those eager to deflect—or even reverse—blame for Muslim violence, and amplified by sympathetic parts of the media and some public figures. 

Yet polling does suggest that moderate British Muslim attitudes and communities are not a myth. In 2020, the Crest consultancy launched a research project that compared polls and focus groups of Muslims in eight towns and cities with a comparative group of the general population. The project concluded that

We found majorities of British Muslims trust the police, are concerned about Islamist extremism, support the aims of the [government’s counter-extremism] Prevent programme and would refer someone to it if they suspected that they were being radicalised. We found that the views of British Muslims frequently mirror those of the general population and even where they differ they rarely do so dramatically. 

Crest also found that British Muslims have a “broader range of views than is commonly acknowledged by politicians, the media and other participants in the debate on extremism.” The authors do not use the phrase “Muslim community,” since they believe the Muslim population is too diverse to make such a term useful. Instead, Muslims are seen as members of a common faith with differing backgrounds, ideas, and customs who have largely adapted to life in a new country.

As the August riots died down, another poll was conducted by More in Common, a think tank established in 2016 after the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox, and named after a House of Commons speech in which she said, “We have far more in common than that which divides us.” Its findings underlined the moderation of the British population as a whole and appeared to show that we do indeed have much in common in our views on extremism. Between 87 and 97 percent of respondents said, “The riots do not speak for me.” The outlier was Reform Party supporters, 41 percent of whom said that the riots did, in some measure, speak for them….

John Lloyd was a domestic and foreign correspondent for the Financial Times and a co-founder of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

Source: The Muslim Choice: Integration or Confrontation

Lisée | Le Khmer bleu

Another interesting article by Lisée. May suggest BQ is concerned about apparent increase in support of Conservatives in Quebec but his points about vitriol are valid:

Lorsque Stephen Harper a pris le pouvoir en 2006, une de ses tâches les plus délicates était de maintenir l’unité d’un caucus de 124 députés. Certains des membres provenaient de l’ancien Parti conservateur, plus centriste, d’autres de l’ancien Reform Party, plus radicalement conservateur.

Le député de Nepean-Carleton, Pierre Poilievre, avait 26 ans. Il était le plus jeune député de la Chambre. Chaque mercredi au caucus conservateur, il se présentait au micro pour prêcher la bonne parole du conservatisme fiscal.

Poilievre avait des alliés. C’est que, la veille du caucus s’était réuni un groupe de députés partageant la même vision des choses, et déterminés à coordonner leur action pour contrebalancer l’influence des centristes, ces dépensiers, ces mous, ces libéraux égarés dans la grande tente de Harper. Le groupe avait débattu du nom qu’il devait se donner. Poilievre avait suggéré le « Liberty Caucus ». D’autres avaient proposé « True Blue ». Mais le député de Saskatchewan Andrew Scheer et l’Ontarienne Cheryl Gallant se disputent la paternité du nom finalement choisi : les Khmers bleus.

L’appellation est audacieuse, car elle renvoie aux Khmers rouges, les communistes cambodgiens qui ont à leur actif d’avoir torturé et assassiné plus d’un million et demi de leurs concitoyens — 25 % de la population du pays — entre 1975 et 1979. Vous me savez charitable, je conclurai donc que ce choix n’attestait pas d’une volonté d’assassiner leurs adversaires politiques. Seulement de les torturer. Je veux dire : psychologiquement. Au fond, ils exprimaient ainsi leur penchant pour l’intransigeance idéologique. C’est déjà assez chargé, merci. Détail intéressant : Maxime Bernier en était membre.

Harper était ravi de l’existence du groupe. Selon Andrew Lawton, qui raconte cet épisode dans son récent Pierre Poilievre: A Political Life (Sutherland), le premier ministre a indiqué à un des Khmers bleus que « les Red Tories et les députés québécois [deux groupes souvent indiscernables] étaient ceux qui réclamaient le plus d’attention dans les rencontres et exerçaient par conséquent une influence disproportionnée ».

