Renegade

Minimium wage guidelines are set based upon an assumption of the worker facing certain cost of living conditions. If room and board are provided the cost of living for the employee drasticly changes however the minimium wage does not. As August described the government allows you to deduct and amount for Room and Board. In Ontario this amount is $369.42/month. This is far below market rates. If you know anywhere in GTA where you can get R & B for that amount I'd like to hear about it, because I don't. I agree. Your previous posts seem to have centered around paying the guest workers and paying anything less than Canadian wage rates was exploitation. You are now defining exploitation as misleading the workers. I'm not taking about a program about misleading anyone. People should be well aware of the arrangements, including wages, cost of living, and room and board provisions, before they ever sign up for such a program. This does not preclude paying at a wage scale below minimium wage. For many of these workers, even at less than minimium wage conditions it affords them an opportunity to save money they would never have in their own country. It's true that the guest worker progfram isn't strictly for nannies. There are categories for farm seasonal workers. I don't see a moral distinction in paying a farm worker $20/day to pick fruit in Niagara and paying them $3/day to make clothes that we purchase. Are they a lesser person because they accept a job at $3/day back in their home country? If you look at Singapore as a model, it imports lots of guest workers for construction, and as nannies and domestics. In general for both catagories accomodation is provided by the employer. Mind you we're not talking hotel rooms, we are talking being housed in barracks or for domestics, a small room in the apartment of the employer. The wages are well below Singaporian wage standards. The wokers are not misled on wage and working conditions. Many come because they don't have education, skills or employment opportunities back home. Does this take away Singaporian jobs? Not really. Virually all Singaporians are well aware that the key to economic success is education and skills. They have no expectaion that without those that they shoudl have an expectation of a decent paying job.

You've used the word exploit three times in your response above. Maybe you'd care to define what you mean by it. Does McDonalds exploit students when they pay them the youth minimium wage? If so why? Perhaps you didn't see my personal example to Riverwind, but the foreign nanny had more disposable income than we did. Did we exploit her? If we paid her half of minimium wage, would that still exploit her? If so why? Maybe if we start with youi defining what you mean be exploiting we can take it from there.

What you have identified is a problem with the definition of minimum wage. If you costed the market value of room and board you would probably find that your were paying your nanny much more that minimum wage. Ironically, you could not offer the same terms to a 'Canadian' because the free room and board is a taxable benefit as far a Revenue Canada is concerned. It sounds like a tax loop hole that encourages people to hire foreign workers. Unfortunately you are probably rigth. The govenment assigns a value for the room and board. Unfortuantely to the government it is irrevelant what the actual market value of that room and board is. Maybe rather than the worker being exploited, we were the ones exploited.

I would extend this further. Even if they provide the services which are approved, to the greatest extent possible, the government should fund the services based upon the level of benefit received.

What does "exploit" really mean? It seems to be used very subjectively. In my view, labour which willing undertakes to trade their services for money is not exploitive. I agree there is potential for employers to weild undue power over workers, but that really depends upon the nature of how the guest worker program is set up. For example, a guest worker need not be restricted to a named employer. It is true that there will be less incentive for employers to increase wages to the level where Canadians would do the job, but most of these jobs are jobs which the majority of Canadians do not want to do anyway. What it does is fill a labour demand which goes unfilled today. Many ordinary Canadians would employ these workers and thereby enrich the quality of their own lives if the barriers to hiriing such labour was low. I have experience in hiring a foreign nanny. Ironicly, the nanny disposable income far exceeded our own, as she drew an income but had virtually no costs as room and board were provided. We on the other hand had the substantial cost of accomodation, in addition to the nanny's wages to pay for.

I disagree with your characterization that these people are being exploited or are non-people. The people take the positions even at less than minimium wage because it is far better than the rates which they would get in their home country. No one seems to have an issue when are goods are produced overseas at wage rates under Canadian standards, are imported to Canada. It seems the only difference is where the work is performed. How many Canadians do you know who would work at nanny positions for less than minimium wage? None? Well that's my experience too. It seems that many "conservatives" are fine with free trade so long as that trade doesn't include labour. Seems like a double standard to me. geoffrey, in other threads you advocate that parents should be the ones to pay for their kids childcare at the same time you would refuse to give them the option for affordable childcare when such services could be available.

