• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US National defence and Canadian Multiculturalism Collide

axeman said:
What we   have here in Canada is a small mostly professional army i use the word army to include the navy and airforce also . I do not like the policy that they removed the Canadian workers from their jobs , BUT IT IS THEIR COMPANY. What we can do is refuse to purchase goods and services provided by the USA and the ppl that decided french fries and french toast wasnt good enough for them , it's now freedom fries and freedom toast etc. :cdn:

GM the parent company made the deal, the problem is it was GM Canada who sent the workers home, and only let them return after restricting thier movements and access to info.

Noone is questioning what the US can do in thier country. The problem is when a Canadian company (GM Canada) breaks Canadian law to comply.
 
I don't think so, Goober.

If my memory serves (sometimes it does!), the original contract was between the US Government and GM DD (General Motors Diesel Division), which made the LAV series of vehicles.  GM DD at the time, came under the corporate umbrella of GM, but GM DD was most certainly based in Canada.  I don't believe that GM Canada was directly involved.  I say that, because I am sure the press announcement was "GM DD announces the signing of a contract...."

Now, of course, GM DD is no more.  It is all part of GDLS now..

So, if GMDD signed the contract, which would include all the employment criterias that would have to be met, then GMDD would have to enforce the terms of the contract.  That obviously meant restricting access to some workers, but not reducing pay, benefits, or responsibilities.  Now, the question is, have Canadian firms just forfeited the right to build equipment for the US, given the fact that Canadian law says that if you employ someone, you cannot discriminate?

To me, that seems to be the case.  Canadian firms will no longer be allowed to bid on anything for the Americans that can even remotely be considered confidential, unless of course, all employees of said firm is given security checks that meet US government standards.  And who's going to pay for that?

We can't have our cake and eat it as well, although we try.  We want the American cash, so we want to bid on their contracts.  But, we want to be able to badmouth them, (right Mrs Parrish?), and employ whomever we want, even if they were an immigrant, without security checks.  I say that, because I am pretty sure that if GM DD had done security checks on all of their employees, especially the supervisors, then none of this would have happened in the first place, but this is mere conjecture on my part.
 
Anyone knows the update of the case, how's  their complaints of the discrimination of national origin?
 
Goober said:
Regardless, its discrimination, and against Canadian law. However, its the courts that will determin if its discrimination or not.
If discrimination comes from parsing nationalities, then "Canadian law" is based upon and filled with discrimination. For a court to declare that what it does every day is illegal, is pretty unlikely.
 
I was just thinking how come GM just didn't transfer these workers to a different part of the company that wasn't working on the stryker ? That way US law is up held and workers get to keep there jobs sounds simple enough ?
 
A constitutional and labour lawyer, Paul Cavakkuzzo talked about this case on Troronto Star, "The general rule is 'thou shall not discriminate, but a bona fide occupational requirement would be a defence to this claim".
what a shame on Canadian law!
 
His name is Paul Cavalluzzo. He's also Mahar Arar's lawyer. POS. Take your cue from that.
 
Progress at last?

USA Moves to Improve Arms Export Regulation Process 
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/usa-moves-to-reform-arms-export-regulation-process-04665/

GAO wants Commerce Dept. to do more about foreign nationals working in sensitive industries. (March 7/11)

Canada’s $3 billion frigate modernization program, which specifically aimed to exclude American technologies from key areas, was just one of several examples of a growing problem for American defense firms. Major players in the defense industry have been pushing to change US ITAR export controls for years. Unfortunately, the USA’s use of export controls for protectionist and political purposes have had the predictable effect of making American defense components toxic to several potential international customers. Even as cumbersome rules, and a slow American bureaucracy, add additional layers of export control across more than 3 different agencies, create significant friction for important international deals and partnerships with friends and allies.

On April 20/10, American Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, backed by several other departments, crystallized a reform push that has been underway for years. The proposed “4 singles” approach would make significant changes to American technology export controls...

Mark
Ottawa
 
Back
Top