Il fallait leur faire contrepoids. Un des membres du groupe, l’Albertain Rob Anders, se souvient que les rencontres produisaient chaque fois un consensus. « Puis nous nous présentions au caucus le matin suivant pour le marteler pendant les 30 secondes allouées à chaque député ». Un des Red Tories, Peter MacKay, décrit le jeune Poilievre comme un « faucon » se jetant comme sur une proie sur toute nouvelle dépense gouvernementale. Maintenant que Pierre Poilievre est dans l’antichambre du pouvoir, un trait de caractère s’impose, aiguisé par les années qui passent : l’intransigeance. Nous sommes en présence d’un homme politique volontaire, constant, d’une intelligence vive. Mais aussi d’un homme qui devait être absent, ou distrait, ou dissident, le jour où fut enseigné l’art de la nuance. Le jour aussi où il fut question de civilité, d’empathie, de « fair-play ».

Comme les Khmers cambodgiens, mais sans leur goût pour l’hémoglobine, Poilievre est partisan de l’affrontement total, de la terre brûlée, de l’annihilation (politique) de l’ennemi. J’en tiens pour preuve qu’il n’a pas le moindre scrupule à utiliser l’insulte personnelle et le mensonge pour arriver à ses fins.

L’insulte ? Affirmer que le chef du Nouveau Parti démocratique (NPD), Jagmeet Singh, est « un vendu » et que la seule raison pour laquelle il tient le gouvernement Trudeau au pouvoir n’est pas, comme il le dit, pour assurer aux Canadiens une assurance dentaire ou des médicaments gratuits, mais pour s’assurer de toucher sa pension, relève d’une volonté de détruire une réputation. Pas un programme, pas une idéologie, pas une proposition trop coûteuse : une réputation.

Le mensonge ? Cet été, le parti de Poilievre a diffusé une publicité peignant Singh comme un élitiste aimant les montres de luxe (il en a deux, reçues en cadeau), les BMW (vrai), les vestons bien coupés (vrai) et qui a fait ses études à Beverly Hills. Oups. La publicité omet de dire que c’est Beverly Hills, dans le Michigan. La volonté de tromper l’auditeur est patente. On y apprend aussi que Singh est un vendu, car il a décidé « de se joindre à Trudeau pour augmenter les taxes, les crimes et le coût de l’habitation ». En échange, il peut rester député jusqu’en 2025 pour ainsi « toucher sa pension de deux millions de dollars ».

Une pension de deux millions ? C’est beaucoup. En fait, il ne pourra la toucher qu’en 2035. En fait, elle ne sera que de 45 000 $ par an. Pour arriver à deux millions, il faut présumer qu’il ne mourra qu’à 90 ans, ce qui est vraisemblable, mais nullement scandaleux.

Beaucoup d’énergies sont investies par Poilievre et son équipe de Khmers bleus pour détruire l’adversaire, à l’aide d’exagérations — ce qui est courant — et de mensonges — ce qui n’était pas encore normalisé dans le discours politique canadien. Poilievre est un agent de propagation de l’irrespect mutuel.

En avril dernier, à la frontière du Nouveau-Brunswick, Poilievre a vu de sa voiture un groupe de manifestants arborant un drapeau « Fuck Trudeau ». Il s’est arrêté pour les saluer et leur a dit, au sujet du premier ministre : « Tout ce qu’il dit est de la bullshit. Tout, sans exception. » Peut-on imaginer Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney, même Stephen Harper aller gaiement à la rencontre de gens portant un message aussi grossier, les encourager et manquer à ce point de respect pour leur adversaire politique ? La réponse est évidemment non.

Au moment où les Américains pourraient (j’insiste sur le conditionnel) tourner la page sur dix ans de vitriol, les Canadiens s’apprêtent, l’an prochain, à entrer dans la zone de fiel.

Source: Chronique | Le Khmer bleu

Computer translation:

When Stephen Harper took power in 2006, one of his most delicate tasks was to maintain the unity of a caucus of 124 MPs. Some of the members came from the former Conservative Party, more centrist, others from the former Reform Party, more radically conservative.

The deputy of Nepean-Carleton, Pierre Poilievre, was 26 years old. He was the youngest member of the House. Every Wednesday at the conservative caucus, he appeared at the microphone to preach the good word of fiscal conservatism.

