Category Archives: Uncategorized

Canadian boycott of U.S. hitting border states hard: Congressional report

Democrats point to Trump’s policies hurting American businesses

source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-united-states-tourism-boycott-9.7012575

The drop in Canadian tourism to the United States in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s actions is hurting American businesses in several states, a new report by a congressional committee has found.

The report, prepared by the Democrat minority of the U.S. Congress’s joint economic committee, warns that states along the Canada-U.S. border are being hit hard.

“In 2024, Canadian tourism contributed $20.5 billion to the U.S. economy and supported 140,000 American jobs,” wrote the authors of the report. “The negative impacts of President Trump’s tariff policies have been particularly stark in states along the U.S.-Canada border, which have many businesses that rely on short-term visits by Canadians.”

The report also cites Trump’s comments about annexing Canada, rounds of tariffs on Canadian goods and his decision to repeatedly break off trade talks.

“This has disrupted diplomatic, economic and trade relations between the United States and Canada — which in turn has hurt U.S. businesses that depend on visitors from Canada,” it says.

The report says the number of passenger vehicles crossing the border between January and October dropped by nearly 20 per cent compared with 2024, with declines ranging from more than 10 per cent in Alaska to more than 28 per cent in Vermont.

“Businesses throughout the region are also reporting fewer tourists, more vacancies and lower sales,” says the report.

The joint economic committee, set up in 1946 to study economic policy, is composed of both senators and members of the House of Representatives. It includes both Republicans and Democrats, with each side regularly publishing reports that don’t include the other.

The committee’s reports inform members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives on economic questions.

Sen. Maggie Hassan, ranking member of the committee and a Democrat from New Hampshire, said the report documents the impact of Trump’s actions.

“Going back for generations, Canadians have visited New Hampshire and many other states along the U.S.-Canada border to see family or friends, stay in our hotels, share a meal at our restaurants and shop at our stores,” Hassan said in a statement.

“However, in the wake of President Trump’s reckless tariffs and needless provocations, fewer and fewer Canadians are making trips to the United States, putting many American businesses in jeopardy and straining the close ties that bind our two nations.”

U.S. Senators on Parliament Hill
U.S. senators Maggie Hassan, Lisa Murkowski, Ron Wyden and Catherine Cortez Masto are seen on Parliament Hill in July. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

Hassan was also part of a four-senator delegation that travelled to Ottawa in July where they met with Prime Minister Mark Carney and several Canadian cabinet ministers to discuss ways to repair relations between the two countries.

The committee’s eight-page report, made public Wednesday, outlines the toll that the Canadian boycott of travel to the U.S. has taken on 11 U.S. border states, with state-by-state data and testimonials from a wide variety of business owners.

For example, in Hassan’s home state of New Hampshire, officials reported a 30 per cent decrease in Canadian visitors — and reservations for state-run campgrounds were down 71 per cent in the first five months of 2025. One hotel owner in North Conway reported 30 per cent of their rooms were empty during some summer weekends that usually sell out.

  • Cross Country Checkup is asking: Are you gathering with American friends or family over the holidays? How are the Canada-U.S. relationships in your life going? Leave your comment here and we may read it or call you back for our show this Sunday.

Kyle Daley, owner of Soloman’s Store in West Stewartstown, N.H., told the committee that the “usual parade of vacationers heading to Old Orchard Beach simply didn’t show up this year.”

“The friction at the border is no longer just a headline; it is an empty parking lot and a threat to our livelihood,” Daley said.

In Maine, border crossings by passenger vehicles from Canada were down around 25 per cent in the first 10 months and Maine’s CAT Ferry, which connects Bar Harbor and Nova Scotia, reported its business was down 20 per cent over the summer.

Among the business owners in Maine who took a hit was Old Orchard Beach’s Moshe Agam.

“It’s like a 50 per cent [drop off] because not too many Canadians.… The worst year we’ve had. We’ve never had a year like that, even worse than COVID.”

