The term 'cultural divide' does not begin to explain this. Depraved indifference, on the part of both the company and the parents, perhaps does.
UPDATE: This piece on Slate, which includes a 'charming' video on 'My First Rifle,' is well worth a look.
Much has been written and discussed about the Temporary Foreign Workers Program, both on this blog and in various other media; consequently, I suspect that the majority of well-informed Canadians will look with deep cynicism upon the announcement that the Harper regime intends to crack down on widespread employer abuses of the program that has seen Canadians displaced by immigrants being paid up to 15% less in wages.
Those whose acquaintance with Canadian politics is limited only to being able to name the Prime Minister of Canada and perhaps one opposition leader will doubtless feel that the Harper crew is being responsive to the needs of Canadians, now that these wholly unanticipated abuses of the program have become known.
In this, of course, they would be completely deluded.
Consider this about the TFWP:
Critics say it has been misused to recruit foreigners for many low-skilled positions that could have gone to Canadians. With 1.3 million Canadians out of work, the Conservative government was facing charges that it was making it too easy for companies to go abroad for their labour needs.
The article reminds us that the problem was well-known to the government, adding to the suspicion that its purpose all along was to lower labour costs for business. For example last year, HD Mining International Ltd. a Chinese-backed coal mining operation in British Columbia, brought in 201 miners from China under the plan.
Or Consider this observation:
NDP MP Chris Charlton said government’s record so far on the file makes her skeptical they have fixed the problems.
“The reality is that they have made an absolute mess of the temporary foreign workers program,” Charlton said.
“They have systematically loosened the rules to make it easier for employers to hire cheap foreign labour at the expense of Canadian workers.”
Advocates groups are similarly cynical that the Harper regime has experienced a sudden epiphany:
“We have little faith that they would result in anything meaningful,” said Naveen Mehta of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada. “It’s just (smoke and mirrors).”
Using Ottawa’s bad employer list as an example, former live-in caregiver Kay Manuel, whose story of exploitation sparked off new migrant worker protection laws, said the federal government has yet to name a bad Canadian employer on its website since its 2011 launch.
Mehta's doubts are shared by many others:
“The changes announced today are mostly about rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship,” said Chris Ramsaroop, a member of the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, a coalition of grassroots advocacy groups.
Calling Ottawa’s reforms “political jockeying,” Deena Ladd, executive director of the Toronto Workers’ Action Centre, said Ottawa could enhance the migrant worker program’s transparency by publicizing Canadian employers using the program and the jobs migrant workers they are bringing in to fill.
Perhaps the final word should go to the business community which, quite predictably, is warning that the sky may fall as a result of these changes:
“One of the worst decisions this government has ever made,” said Dan Kelly, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said of the new rules. “They’re completing ignoring the needs of small firms and the needs of employers who are in need of entry level workers.”
“I’m very, very unhappy with this government for this decision,” Kelly added.
Or how about this apocalyptic morsel from a former Progressive Conservative politician:?
“It’s going to drive up costs and make it more difficult to use the program,” said Perrin Beatty, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
“Nobody benefits from that,” Beatty said adding it could force come employers out of business.
One might tartly add, Mr. Beatty, that no Canadian workers have benefited from the TFWP in its current configuration.
Welcome to the real world, sir.
In this blog, I try as hard as possible not to repeat myself. True, that is often a difficult objective to achieve when, with the same fascination that train wrecks and natural disasters exert over some people, I have an ongoing obsession with the political outrages embodied in people like Stephen Harper and Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak.
But for this post, I have to revisit my teaching career, something I rarely do because it is part of the past, a completed chapter of my life. In today's Star, there is a story on a report from People for Education, a group that has been headed for many years by Annie Kidder that works toward monitoring and improving public education.
While the report admits that the roots and patterns of inequality are complex and interconnected, it makes the following observation:
... teens from low-income homes make up the bulk of those taking non-academic credits ... The numbers show the lower the average family income at a particular secondary school, the higher the percentage of students taking “applied” math.
In schools where families earn an average of $110,000 a year, fewer than 10 per cent of students take that course.
While I have no reason to question these statistics, they really do not tell the full story, rife as it is with the implication of some kind of class discrimination colouring the advice students receive from educators on their course selections:
Charles Ungerleider, an education professor at the University of British Columbia, said the government must pay attention to the findings. “Mathematical ability, like other abilities, is normally distributed across the population …. Why are youngsters being slotted into applied courses in disproportionate numbers?” said Ungerleider.
As my policy-analyst son has reminded me on more than one occasion, issues and problems are never simple, outward appearances notwithstanding. And it is this truth, I think, that needs to be applied to the above report.