Poilievre had allies. It is that, the day before the caucus, a group of deputies had met who shared the same vision of things, and determined to coordinate their action to counterbalance the influence of the centrists, these spendthrift, these soft, these liberals lost in Harper’s large tent. The group had debated the name it had to give itself. Poilievre had suggested the “Liberty Caucus”. Others had proposed “True Blue”. But Saskatchewan MP Andrew Scheer and Ontario Cheryl Gallant are fighting for the authorship of the name finally chosen: the Khmer Blue.

The name is bold, because it refers to the Khmer Rouge, the Cambodian communists who have tortured and murdered more than one and a half million of their fellow citizens – 25% of the country’s population – between 1975 and 1979. You know me charitable, so I will conclude that this choice did not attest to a desire to assassinate their political opponents. Only to torture them. I mean: psychologically. Basically, they expressed their penchant for ideological intransigence. It’s already busy enough, thank you. Interesting detail: Maxime Bernier was a member.

Harper was delighted with the existence of the group. According to Andrew Lawton, who recounts this episode in his recent Pierre Poilievre: A Political Life (Sutherland), the Prime Minister told one of the Khmer Blue that “the Red Tories and Quebec deputies [two often indistinguishable groups] were those who demanded the most attention in the meetings and consequently exerted disproportionate influence”.

They had to be counterweighted. One of the members of the group, the Albertan Rob Anders, remembers that the meetings produced a consensus each time. “Then we presented ourselves to the caucus the next morning to hammer it during the 30 seconds allocated to each deputy.” One of the Red Tories, Peter MacKay, describes the young Poilievre as a “hawk” throwing himself like a prey on any new government spending. Now that Pierre Poilievre is in the anteroom of power, a character trait is necessary, sharpened by the passing years: intransigence. We are in the presence of a strong-willed, constant politician with a lively intelligence. But also of a man who must have been absent, or distracted, or dissident, on the day the art of nuance was taught. Also the day when there was talk of civility, empathy, “fair play”.

Like the Cambodian Khmers, but without their taste for hemoglobin, Poilievre is a supporter of total confrontation, of the scorched earth, of the (political) annihilation of the enemy. I take it as proof that he has no qualms about using personal insult and lies to achieve his ends.

The insult? To say that the leader of the New Democratic Party (NDP), Jagmeet Singh, is “sold out” and that the only reason he holds the Trudeau government in power is not, as he says, to provide Canadians with dental insurance or free medication, but to ensure that he receives his pension, is a desire to destroy a reputation. Not a program, not an ideology, not a proposal that is too expensive: a reputation.

The lie? This summer, Poilievre’s party broadcast an advertisement painting Singh as an elitist who loves luxury watches (he has two, received as a gift), BMWs (real), well-cut jackets (true) and who studied in Beverly Hills. Oops. Advertising omits to say that it is Beverly Hills, Michigan. The desire to deceive the listener is patent. We also learn that Singh is a sold out, because he has decided “to join Trudeau to increase taxes, crimes and the cost of housing”. In exchange, he can remain a deputy until 2025 to “receive his pension of two million dollars”.

A pension of two million? That’s a lot. In fact, he will not be able to touch it until 2035. In fact, it will only be $45,000 per year. To get to two million, we must assume that he will only die at 90, which is likely, but in no way scandalous.

A lot of energy is invested by Poilievre and his team of Blue Khmers to destroy the opponent, using exaggerations – which is common – and lies – which was not yet normalized in Canadian political discourse. Poilievre is a spreading agent of mutual disrespect.

Last April, on the New Brunswick border, Poilievre saw from his car a group of demonstrators flying a “Fuck Trudeau” flag. He stopped to greet them and told them, about the Prime Minister: “Everything he says is bullshit. Everything, without exception. “Can we imagine Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney, even Stephen Harper cheerfully meeting people carrying such a rude message, encouraging them and disrespecting their political opponent so much? The answer is obviously no.

At a time when Americans could (I insist on the conditional) turn the page on ten years of vitriol, Canadians are preparing, next year, to enter the bile zone.

Don Wright: Will Trudeau make it impossible for Eby to succeed?