In Montana, Canadians accounted for nearly 80 per cent of international visitors in 2024 and contributed $170 million US to the state’s economy. In 2025, border crossings were down 19 per cent in the first 10 months of the year. A Montana hotel reported a $38,000 US loss after a Canadian sports team cancelled its reservation which included 70 rooms and a 200-person dinner.

In an interview Friday with CBC News, Diane Medler, executive director of Discover Kalispell in Montana, said in the spring businesses noticed a 25 per cent decrease in Canadian travel and a 44 per cent drop in Canadian credit card spending compared with 2024.

She said by September the situation had improved a bit, with the drop in Canadian credit card spending down to 39 percent.

Medler said Kalispell has launched a Canadian Welcome Pass with discounts for Canadian visitors.

‘Long-lasting damage’

In Washington state, the number of passenger vehicles crossing the border was down 24 per cent and cities like Spokane reported a 33 per cent drop in visitors. Ridership on the Clipper Navigation ferry service between Vancouver Island and Seattle was down 30 per cent, forcing the company to lay off a quarter of its workforce.

Businesses in New York also reported cutting employees. For example, the North Country Chamber of Commerce, which serves the northern part of the state, reported in June that 83 per cent of businesses in the area had noticed a drop in Canadian customers, leading 35 per cent to cut staffing.

“Seventy per cent of businesses blamed the political climate and tariff policies for this drastic decrease,” says the report.

Some business owners, like Christa Bowdish of the Old Stagecoach Inn in Vermont, who was forced to lay off employees and reduce hours, told the committee she feared the damage will be lasting as Canadians find other destinations.

“It’s not just the tariffs,” she said in the report. “This is long-lasting damage to a relationship and emotional damage takes time to heal.”

Australia Is Committing Climate Suicide

Australia Is Committing Climate Suicide

As record fires rage, the country’s leaders seem intent on sending it to its doom.

By 

Mr. Flanagan is an Australian novelist.

Credit…Matthew Abbott for The New York Times

BRUNY ISLAND, Tasmania — Australia today is ground zero for the climate catastrophe. Its glorious Great Barrier Reef is dying, its world-heritage rain forests are burning, its giant kelp forests have largely vanished, numerous towns have run out of water or are about to, and now the vast continent is burning on a scale never before seen.

The images of the fires are a cross between “Mad Max” and “On the Beach”: thousands driven onto beaches in a dull orange haze, crowded tableaux of people and animals almost medieval in their strange muteness — half-Bruegel, half-Bosch, ringed by fire, survivors’ faces hidden behind masks and swimming goggles. Day turns to night as smoke extinguishes all light in the horrifying minutes before the red glow announces the imminence of the inferno. Flames leaping 200 feet into the air. Fire tornadoes. Terrified children at the helm of dinghies, piloting away from the flames, refugees in their own country.

The fires have already burned about 14.5 million acres — an area almost as large as West Virginia, more than triple the area destroyed by the 2018 fires in California and six times the size of the 2019 fires in Amazonia. Canberra’s air on New Year’s Day was the most polluted in the world partly because of a plume of fire smoke as wide as Europe.

Scientists estimate that close to half a billion native animals have been killed and fear that some species of animals and plants may have been wiped out completely. Surviving animals are abandoning their young in what is described as mass “starvation events.” At least 18 people are dead and grave fears are held about many more.

All this, and peak fire season is only just beginning.

As I write, a state of emergency has been declared in New South Wales and a state of disaster in Victoria, mass evacuations are taking place, a humanitarian catastrophe is feared, and towns up and down the east coast are surrounded by fires, all transport and most communication links cut, their fate unknown.

An email that the retired engineer Ian Mitchell sent to friends on New Year’s Day from the small north Victoria community of Gipsy Point speaks for countless Australians at this moment of catastrophe:

“All

we and most of Gipsy Point houses still here as of now. We have 16 people in Gipsy pt.

No power, no phone no chance of anyone arriving for 4 days as all roads blocked. Only satellite email is working We have 2 bigger boats and might be able to get supplies ‘esp fuel at Coota.

We need more able people to defend the town as we are in for bad heat from Friday again. Tucks area will be a problem from today, but trees down on all tracks, and no one to fight it.

