When you roll logs, chips fly

By Dubi Kanengisser


The Knesset, Israel’s parliament, is going through a rare constitutional moment. Three highly contentious bills  are scheduled to be brought before it this week, each central to the agenda of at least one of the three key coalition members, but grates against others. In a controversial move, the heads of the coalition parties were required to sign a confidential agreement that commits them and all members of their caucus to support all three bills. The letter itself, of course, is widely seen as indicative of the mutual distrust between the leaders of the coalition. That it was leaked further exacerbates this feeling.

The three bills include a change to the long standing policy exempting ultra-orthodox Jews from the draft, central to political newcomer’s Yesh Atid’s platform of “equal share of the burden”; a bill to add a constitutional requirement that any withdrawal from lands controlled by Israel is first ratified by a referendum (this will be the sole scenario where a referendum will be required, or indeed possible, in the Israeli system) – which is pushed by the National Religious party Habayit Hayehudi (“The Jewish Home”), as well as the strong right-wing of the Likud party; and a constitutional amendment  to “strengthen governability” which encompasses a slew of amendments, variously promoted by PM Netanyahu, Israel Beitenu leader Avigdor Lieberman and Yesh Atid, to weaken the Knesset and strengthen the executive, and especially the prime minister within his own government, but which mostly draws fire for its proposal to raise the electoral threshold to 3.25%, a number that primarily threatens the parties representing the Arab minority in Israel and is widely seen as conceived specifically to reduce their representation in the legislature, but it also poses a formidable barrier before potential splinter groups, thus weakening internal opposition groups in both the Jewish Home and Likud. The threshold clause, incidentally, is actually opposed by PM Netanyahu himself. Lieberman was pushing for an even higher threshold.

Logrolling is expected in a coalition, of course. It is assumed that there will be areas where the parties disagree, and will reach a compromise so that each party agrees to some policies it doesn’t like in return for support of its own babies. But there was something about the bluntness and inelegance of this new barrage of bills that has riled up Israel’s fragmented opposition and rallied it to a rare display of resolve. The opposition, powerless to actually stop the bills so long as the coalition adheres to its discipline, decided to boycott the debate and the vote altogether, hoping, perhaps, to draw enough empathy from at least some Members of Knesset in the coalition, to allow it to stop some of the legislation (some of the constitutional amendments require an absolute majority), or, at the very least, to win a public opinion battle and delegitimize the laws once passed.

This is, after all, not a classic case of logrolling – it is a grudging acceptance of what some members of the coalition are openly declaring as bad bills, which they will nonetheless support to get their own way with their own bills. The lack of cohesiveness in the coalition is preventing them from even putting on a show that the three bills make up a real compromise. Instead, it is a staking of (policy) territories, a separation of the political and social field into patronages which exacerbates what is already seen as a fragmentation and “tribalization” of Israeli society. It is issue ownership gone rampant.

The chair of the coalition was caught between a rock and a hard place. He could have separated the three bills, put them up for votes seemingly without any connecting lines between them. But the he would have risked insubordination and the logrolling would break down. The signed agreement, after all, does not stipulate any sanctions on a party that fails to make good on its promise. Pushing the bills together makes the mutual oversight more pronounced in the absence of real sanctions. But grouping the three bills draws attention to this ramshackle coalition. Netanyahu was able to pull through four years of an equally incohesive government in his previous term mainly by not doing much of anything – do not rock the boat was the motto of Netanyahu’s second term as prime minister. Now, perhaps emboldened by his success, he is doubling down on the governance bill, and will not let his pesky newbie coalition members stop him.

But in all this logrolling, the coalition has never thought of reaching out across the aisle and offering anything to the opposition. Far from it: despite its assured majority, the coalition has done everything in its power to stifle the opposition, and is only now trying to backtrack from the procedural changes it attempted to enforce to limit the opposition further during these votes. It is a sign not only of Netanyahu’s contempt to the leaders of the opposition parties (which is rivaled only by his contempt to his fellow coalition leaders), but also of his certainly of his new-found invincibility. He does not offer an olive branch to the opposition because he doesn’t need to, and civility be damned.