Valid arguments:

It is three-and-a-half months since David Eby took the reins of power in B.C. There is no denying the energy and ambition he has brought to the role. Announcement after announcement has rolled out of the Premier’s Office since December 8 across a broad spectrum of initiatives in health care, housing, energy, infrastructure, increases in affordability tax credits and family benefits, and many, many more.

This column isn’t going to analyze the pluses and minuses of this ambition. Instead, I will argue that Premier Eby’s success on the big questions that will ultimately determine his political success may well be largely out of his control.

The most recent polling in B.C. shows that the most important issues are housing affordability, inflation/rising interest rates, and health care. Inflation and rising interest rates are overwhelmingly determined by federal monetary and fiscal policy, so largely outside the control of Premier Eby.  What about the other two big issues – health care and housing affordability?  While these two areas look to be within the domain of the provincial government, B.C.’s success in addressing the public’s concerns here will be largely hostage to the federal government’s immigration policy.  Let me explain.

Since it came to office, the current federal government has increased the level of immigration into Canada significantly.  Most of the attention has been focused on the increase in new permanent residents.  Last year, 438,000 people were granted permanent resident status, a 60% increase over 2015.  The federal government plans to raise this to 500,000 by 2025.

What receives less attention is another category of people coming to Canada – “non-permanent residents.”  This category includes Temporary Foreign Workers, International Students, and the International Mobility Program, which provides multi-year permits to live and work in Canada.  This category has been growing as well.  In fact, this category has been growing at a faster rate than permanent residents.  Last year there was a net increase of 608,000 in non-permanent residents. 

So, in total, the federal immigration policy resulted in an additional 1.045 million people coming to Canada – far and away the largest number of newcomers to Canada in one year ever.  Last year 160,000 of the 1.045 million came to B.C.

The rationale for these unprecedented numbers is that Canada has a “worker shortage.”  This rationale is almost entirely fallacious, but that is a subject for another column.  Let’s focus here on what this means to Premier Eby.

What is the basic problem in health care?  An inability to meet the public’s demands for medical services.  One million British Columbians don’t have a family doctor.  Waiting lists to get to see specialists and to get necessary surgery continue to get longer.  No doubt part of the problem is a result of the Covid pandemic.  But that rationalization is buying less and less forbearance by the public as we get further and further away from those dire days in 2020 and 2021.

The federal government’s prescription for this?  A rapid increase in the number of people who will need services from our health care system!

A story is spun is that the government will use the higher immigration numbers to bring in more health care professionals.  But this would only work if the proportion of qualified doctors, nurses and allied health workers in the more than one million new Canadians is significantly larger than the existing proportion of those professionals in the current Canadian population, and that they could get licenced immediately to practice in Canada.  Neither of these conditions will be met. 

The net result of this?  Premier Eby is going to have even more difficulty in delivering improved health care accessibility to British Columbians.

And then there is housing.  Almost all of the narrative around the shortage of affordable housing focuses on the supply side.  If only we could force municipalities to make permitting easier and faster, and to zone more density, our housing affordability would be solved.  The fact is, we build a lot of homes in B.C.  In Greater Vancouver – ground zero in our housing affordability problem – 365,000 homes were built in the 20 years between 2001 and 2021.  And there has been ample densification, as a walk through any of the redeveloped neighbourhoods in Vancouver shows. 

But supply is only half of the equation. Demand matters too.  And as quickly as we have built new homes, the population in our major urban centres rises as well. 

The Federal Government’s prescription for this?  Ramp up immigration numbers!

Again, a story is spun that this will actually increase housing supply because we are going to bring in more trades workers to build the houses we need.  Suffice it to say there are some pretty heroic assumptions here.  It is not going to work.

Of the 160,000 new British Columbians last year, more than 95% settled in the Lower Mainland, Southern Vancouver Island, and the Okanagan – where affordable housing was already acutely unavailable.

The net result?  Premier Eby is going to have even more difficulty in delivering more affordable housing.

This is all good for one group of British Columbians – those that are fortunate enough to already own a home.  So, thank you, Mr. Trudeau for making me wealthier and my fellow boomers wealthier. 

But if I were Premier Eby, I don’t think I would be quite as grateful.