We are tired, but ok.

But we are here in 2020!

Love

Us”

The bookstore in the fire-ravaged village of Cobargo, New South Wales, has a new sign outside: “Post-Apocalyptic Fiction has been moved to Current Affairs.

And yet, incredibly, the response of Australia’s leaders to this unprecedented national crisis has been not to defend their country but to defend the coal industry, a big donor to both major parties — as if they were willing the country to its doom. While the fires were exploding in mid-December, the leader of the opposition Labor Party went on a tour of coal mines expressing his unequivocal support for coal exports. The prime minister, the conservative Scott Morrison, went on vacation to Hawaii.

In no small part Mr. Morrison owes his narrow election victory last year to the coal-mining oligarch Clive Palmer, who formed a puppet party to keep the Labor Party — which had been committed to limited but real climate-change action — out of government. Mr. Palmer’s advertising budget for the campaign was more than double that of the two major parties combined. Mr. Palmer subsequently announced plans to build the biggest coal mine in Australia.

ImagePrime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia.
Credit…Joel Carrett/EPA, via Shutterstock

Since Mr. Morrison, an ex-marketing man, was forced to return from his vacation and publicly apologize, he has chosen to spend his time creating feel-good images of himself, posing with cricketers or his family. He is seen far less often at the fires’ front lines, visiting ravaged communities or with survivors. Mr. Morrison has tried to present the fires as catastrophe-as-usual, nothing out of the ordinary.

This posture seems to be a chilling political calculation: With no effective opposition from a Labor Party reeling from its election loss and with media dominated by Rupert Murdoch — 58 percent of daily newspaper circulation — firmly behind his climate denialism, Mr. Morrison appears to hope that he will prevail as long as he doesn’t acknowledge the magnitude of the disaster engulfing Australia.

Mr. Morrison made his name as immigration minister, perfecting the cruelty of a policy that interns refugees in hellish Pacific-island camps, and seems indifferent to human suffering. Now his government has taken a disturbing authoritarian turn, cracking down on unions, civic organizations and journalists. Under legislation pending in Tasmania, and expected to be copied across Australia, environmental protesters now face up to 21 years in jail for demonstrating.

“Australia is a burning nation led by cowards,” wrote the leading broadcaster Hugh Riminton, speaking for many. He might have added “idiots,” after Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack blamed the fires on exploding horse manure.

Such are those who would open the gates of hell and lead a nation to commit climate suicide.

Image

A man drags away plastic garbage bins from a property engulfed in flames in Lake Conjola, New South Wales, Australia.
Credit…Matthew Abbott for The New York Times

More than one-third of Australians are estimated to be affected by the fires. By a significant and increasing majority, Australians want action on climate change, and they are now asking questions about the growing gap between the Morrison government’s ideological fantasies and the reality of a dried-out, rapidly heating, burning Australia.

The situation is eerily reminiscent of the Soviet Union in the 1980s, when the ruling apparatchik were all-powerful but losing the fundamental, moral legitimacy to govern. In Australia today, a political establishment, grown sclerotic and demented on its own fantasies, is facing a monstrous reality which it has neither the ability nor the will to confront.

Mr. Morrison may have a massive propaganda machine in the Murdoch press and no opposition, but his moral authority is bleeding away by the hour. On Thursday, after walking away from a woman asking for help, he was forced to flee the angry, heckling residents of a burned-out town. A local conservative politician described his own leader’s humiliation as “the welcome he probably deserved.”

As Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, once observed, the collapse of the Soviet Union began with the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in 1986. In the wake of that catastrophe, “the system as we knew it became untenable,” he wrote in 2006. Could it be that the immense, still-unfolding tragedy of the Australian fires may yet prove to be the Chernobyl of climate crisis?

Richard Flanagan won the Man Booker Prize for “The Narrow Road to the Deep North.” His latest novel is “First Person.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on FacebookTwitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Correction: 

An earlier version of this article misstated the time of Prime Minister’s Scott Morrison’s narrow election victory. It was in 2019, not earlier this year.

