Poilievre fordert, dass ein vorübergehendes Programm für ausländisches Arbeiter verschrottet wird

I’m gonna do an unpopular thing and try to highlight how difficult it is to intervene on this issue set in a way that gets young and low-credential domestic workers out ahead financially.

While TFW and LMIA programs are designed to address genuine labour shortages, their widespread use in low-wage sectors has contributed to wage stagnation and job market crowd-out for domestic youth and low-credentialed workers. Eliminating or capping these programs may improve short-term employment opportunities and wage floors in some sectors, but this comes with trade-offs: higher consumer prices, reduced business productivity, and the risk of closures in service and seasonal industries. Although government programs (such as training subsidies, mobility supports, and job placement services) are often proposed to bridge the labour gap, these interventions frequently fall short. Mismatched training, geographic immobility, and employer resistance limit their effectiveness, especially when the underlying labour market incentives remain unchanged.

The core issue is that most policy responses are program-based, assuming that access alone (to training or relocation) will lead to better outcomes. In reality, both workers and employers respond to incentives (cost, stability, and return on effort). Without changing those underlying incentive structures (e.g., through wage floors, targeted hiring subsidies, payroll tax shifts, or levies on excessive TFW use), program uptake remains low and labour market distortions persist. For low-income youth to meaningfully benefit, policy must go beyond service delivery and instead realign the cost-benefit calculus for all actors in the labour market. It would require the difficult task of making it genuinely more attractive for employers to invest in domestic labour, and more worthwhile for young workers to enter and remain in the workforce.

Weird how he complains about something many Conservatives use for their businesses… almost like a double standard.

Danielle Smith is complaining about TFW while she spent millions on a Alberta is calling ad.

You made the fire, you can’t complain about the smoke.

Well… okay but this would absolutely spike labour costs and create shortages in low paying jobs. Again, he creates an overly simplistic headline without any consideration for the cause and effect that goes with it. If this were to happen you would also need to raise the minimum wage everywhere, but he won’t say that because that means he has to have the conversation about the what if: „If the workers at McDonalds are making $24/hour, what is the incentive for me to go to college for 4 years to get a 25$/hour job?

Just CPC enthusiasm management.

It’s not a great time for the party after an embarrassing loss and with Trump tarnishing the conservative movement. 

While immigration isn’t really one of the leading issues for voters (despite many overly-online conservatives believing it is universally issue #1 in Canada), it’s a good subject to rage bait the base with and drive enthusiasm.

Pierre is likely years away from a general election, if he even survives as leader until then, so there’s no real stakes to this comment. 

“Poilievre says the fault doesn’t lie with the temporary foreign workers themselves but with the Liberal government and „liberal corporate elites“ who are exploiting these workers to enrich themselves”

lol I am sure that the “conservative corporate elites” don’t use TFWs as well to enrich themselves.

PP is right that the TFW as it exist needs to be scrapped or seriously downsized but he can’t propose anything without trying to make it a wedge issue with the liberals.

He’s been hanging out with Nigel Farage in the UK. He sees how immigration has worked against Labour in Britain, and he intends to follow the same playbook here.

Whether you like PP or not, this is the correct position to take. TFWs as cheap labour needs to stop immediately. Hopefully the NDP and Bloc take the same stance.