As WellandBoy notes, we do now. Here are the application forms. One of the more interesting guest-worker programmes concerns caregivers. Some Canadian families want to hire a nanny but don't want to pay market wages. Women from Third World countries are more than happy to provide the service. What makes these programs not a prevalent as they could be is the market wages which are imposed. Foreign nannies are available for far less than what the governmetn mandates that the hiring couple has to pay. If they lowered the barrier, such a program would be much more viable to many more parents. It seems like an effective solution to childcare, and one which has been sucessfully used in other countries. It is unfortunate that the govenment doesn't adapt the program to the needs of the employer.

Do you know any illegal immigrants? I doubt the problem is as severe as you think. In any case, by providing a legal avenue where these workers can be employed, it would discourage them from entering the country illegaly.

I probably wouldn't. Not because I shy away from my opinions, but if your opinions are tied to your real identities, there is a chance it could spill into your life. For example, what if your boss or neighbour linked your opinions to your real identity. Might not be a problem if they agreed with you, but the nature of your relationship might change if they disagreed passionately. While I would be happy if most people were mature and accepted opinions as just that, I think in the real world, you need to interact with these people on a civilized basis. This is made much easier if they are not aware of your stances.

My opinion. I feel that most people are fundamentally selfish and will take positions that suit their personal circumstances. If those circumstances change their opinions change. The Newfoundland outport fishermen had a proud tradition of being independent, pioneers that did not want or need gov't. That changed as soon as the fish disappeared. Same thing with Alberta beef farmers and BSE. I will agree that many people put self-interest first and their opinions are swayed by personal circumstances. I don't believe the number is as high as you seem to, nor is it a trait confined to right-wingers.

In the US it's not the guest workers who are the problem it's the illegal immigrants. Other countries have guest worker programs, and it is a positive net benefit to the economy. It seems that your only objection is the enforcement of the program rules, not with the concept.

'Guest workers' at core of labor dispute The US is in the midst of a debate on what to do with illegal immigrants and whether to extend guest worker status to them. This wouldn't be an issue if there weren't so many of them and they didn't contribute positively to the economy. Should not Canada have a guest worker program which allows employers to import workers temporarily? In my view the minimium wage would be lower than that of permanant residents. As well, there privilidge to work would only be valid so long as they had a job. We have taken small steps toward such a program with nannies, and seasonal farm workers. Why shouldn't we extend this to other types of work? There are many industries which either have labour shortages or have work which permanant residents are unwilling to perform. Shouldn't we tap the world outside Canada as a labour force?

Spar, is this your opinion or a fact? Do you have a source to substantiate this?

Sorry Melanie, as long as a segment cling to an idea that they alone are custodians of what marriage or a family is, this debate will extend for months or years. Even the current government has decided(wisely) that reopening this debate is not a good idea. Face it people, like it or not, SSM is here to stay.

How about gays who are women? You ok if they marry women? Maybe that is true, maybe it is not. However why is it that we have to accept your definition of family as one man, one woman, and kids. Is a single mother and her kids a family? How about a common law couple? Communes in the 60s considered themselves a family. Personally, I don't see that it is society's business to define what is a family, however if forced to do so, should define it in the most inclusive way possible. I disagree. The SCC is protecting families, however its definition of a family is more inclusive then the one you represent. The fact that protection also extends to your definition of family seems irrelevant to you and you seem resentful of the rights also extended to others. It doesn't say limitations based upon disabilities, age, or wealth either. It referenced the most common kinds of discrimmination. If we passed a law saying only people who were 20-30 and were fertile could get married, do you think everyone elses rights would be violated, despite the fact we have not discriminnated on the basis of race, nationality, or religion? You're grasping at straws on this one. Frankly it would have been my wish that the government stayed out of the definition of marriage completely and let people decide for themselves if they considered themselves married, however since they chose to treat married members of society different from others, they have been forced down this path. Over time the definition of marriage has become more inclusive. There was a time when "common-law" was not considered married. Today it is. Odd that it didn't cause the same rukus that SSM does. The extension of marriage to include same-sex couples is a natural evolution. I see this evolution continuing further as society evolves.