Plastic Bags, or Paper? Here’s What to Consider When You Hit the Grocery Store

www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/climate/plastic-paper-shopping-bags.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=Climate%20and%20Environment

By Brad Plumer

March 29, 2019

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up here for Climate Fwd:, our email newsletter.

WASHINGTON — The decision by New York State to ban single-use plastic bags from retail stores makes it a good time to revisit everyone’s favorite environmental quandary: paper or plastic?

Unfortunately, there’s not a simple answer on whether paper or plastic bags are better for the environment. They both have downsides, but there are a few broad lessons to keep in mind when you’re hitting the grocery store.

Plastic bags, which often take centuries to decompose, can create a dreadful waste problem even though they’re far from the largest source of plastic waste in America — about 12 percent of the total.

On the other hand, paper bags typically require more energy and greenhouse gas emissions to produce, which isn’t great from a global warming standpoint.

Reusable bags can be a decent compromise, provided you hold onto them and use them often. Ultimately, though, what you put inside the bag, particularly your food choices, will most likely matter a lot more for the environment than what type of bag you use.

The trouble with plastic bags: litter

American shoppers use more than 100 billion lightweight polyethylene plastic bags each year, and only a small portion are ever recycled. Most recycling centers can’t deal with them — they just clog up the machinery — and so the majority of plastic bags end up in landfills, where they can take up to 1,000 years to degrade.

To be fair, a plastic bag doesn’t cause too much harm sitting in a landfill. The bigger problem arises when people don’t dispose of their bags properly, and the plastic ends up fluttering around in the wild, clogging up waterways and threatening wildlife.

San Jose, Calif., for instance, found that plastic bags made up about 12 percent of the litter in its creeks before implementing a local bag ban in 2012. And, just last week, a dead sperm whale washed ashore in Indonesia with two dozen plastic bags in its gut, along with other trash.

So, even though plastic bags are only a small fraction of America’s overall plastic trash, they’ve become a highly visible sign of waste.

Workers removing plastic bags from clogged rollers at a recycling plant in Westborough, Mass.CreditCharles Krupa/Associated Press

Image

Workers removing plastic bags from clogged rollers at a recycling plant in Westborough, Mass.CreditCharles Krupa/Associated Press

The trouble with paper bags: carbon emissions

So does that mean paper bags, which degrade more easily, are a better option? Not necessarily. Climate change has become the biggest environmental issue of our time, so it’s worth looking at things from an emissions standpoint. And on that score, paper bags fare worse.

Even though paper bags are made from trees, which are, in theory, a renewable resource, it takes significantly more energy to create pulp and manufacture a paper bag than it does to make a single-use plastic bag from oil.

Back in 2011, Britain’s Environment Agency conducted a life-cycle assessment of various bag options, looking at every step of the production process. The conclusion? You’d have to reuse a paper bag at least three times before its environmental impact equaled that of a high-density polyethylene plastic bag used only once. And if plastic bags were reused repeatedly, they looked even better.

Paper bags can more easily be recycled or even composted, but the British study found that even these actions didn’t make a huge difference in the broader analysis. Unless you’re reusing your paper bags a lot, they look like a poorer option from a global warming standpoint.

Reusable bags are a decent option — if you actually reuse them

That same British analysis also looked into reusable options, like heavier, more durable plastic bags or cotton bags. And it found that these are only sustainable options if you use them very frequently.

Making a cotton shopping bag is hardly cost-free. Growing cotton requires a fair bit of energy, land, fertilizer and pesticides, which can have all sorts of environmental effects — from greenhouse gas emissions to nitrogen pollution in waterways.

The study found that an avid shopper would have to reuse his or her cotton bag 131 times before it had a smaller global warming impact than a lightweight plastic bag used only once. And, depending on the make, more durable plastic bags would have to be used at least 4 to 11 times before they made up for their heftier upfront climate costs.

So if you’re going to opt for a reusable bag for environmental reasons, make sure you actually reuse it — often.

CreditDavid McNew/Getty Images

Image

CreditDavid McNew/Getty Images

What’s in the bag most likely matters more than the bag itself

It never hurts to think about bag choices. But keep in mind that if you’re going to the grocery store, the food you purchase and place in that bag probably has a vastly bigger effect on the environment than whatever you use to haul it home.