Don Wright was the former deputy minister to the B.C. Premier, Cabinet Secretary and former head of the B.C. Public Service until late 2020. He now is senior counsel at Global Public Affairs.

Source: Don Wright: Will Trudeau make it impossible for Eby to succeed?

Kelly: Fix, don’t gut, the temporary foreign worker program

The CFIB view. Like Century Initiative and others, having to adjust to the new public opinion environment that their previously successful lobbying and pressures helped create.

It will be interesting to see how far a future Conservative government would restrict access to low-wage temporary workers given their sympathies with SMEs (large companies not so much):

…Canada needs to have an adult conversation about the labour market and admit that there are many jobs and locations where there aren’t enough Canadians to fill the gaps. TFWs can help supplement the Canadian labour force and protect Canadian jobs. I’ve spoken to several restaurant owners who have said they can find Canadian young people willing to work as servers in the front of house, but can find no one willing to staff in the kitchen. Hiring a couple of experienced cooks from overseas helps them ensure there is work for their Canadian crew.  

As for taking jobs away from students, we need a big reality check. While students may be available for work during July and August, how does the business owner staff a day shift in September or October without people available for work year-round? 

There are legitimate criticisms of the program. Temporary workers are often hired by employers who really need permanent staff. But this is where there is large agreement between employers and migrant groups—and even the United Nations report. Creating greater pathways between the TFW program and permanent residency is a way to fix many of the programs’ defects. For years, the CFIB has lobbied government to shift elements of the TFW program to an Introduction to Canada program where TFWs can shift to permanent status after one-to-two years in Canada. This would allow the worker to learn the job, put down some roots in an area of Canada they may not have otherwise, and then have full labour-market mobility at the end. We see this as a way to balance the relationship between workers and employers. 

The vast majority of employers use the TFW program as a last resort in their hiring process and treat their workers—both Canadian and foreign—well. I’ve spoken to many employers who have built fantastic relationships with their foreign workers, and provided help to give them a great start in Canada. Shrinking the program is unlikely to help any Canadian looking for work, but will certainly add to the immense pressures already facing many of Canada’s small businesses.

Dan Kelly is the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

Source: Kelly: Fix, don’t gut, the temporary foreign worker program

The quiet technocrat who steered Biden’s effort to tighten the border

Of interest:

The lead architect of President Joe Biden’s border strategy is not Vice President Kamala Harris, despite persistent Republican claims to the contrary. That role belongs to a bookish, little-known policy adviser named Blas Nuñez-Neto.

A data-driven technocrat, Nuñez-Neto has helped engineer Biden’s pivot toward tougher border enforcement and sweeping restrictions on asylum — moves that contributed to a nearly 80 percent drop in illegal crossings since December.

The transformation is shoring up one of Democrats’ biggest vulnerabilities ahead of the Nov. 5 presidential election and potentially defusing a top-polling issue for Republican nominee Donald Trump. After three years of record crossings, the U.S.-Mexico border is quieter and more controlled today than at any point since late 2020, before Trump left office.

Nuñez-Neto pulled that off by steering the administration back to a border policy framework Democrats used to embrace more easily, according to current and former administration officials. The formula: Be generous and welcoming to immigrants seeking to come lawfully, but stingy and firm with those who don’t.

The White House declined to make Nuñez-Neto available for an interview. Biden officials said the administration’s border policy moves have been shaped by senior White House officials and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, whom Nuñez-Neto worked for before being promoted to the White House in June.

In a statement, White House spokesperson Angelo Fernández Hernández said Biden “believes it is a false choice to say we have to walk away from being an America that embraces immigration in order to secure our border.”

“We must enforce our laws at the border and deliver consequences to those who do not have a legal basis to remain in the United States, and we must expand lawful pathways,” Fernández Hernández said.

Southwest border apprehensions by month

Illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border have declined in 2024, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data.

Nuñez-Neto’s policy approach embodies the political calculus that while most Americans remain favorably disposed toward immigrants, few things erode the welcoming spirit faster than an out-of-control border. The growing U.S. economy needs workers, too, and immigrants help offset declining U.S. birth rates. But how they arrive matters.