The opposition, if it maintains its stand in boycotting the votes, is calling the prime minister’s bluff and asserting that which was once asserted by Menachem Begin, long the head of the opposition under Mapai’s nearly three-decade rule of Israel: if you give up on the opposition’s voice, you have given up on democracy itself.

Debunking misconceptions about Canada’s temporary foreign worker programs

By Dr. Ethel Tungohan

Living in Edmonton, which has a high population of temporary foreign workers, I am aware that the city itself seems to be segmented into areas where migrant workers live, and areas where the rest of Edmonton resides. Although cities like Toronto and Vancouver have more temporary foreign workers than Edmonton, Edmonton’s comparatively smaller size makes such segregation more visible.  When thinking more about these issues, and pondering the different ways temporary foreign workers are treated differently in Edmonton (I’ve blogged before about ‘for rent’ ads that make it clear that certain apartments do not welcome temporary foreign workers), I’ve again come to the epiphany that in Canada, there is a migration hierarchy that determines how people are treated.  Migrant workers are close to the very bottom, arguably next to refugees and to asylum seekers. Despite the labour contributions migrants workers make to Canada, they are constantly harangued for ‘stealing’ jobs away from Canadians and are seen as benefiting from Canada’s ‘generosity’ in allowing them entry, never mind the fact that without these migrant workers, numerous Canadian industries will stagnate.

A lot of Canadians conveniently forget that before employers can hire workers from abroad, they have to provide proof, in the form of ‘labour market opinions,’ that they’ve actually made every effort to fill these jobs with Canadians first.  Long working hours, below average wages, and arduous, painstaking work mean that the jobs taken up by migrant workers are extremely unattractive to the average Canadian.  Hey, it’s not like being a food industry worker or a chicken catcher or a seasonal agricultural worker or an elderly folks caregiver or a child-rearer or a carpenter or a welder – among just a few industries that seek workers abroad – are jobs Canadians gravitate towards.  While there is a substantial unemployment rate, particularly among Canadian youth, it’s not like the skills that un – and under-employed Canadians have coincide with the skills that are needed; although there are programs that give Canadians special incentives to learn a trade or to acquire marketable skills, the number of people graduating from these programs is still not enough to fill in these employment gaps.

I admit that there are obvious flaws to Canada’s temporary foreign worker programs.  I am by no means an apologist for Canada’s policies towards temporary foreign workers.  In some ways, I am even persuaded by the claim that temporary foreign worker programs should be removed in their entirety.  I agree with activists who see temporary foreign worker programs as creating conditions of indentured servitude for migrant workers and believe that temporary foreign worker programs are a manifestation of contemporary imperialism.  Indeed, that there is an increasing number of people coming in through temporary worker programs and a decreasing number of people coming in through permanent immigration channels shows to me that Canada is turning its back to its roots as an immigrant-receiving society and turning towards a more restrictive guest worker model.  I am furious that temporary foreign workers are allowed to be paid less for doing the same work as other Canadians and am upset over the many egregious human rights abuses they face, as well as the social costs that working abroad has caused them and their families.  Perhaps in a future post, I will discuss these concerns in greater detail.

For now, though, I hope to debunk jingoistic perceptions about migrant workers. Migrant workers aren’t coming here in droves to usurp Canadians’ employment prospects. They can’t because of the regulations discussed earlier.  Migrant workers don’t overburden Canadian social services.  Numerous studies, such as those undertaken by political scientists Keith Banting and Will Kymlicka, actually show that when they can access social services (and note that a lot can’t), they use social services at the same rate as Canadians.  Finally, migrant workers aren’t a threat to the ‘Canadian way of life’.  They are members of our community. They live, work, and pay taxes in Canada. They go to the same shopping malls, eat in the same restaurants, go to the same churches.  They are a vital part of Canada.

Reposted From.