Our global food system, after all, is responsible for one-quarter of humanity’s planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions — with meat and dairy having a disproportionately large impact. By contrast, packaging makes up only about 5 percent of the food system’s footprint. Compared with, say, the effects of clearing away vast swaths of forest to grow feed or raise livestock, our bags are a much smaller deal.

Put another way, a pound of beef bought at the supermarket will have roughly 25 times the global warming impact as the disposable plastic bag it’s carried in. So if you’re looking for ways to slim down your personal carbon footprint, taking a closer look at your dietary choices isn’t a bad place to start.

For more news on climate and the environment, follow @NYTClimate on Twitter.

In 1972, a computer model predicted the end of the world — and we’re on track

Call it Apocalypse 2040.

Source URL

In the early 1970s, a computer program called World1 predicted that civilization would likely collapse by 2040. Researchers from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) had programmed it to consider a model of sustainability for the world.

The prediction has resurfaced because Australian broadcaster ABC recirculated a 1973 newscast about the computer program. The program’s findings, however, never really went away, as its results have been re-evaluated over the nearly 50 years since they first appeared.

The bad news for us is that the model seems to be spot-on so far.

A doomsday computer model

The computer model was commissioned by the Club of Rome, a group of scientists, industrialists and government officials focused on solving the world’s problems. The organization wanted to know how well the world could sustain its rate of growth based on information that was available at the time. World1 was developed by Jay Forrester, the father of system dynamics, a methodology for understanding how complex systems operate.

When deciding the fate of civilization, the program considered several variables, including pollution levels, population growth, the availability of natural resources and global quality of life. These factors were considered in tandem with one another as opposed to separately, following the Club of Rome’s perspective that the world’s problems are interconnected.

Such an approach was novel in the 1970s, even if the forecast World1 produced wasn’t intended to be “precise.” The program produced graphs that demonstrated what would happen to those metrics in the future, without even accounting for things like climate change. The graphs all indicated a downward trajectory for the planet.

According to the 1973 ABC segment, World1 identified 2020 as a tipping point for civilization.

“At around 2020, the condition of the planet becomes highly critical. If we do nothing about it, the quality of life goes down to zero. Pollution becomes so seriously it will start to kill people, which in turn will cause the population to diminish, lower than it was in the 1900. At this stage, around 2040 to 2050, civilized life as we know it on this planet will cease to exist.”

On course for the end of the world

A panoramic image of a large group of peopleA large global population may be too much of a strain on natural resources. Such a population could also work together to help save the planet. (Photo: Ints Vikmanis/Shutterstock)

This was not the end of the model. In 1972, the Club of Rome published “The Limits to Growth,” a book that built off the work of World1 with a program called World3, developed by scientists Donella and Dennis Meadows and a team of researchers. This time the variables were population, food production, industrialization, pollution and consumption of nonrenewable natural resources.

“The Limits to Growth” pushed the collapse of civilization to 2072, when the limits of growth would be the most readily apparent and result in population and industrial declines.

Criticism of the book was nearly immediate, and harsh. The New York Times, for instance, wrote, “Its imposing apparatus of computer technology and systems jargon … takes arbitrary assumptions, shakes them up and comes out with arbitrary conclusions that have the ring of science,” concluding that the book was “empty and misleading.”

Others argued that the book’s view of what constitutes a resource could change over time, leaving their data shortsighted to any possible changes in consumption habits.

The tide for the book’s finds have changed over time, however. In 2014, Graham Turner, then a research fellow at the University Melbourne’s Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, collected data from various agencies within the United Nations, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other outlets, plotting their data alongside the findings of the World3 model.

What Turner found that was that the World3 model and then-current statistical information tended to coincide with another, up to 2010, indicating that the World3 model was onto something. Turner cautioned that the validation of World3’s model didn’t indicate “agreement” with it, largely due to certain parameters within the World3 model. Still, Turner argued that we were likely on “cusp of collapse” thanks to a few different factors, in particular what Turner called the end of peak easy oil access.