Relying heavily on the president’s executive powers to grant entry using an authority known as parole, the Biden administration has been allowing nearly 75,000 migrants to enter each month through legal channels.

Republican critics denounce those pathways as a “shell game,” arguing the administration is facilitating mass migration through doors that should not be opened in the first place. But the expansion — paired with the most severe restrictions on asylum eligibility at the border from a Democratic administration in decades — has corralled the disorder.

Trump has largely ignored the change, displaying at his rallies a chart that shows record illegal crossings during Biden’s first three years and cuts out data showing the 2024 decline. He continues to label Harris, his Democratic opponent in the upcoming election, as the “border czar,” though she never held such a role. Biden tasked Harris with leading the administration’s plan to reduce Central American emigration by promoting investment and job creation, not to deal with immigration enforcement at the southern border.

That task — arguably one of the least-desirable in a Democratic administration — would become Nuñez-Neto’s.

A change in direction

The Argentine-born Nuñez-Neto was working on border security issues at the Rand Corporation in early 2021 when DHS policy adviser David Shahoulian — one of the few voices in the administration urging tougher measures at the border — recommended him for a job. He became chief operating officer for U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Trump’s rhetoric and harsh policies in the White House had galvanized immigration advocacy groups and many Democrats against enforcement and the very idea of deterrence as an element of border security. Biden loosened restrictions, fueling a perception that the border was more open even as officials — including Harris — told would-be migrants “do not come.”

Shahoulian soon left the administration in frustration. In late 2021, Nuñez-Neto took over his role shaping border policy at DHS.

More than a year later, as the administration ended the pandemic-era Title 42 border restrictions, Biden officials increasingly sought help from Mexico, Panama and other nations in the region to help contain migration and cooperate with U.S. policies. Nuñez-Neto took on a second role as DHS’s top international envoy. He became a major diplomatic asset: a bilingual U.S. official capable of explaining policy to Spanish-language media and speaking directly to Latin American officials.

Nuñez-Neto developed an especially close partnership with Roberto Velasco, the top official at Mexico’s Foreign Ministry for North American affairs, according to current and former senior officials from both nations. Mexican authorities this year have arrested record numbers of migrants traveling through the country toward the U.S. border, a crackdown that Biden officials credit with sharply curtailing illegal crossings.

Angela Kelley, a senior adviser at DHS until June 2022, said the Biden administration has worked to craft a careful balance of incentives and penalties — carrots and sticks. She had been a longtime advocate for asylum seekers, and worked to resist Trump’s policies. Nuñez-Neto was laser-focused on border crossings, checking enforcement data daily.

“He’s more of a sticks guy, given his background,” said Kelley, now chief policy adviser at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Nuñez-Neto was promoted to the White House as the president announced strict new emergency measures that have upended decades of asylum law, closing the border when crossings are high and essentially barring access to U.S. courts for migrants who enter the country illegally.

The restrictions were made possible by a breakthrough agreement Nuñez-Neto helped negotiate with Velasco and other senior Mexican officials. It allows the United States to return large numbers of non-Mexican migrants back across the border — a crucial tool for agencies that have struggled to send deportees to Venezuela and other nations whose relations with Washington are strained.

As the deterrence policies took shape, the number of migrants released into the United States with a pending asylum claim — the procedure decried as “catch and release” — plummeted. It was Nuñez-Neto, not someone from Harris’s team, who fielded questions about the measures from reporters and on Capitol Hill.

“Those of us who follow the inside baseball of immigration know he’s the person that has become the de facto border czar,” said one policy adviser close to the administration who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe informal conversations with top officials.

Nuñez-Neto has done so with a quiet, disciplined manner that is the stylistic opposite of swaggering Trump-era border officials. Some immigration advocates and activists have come to view him with scorn, as a border-cop-in-sheep’s-clothing who speaks of migrants sympathetically while orchestrating the kind of crackdown immigration hard-liners have only dreamed of.

The sharp drop in illegal crossings has allowed the Harris campaign to go on offense. She blames Trump for sinking a bipartisan Senate bill last winter that would have provided billions in new funding for more border agents, detention capacity, deportation flights and other enforcement tools. She has called for Congress to pass the bill, and says she would sign it into law if she’s elected.

