[dino_bobba_renno]

andyt andyt:

Good points.

As I said, Mulcair could have phrased it better. But we both know what happens to nuanced arguments in the political sphere. I think he is playing divisive politics, can't say I blame him since Harper plays the same game. I think that's what's new here, that the NDP now has somebody willing to play hardball, same as the CPC.

Absolutely, we should sing hosannas to the oil sands. But we should also look at where we can ameliorate their negatives. I was reflexively for building the pipeline to Kitimat, until I thought about some of the negatives. At the very least, industry should be putting up a bond that would pay for any cleanup in a spill. But really, it seems we should be looking east, and that's only going to happen if we have a comprehensive energy and industrial strategy. And Harper certainly isn't leading that conversation, so Mulcair's comments are at least a start.

A pipeline going east is great idea provided they have the type of refining capacity to handle it.

To date I haven't heard any murmurs about such a proposal though, at least not in regards of a full on large diameter pipeline being built. I've heard Enbride talking about utilizing existing lines to ship oil from the Bakken play out east but that's about it. Most of the talk has centered around Enbridge’s Line 9, they are proposing to reverse the flow on that to take product from Sarina to Montreal. Line 9 incidentally was built back during the NEP with the intent of shipping oil from Alberta out east, go figure.

I also know that with the current infrastructure some of the bitumen shipped down to the states ends back up in the east after refining but I'd have to look at my maps to see what kind of capacity those systems are running at and how they all work.

It is kind of odd though that we haven't heard anything from Ottawa on the subject of more oil going out east though.

One thing I will say however is that even if that is done the market in eastern Canada still won't be a replacement for the potential that the Asian markets hold. Sooner or later lines will have to built out to the west coast. One positive thing with shipping bitumen to those markets is that we're not hog tied on the pricing of that product the way we are with NAFTA. There is a potential to increase the royalties we receive from exports to Asia. I can't say however if that will be done, I can only say it may be possible.

If shipping were to take place though I full on agree with you on everything you have said about measures being taken to protect the coast. If anything we could use the Valdez as a "what not to do" guide.

[back_blastnet]

SprCForr SprCForr:

I couldn't find the part in the bill that says foreigners can be paid less. From what I saw they're subject to the Labour Code like the rest of us.

If anyone knows what section of Bill C-38 it's in, please give me a heads up.

I'll locate it, in the meantime here's a link to a Globe article that references it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/does-temporary-foreign-workers-program-create-second-class-of-labourers/article2424451/

[dino_bobba_renno]

SprCForr SprCForr:

I couldn't find the part in the bill that says foreigners can be paid less. From what I saw they're subject to the Labour Code like the rest of us.

If anyone knows what section of Bill C-38 it's in, please give me a heads up.

I don't know where it is in C-38 but I found this:

$1:

New wage structure

On April 25, 2012, common-sense improvements to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program were announced to better meet labour market demands, reduce red tape for employers, strengthen protections for temporary foreign workers and support the economic recovery. These enhancements included a new wage structure.

Every employer continues to be required to pay temporary foreign workers the same wage that they are paying their Canadian workers for doing the same job in the same location.

Under the old wage structure, employers were required to pay temporary foreign workers at least the average wage for an occupation in a specific region, regardless of what they were paying their Canadian employees. In many cases, this resulted in employers paying temporary foreign workers more than Canadians. The method of determining the average wage was also inconsistent from region to region. The old structure was unfair to Canadians and did not reflect labour market realities. After various consultations, action was taken to address the problem.

Under the new wage structure, employers can pay wages that are up to 15% below the average wage for a high-skill occupation, and 5% for a low-skill occupation, in a specific region. However, employers must provide documentation that clearly demonstrates that the wage being paid to a temporary foreign worker is the same as that being paid to their Canadian employees in the same job and in the same location. The wage for a low-skill occupation cannot be below minimum wage and the wage range is set at 5% because these jobs pay less. The new wage structure is based on Statistics Canada’s data and allows a set range that provides a flexibility that was not previously available.

The new wage structure does not apply to the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program, the Agricultural Stream of the NOC C and D Pilot Project or the Live-in Caregiver Program because employers participating in these programs hire mostly temporary foreign workers.

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/workplaceskills/foreign_workers/communications/wage.shtml

and this:

$1:

Division 23 of Part 4 repeals the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act.

It's on page 7 http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/411/Government/C-38/C-38_1/C-38_1.PDF
It's easier to open the pdf and search for "Fair Wages" if you're having a hard time finding it but you shouldn't with the page number.

Very vague though, that's all it says. The two aren't directly related but in combination with one another ..... When you combine those two with the 10 day fast tracking of foreign workers for approved companies it looks even less savory.

I won't jump to the conclusion this is a 3 alarm fire but I don't like it

[SprCForr]

Thanks, both.

From what I'm seeing, it has to be justified and it's not left to the whim of an employer. I have a pdf at work with current wage scales for different occupations. I think I'll fire up the ol' plastic brain tomorrow.