Writing in The Guardian, Turner and Cathy Alexander, a Melbourne-based journalist, explained that neither the World3 model or Turner’s own confirmation of it signaled that the collapse was a guarantee.

“Our research does not indicate that collapse of the world economy, environment and population is a certainty,” they wrote. “Nor do we claim the future will unfold exactly as the MIT researchers predicted back in 1972. Wars could break out; so could genuine global environmental leadership. Either could dramatically affect the trajectory.

“But our findings should sound an alarm bell. It seems unlikely that the quest for ever-increasing growth can continue unchecked to 2100 without causing serious negative effects – and those effects might come sooner than we think.”

U.S. appeals court weighs appeal of Trump’s travel ban Government wants executive order reinstated, barring people from 7 predominantly Muslim countries

The Associated Press
Feb 07, 2017

A panel of three U.S. Federal Court judges will hear arguments Tuesday about President Donald Trump's executive order banning travellers from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

A panel of three U.S. Federal Court judges will hear arguments Tuesday about President Donald Trump’s executive order banning travellers from seven predominantly Muslim countries. (Lucas Jackson/Reuters)

U.S. President Donald Trump’s travel ban faced its biggest legal test yet Tuesday as a panel of federal judges heard arguments from the government and its opponents about two fundamentally divergent views of the executive branch and the court system.

The government is asking the federal appeals court to restore the administration’s executive order, contending that the president alone has the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States. But several states have challenged the ban and insisted that Trump’s executive order is unconstitutional.

Tuesday’s hearing began before a randomly selected panel of judges from the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Whatever the appeals court decides, either side could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

Continue reading U.S. appeals court weighs appeal of Trump’s travel ban Government wants executive order reinstated, barring people from 7 predominantly Muslim countries

Early election call shows Stephen Harper’s hubris

Harper’s early writ drop was a cynical political ploy — one that might backfire badly.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's hubris led him to “game the system” by calling for an extra-long, massively expensive election campaign, and to offer an insulting defence for his decision, writes Robin V. Sears.

STEVE RUSSELL / TORONTO STAR Order this photo

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s hubris led him to “game the system” by calling for an extra-long, massively expensive election campaign, and to offer an insulting defence for his decision, writes Robin V. Sears.

“Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make proud.” — Sophocles

Canadians are a tolerant breed when it comes to indulging their political class. We permit them to tell tall political tales usually without retribution. We allow them to claim laughable political virtues, and only snicker occasionally. We even allow them to fling buckets of our money at us, and usually say, “Thank you.”

But there are lines you should not cross.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper may just have crossed one. We do not often reward politicians who call unnecessary, sneaky or excessively short or long elections. Our “fair play” instincts kick in. As Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the former Elections Canada commissioner pointed out, Harper is “gaming the system.” Calling an election on a long weekend in midsummer is simply rubbing salt in an irritated Canadian vacationer’s wound.

Complete Story

Kill Canada’s temporary foreign worker program: Siddiqui Jason Kenney made a mess of the temporary foreign worker program and is now posing as its saviour by introducing reforms.

Jason Kenney made a mess of the temporary foreign worker program and is now posing as its saviour by introducing reforms.

Employment Minister Jason Kenney, left, and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander are seen in a reflection at a news conference in Ottawa on June 20, 2014, where reforms to the temporary foreign worker program were announced.

SEAN KILPATRICK / THE CANADIAN PRESS

Employment Minister Jason Kenney, left, and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander are seen in a reflection at a news conference in Ottawa on June 20, 2014, where reforms to the temporary foreign worker program were announced.

By:  Columnist, Published on Sun Jul 06 2014

It hit me on Canada Day that even the name, temporary foreign worker program, is un-Canadian. “Temporary” and “foreign” are the antithesis of long-standing Canadian immigration policy, the bedrock principle of which is that immigrants are selected to be permanent residents and future fellow-citizens.

The formula has served us well by minimizing the “us vs. them” undercurrent that charges relations between new arrivals and the rest of society. In our native and adopted land, the old and the new are in it together.