But several of its toughest provisions — in particular the emergency asylum restrictions — are already in place…

Source: The quiet technocrat who steered Biden’s effort to tighten the border

Report highlights strained relationship between public servants and ministers

Of interest:

A recent report analyzing what makes a strong public service found that governments worldwide are grappling with building respect between ministers and bureaucrats. A former clerk of the Privy Council and an expert on parliamentary democracy and governance say the issue is prevalent in Canada.

The Global Government Forum report, “Making Government Work: Five pillars of a modern, effective civil service“, interviewed the top public servants from 12 countries, including Canada’s John Hannaford, to pinpoint five pillars of a successful civil service. One of those pillars involved a healthy relationship between ministers and senior officials — something Michael Wernick, a former clerk of the Privy Council, said was an “enduring” issue in Ottawa.

“The best you get is benign neglect and the worst you get is spirited hostility,” he said of how politicians treat public servants.

The report said its interviews with international leaders revealed “the growing challenge of aligning the immediate demands of political agendas with the long-term stewardship entrusted to civil servants” and highlighted “a lack of trust and understanding among ministers about the civil service’s fundamental role.”

While Hannaford declined a request for an interview, a report by deputy ministers on public service values and ethics prepared for the clerk highlighted the division between public servants and politicians. It said that participants from more than 90 conversations across the public service raised concerns about political interference in the public service.

“Some participants expressed concern with their ability to maintain political neutrality when dealing with political staff in a minister’s office,” the report said. “Striking a balance between political neutrality and providing expert advice, as well as the faithful implementation and delivery of programs and policies, can be challenging.”

It noted that there had been changes in the relationship between ministers and their offices given the “significant growth in political staff across the system.”

Wernick said the challenge of relationships between ministers and officials was not unique to the current government.

“There’s not really any sustained interest in the public service,” Wernick said, noting a pattern under both Liberal and Conservative governments. “I tabled four annual reports on the public service as clerk, and the number of times I was invited to a parliamentary committee to talk about it over those years was zero.”

Politicians, he said, are only interested in the public service when there’s a scandal.

“I’m sure there’s lots of cases every day and every week where ministers and their departments work effectively together … but the broad trend line seems to be that there’s an erosion of that relationship and the more populist sort of style of politics is about going for conflict.”

Wernick said the lack of respect between politicians and officials was most apparent during Parliamentary committee meetings.

“This incredibly disrespectful treatment of witnesses of parliamentary committees is just one symptom,” Wernick said, adding that officials were often “used as props” for social media posts and fundraising videos.

The report said one solution could be better training for ministers, political staff and officials to “bridge knowledge gaps” between their operations.

“If we were serious, there’d be an ongoing professional development, support for ministers and MPs and staffers,” Wernick said, adding that public servants could learn how to better support politicians and staffers.

Lori Turnbull, a professor in Dalhousie University’s faculty of management, whose research focuses has been on parliamentary democracy and governance, said the relationship between politicians and officials was always affected by the political climate at the time, noting that the current government is almost nine years old and has seen a lot of change in leadership.

“People know that this government is not doing well in the polls and, unless all the polls are getting it wrong, whenever this election is held, Pierre Poilievre is going to form a government,” Turnbull said, adding that in Canada there’s an expectation for the public service to be loyal to the government of the day until the moment it changes.

“Over time, there’s always going to be chafing in that relationship and there’s always going to be some trickiness when you get to that late stage of a government’s life where conflicts are going to come up, there’s going to be trust that is broken.”

Turnbull said the government’s reliance on contracting out advice and services was likely also causing distrust among public servants.

“Not that they ever have a monopoly on giving advice to the government, but it seems like this government has really gone out of its way to pull in advice and support from non-public-service entities,” Turnbull said. “Those sorts of things send a message to the public service that, ‘We don’t want you as you are.’”

Turnbull said ministers, political staff and senior public servants needed to be better educated when they took on a role on what it meant to have a healthy tension between the two sides based on trust.

“Our system needs trust or else it won’t work, but now we’re seeing that trust break down,” Turnbull said.

Source: Report highlights strained relationship between public servants and ministers