Fortunately for us all, the reputable jurists who sit on the SCC, do believe it is about human rights. If it comes to makeing a judgement on who can better evaluate what are human rights, I have to go with their opinion over yours. For a while the majority of the population and legislators were against interpreting marrriage to include sames-sex couples, do you really think that without being forced to change the law because of rights violations, they would have done so voluntarily?

Jerry, have you even looked into AI stance on marriage? It is opposed to restricting people's right to marriage. For example, Albania tried to restrict the ability of people with mental illness to marry. AI vehemently opposed this. It doesn't explicitly say in the paragraph above that people with disabilities have the right to marry, however it is assumed. Specificly if it doesn't explictly exclude one group, then by default it includes them. Same thing applies to hetrosexuals. link So maybe now that I've demonstrated that AI's definition of rights is more inclusive than you give them credit for. so instead of these one line dodges where you evade the point, you can point out some evidence from AI which shows that it should be exclusively limited to hetrosexuals.

What's the matter, SCCs interpretation of the Charter of Rights not good enough for you? Here's what AI specifies: Note that it doesn't limit the right of marriage to only hetrosexual couples.

Yep, slavery and segregation had a lot of support too at one time. This has absolutely nothing to do with human rights. Actually it does, that's why the SCC ruled that gay's rights as protected by the Charter were violated.

Yep, slavery and segregation had a lot of support too at one time.

The charter would not be violated if civil unions were offered, providing they are offered to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. So, if the government, instead of legislating "marriage" only legislated "civil-unions" everything would be fine.

When it comes to gambling the gov't is acting like an agressive drug pusher and is going out of its way to encourage people to gamble as much as possible. Furthermore, statistics show that a large chunk of the revenue from gambling comes from problem gamblers which makes gov't little better than a vampire living off the misery of families with a gambling addiction. None of these arguments apply to alcohol, tobacco, sex or food. I don't argue that gov't should ban all gambling. Small scale charity casinos and lotteries are worthwhile for no reason other than ensuring that a blackmarket does not develop. However, VLTs in bars and other highly addictive forms of gambling should be banned. I'll agree with you that the government should't be encouraging people to gamble. It is hypocritical that the government which severely restricts and curtails tabacco advertising and promotion, pursue's a strategy of gambling promotion when its financial interest is at stake. In my view, the government should not be in either the gambling (lotteries, casinos, VLTs) or alcohol business. Neither should it be profiting from these businesses. However, while I don't feel it is an area the government should be engaged in as a supplier, neither do I think it should be banned.

Interestingly just because some people are addicted to sex or food, the government doesn't try to restrict access to it. Why should gambling be any different?

Nocrap, my sincerest wishes to the continued progress of your grandson. Your wishes and your stated intentions, mirror what any caring person would want for a loved one, but what I don't understand is why you would want to preclude that option to everyone including yourself? If in your search you found that an alternative treatment was available in Canada, but was not provided by public healthcare, wouild you not want the ability to purchse it? I think you have already answered that. But what you have not anwered is how you can hold two opposite positions. Can it be you hold one position for your self and another for the public?

What exactly do you mean by ETHNIC IMMIGRATION? Is there any other kind of immigration which you do agree with which would be good for the country? Care to guess which government set the highest level of immigration to Canada? Trudeau? Nope, guess again. Chretien? Nope. It was Brian Mulroney. I would understand the complexity if you presented a case and evidence. You have not. I happen to agree that we can reduce immigration levels, however we must take steps to compensate for our reliance on a growing population. My reasons for stabilizing immigration are vastly different than yours, and I certainly am not blaming immigrants and foreigners for driving up property prices. BTW, there is no reason for me to call your opinions racist, your posts do that job quite well.