A constellation of factors influence a student's academic performance: language skills (for example, whether or not the student is a newcomer to English), general intelligence, behaviour, attendance, home situation, and social-economic status are among them. In my own experience, although not invariably true, those whose parent are reasonably affluent can better advocate for their kids, but that doesn't mean that none of them are in the applied courses. Yet it seems to be true that those from homes of poverty or little affluence are over represented in applied programs, but one of the reasons for that is that they tend to be homes where parents, having less education, value education less themselves and transmit that attitude to their children, and often provide little oversight of their study habits, etc. Again, this is not intended as a gross over generalization, but merely an observation borne of my own teaching experience.
When a respect for the goals of education is weak, there are consequences that combine to detract from student achievement: lack of self-discipline, low completion rate on assignments, tardiness and absence, and disruptive classroom behaviour. Despite the public perception that teachers are trained and competent to deal with all of these variables and still deliver the desired educational outcomes is more myth than reality. Some teachers are better in such situations than others; in all frankness, I rarely felt that I did a particularly good job in the applied classes that I taught.
Hence, the problem itself becomes one of not only addressing the problem of growing poverty and income inequality in our society, but also of how to impart an appreciation of the importance of education to recalcitrant families and their children, and motivating them accordingly, no easy tasks, I can assure you.
Sadly, in my mind, there are no simple solutions to this problem, but I write this post only as an effort to balance what seems to me to be the temptation of People For Education to interpret the issue as a form of class warfare.
Since I arose uncharacteristically late this morning, I am still working on today's post. In the interim, I take the liberty of reproducing some letters from Star readers on a topic dear to the heart of progressives: Harper's attack ads:
Re: Tory ad war drowns out debate over free speech, April 25
The federal Conservative party professes to decry the repugnant act of cyberbullying. Definition: “when the Internet, cellphones or other devices are used to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person.” The recent Conservative attack ads against Justin Trudeau seem to fit this definition. Considering that we are not in the midst of an election campaign, these spiteful attack ads on a fellow Member of Parliament sure look a lot like cyberbullying to me.
Garth Dynes, Unionville
Bravo to Justin Trudeau for leaving the Conservative attack ads in his dust by taking a positive approach to his campaign strategy. I’ve always wondered if in my lifetime I would ever see a politician promote his or her (party’s) own worth through positive ad campaigns based on integrity.
While the Harper government considers implementing changes to federal laws that address and prevent cyberbullying, would it not be a good time for it to reflect on its own negative and extremely juvenile bullying tactics when it comes to the direction that its “promotional” material is taking?
Anne Chisholm, Salt Spring Island, B.C.
Tim Harper suggests that the Prime Minister's “softer side” was on display in his recent meeting with the Nova Scotia mother of a victim of cyberbullying. Your columnist can't be serious. For the man ultimately responsible for the repulsive attack ads that are relegating Canadian political conversation to the sub-basement to commiserate with anyone on the subject of bullying surely redefines hypocrisy.
Ray Jones, Toronto
So Justin Trudeau took his shirt off in public for a charity — so what? The Tories won't let Stephen Harper take off his shirt because the stuffing would fall out.
Stephen Adams, London, Ont.
This morning, I made a rather rare foray to church, accompanying my wife in her usual Sunday attendance at a local United Church service, prompted by the knowledge that the minister, a very progressive former Baptist, was going to talk about his recent trip to the Middle East occupied territories. While waiting for him to talk, I perused the church bulletin, and found something that I think is relevant to my deliberations about communities. The writer, Matthew Heesing, who is serving in Columbia, offered his reflections on the importance of 'presence,' something of real significance for me, I think, in the online community of which I am a part.
I reproduce the piece below, with no further comment.
April 28-Not Alone
When people ask me [why I am here in Colombia], I usually respond by saying that I'm here to build solidarity with the people and United Church partners of Colombia. But the phrase "build solidarity" seems to leave people with more questions than answers. And I understand why-it's more of an abstract concept than a tangible response ....
But now I realize that simply having someone stand with you can make all the difference in the world. And if you've ever been through an extremely rough time, or had someone close to you go through a life-shattering experience, you know what I mean. When you are going through a divorce, or have lost your job, or have had to say farewell to a loved one, or have been through any number of similar experiences ... you don't need someone with all the answers ....
There is such a power in presence. In just being with someone, whether it means standing with them, or walking with them, or sitting with them in silence, or just being with them, sharing life. Presence is powerful. When I arrived at the office of CEP ALC, my first full day in Colombia, I found a sign waiting for me in my office: "MATTHEW HEESING: Welcome to Colombia. Welcome to CEPALC. Thank you for your presence."
I don't for a moment pretend like I fully understand the complex realities of Colombia .... I can't even fluently speak the language. But, many times in life, that's not what is needed. Many times in life, what's needed even more is presence. Someone standing with you, walking with you, being with you ... helping you to know that you are not alone.