Canada studiously avoided Europe’s guest worker program, under which hundreds of thousands were imported in the expectation that they’d leave at the end of their work. Few did, creating a permanent underclass in Germany, France and elsewhere — and all the resentments that go with it.

We were never like the oil-rich Persian Gulf nations that allow employers to import temporary foreign workers, but not their families, pay dirt-poor wages and hold them hostage as indentured labour tethered to their master.

Now our temporary foreign worker program allows employers to import cheap foreign labour, without families, mostly for low-end jobs for short periods. The temps are tied to their employer who may mistreat them. That Canadian employers do not exploit foreign workers the way Arabs do is not saying much.

The program, besides undermining Canadian values, has depressed wages in certain regions, adding to the already unacceptable level of inequity between rich and poor.

It allowed too many employers, about 25,000, to rely too much on cheap foreign labour. About 1,100 of those employers rely on foreigners for more than half their total workforce. This is scandalous in times of high unemployment, especially among our youth and new immigrants, whose jobless rate is double the national average, not to mention those middle-aged Canadians who have been laid off and cannot get back into the workforce.

As of Dec. 1, 2013, there were 338,000 temporary foreign workers officially. But the total may be as high as 500,000. Since Canada has no exit controls, there’s no way of knowing how many went underground at the end of their visas, creating a new underclass, as in Europe.

The program was started under Jean Chrétien but expanded under Jason Kenney, one of Stephen Harper’s few competent ministers. He mastered the complicated immigration file. He went about overhauling the entire system but showed particular zeal for importing cheap labour. He did so in conjunction with the Conservative belief that too many Canadians were too lazy or too spoiled by employment insurance benefits to work. The Tories tightened the insurance rules and opened the floodgates to foreign workers, in the name of ostensible skills shortages.

Kenney allowed the program to grow even when the economy slowed down. He let employers in some sectors hire more foreign workers than Canadians. At times, he brought more temporary foreign workers into Canada than skilled new landed immigrants.

He who made a mess of the program is now posing as its saviour.

He is being clever about his hypocrisy. He first tried two sets of mini-changes — designed as palliatives for an increasingly angry public. He could not spin his way out of trouble. So he has introduced comprehensive reforms. But he avoided parliamentary scrutiny by announcing the changes the day the House of Commons rose for its summer recess. He opted instead for a propaganda blitz — leaking details to selected reporters the day before, then doing an unusually long news conference and following that up with a stream of interviews, public appearances and Twitter pronouncements.

He promises to better control the entry of low-skilled foreign temps; raise the fee for employers to hire foreigners; deny the hotel, fast-food, retail, security and other sectors access to the program in areas of high unemployment; allow temps to stay only two years, not four; force companies with more than 10 employees to hire only up to a tenth of their work force from abroad; have employers document how many Canadians applied for the job and how many were interviewed, etc.

Still, he is exempting employers with fewer than 10 employees from the 10 per cent cap, meaning that all nine employees of a small business may still be foreigners. He does nothing about improving the working conditions of the temporary workers.

He expects the changes to reduce the number of low-wage temporary foreign workers to 16,000 in two years. That’s 16,000 too many.

As an exercise in political damage control, Kenney has done well. He is an astute politician. But the program is not fixable. It needs to be nixed, beyond its limited use for seasonal farm workers and caregivers for infants and the elderly. Even for those two categories, we need to rethink whether exploiting poor Third World workers in tedious jobs at low wages for short periods fits our collective sense of who we are and what that says about Canada.

Where labour shortages exist, they should be addressed by recruiting Canadians at competitive wages.

Or by better immigrant selection. That’s how Canada was built. The farmers who tilled the topsoil in the Prairies were not sent back to Ukraine. Nor were miners and construction workers returned to where they had come from. Had they been, Canada would not have been blessed with the Esposito brothers and millions of other talented children of immigrants.

Haroon Siddiqui’s column appears on Thursday and Sunday.hsiddiqui@thestar.ca

Source URL: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/07/06/kill_canadas_temporary_foreign_worker_program_siddiqui.html

News for the 21st Century