# US National defence and Canadian Multiculturalism Collide



## Cloud Cover (20 Aug 2004)

From this morning's London Free Press:


*GM Defense, CAW targets of security rule complaints


PETER GEIGEN-MILLER, Free Press Reporter*    2004-08-20 03:24:57    

  
They were sent home from work at GM Defense two years ago because their dual nationality didn't satisfy U.S. security concerns. Now some of the 170 workers sent home from the defence contactor that day have filed complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, claiming the company has discriminated against them on the basis of national origin. 

In a second action, six workers are filing an Ontario Labour Relations Board complaint against their own union, saying the Canadian Auto Workers failed to represent them adequately when they filed grievances against GM. 

A group of the workers gathered at the Lerners law office in London yesterday, the second anniversary of their abrupt layoff, to talk about the emotional impact of the experience and its aftermath. 

All of the workers caught in the layoff share a common characteristic. 

All are dual nationals, holding citizenship in Canada and another country. 

Many were long-term GM employees, some with more than 25 years service. 

They worked in everything from quality control to plant maintenance. 

The company's action against the workers grew out of GM's $6 billion contract to build Stryker light armoured vehicles for the U.S. Army. 

The contract brought GM into the orbit of the American International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). 

The regulations, meant to safeguard American defence production, put employees with dual citizenship in contravention of licencing agreements governing people with access to U.S. military equipment. 

For the workers who gathered yesterday, the story began on Aug. 19, 2002, when they were told to leave their posts. 

Some were invited to a meeting before their removal. Others were escorted from the plant. 

A week after they were sent home, many of the employees were told by GM to return to work. 

To their dismay, the returning employees found working life was anything but normal. 

Helga Brillon, whose job in plant maintenance requires her to have access to the entire plant, said her movements are restricted. 

"Before, I was able to work in every area," she said. "Since coming back, I must have a supervisor or someone who is ITAR-compliant with me when I move around." 

Brillon has lived her entire life in Canada, but has dual citizenship because of her German-born parents. 

Elie Faysal, who has Canadian-Lebanese citizenship and has worked for the company for 26 years, said his movements in the plant have been restricted since he came back to work and his access to information and computer data has been limited. 

"It's degrading, humiliating and mentally exhausting dealing with this issue -- both personally and for my family," said Faysal. 

Other workers present yesterday told similar stories of limitations on their movements and on access to information they need to do their jobs. 

Leanna Simpson, the lawyer heading up the human rights and labour board complaints for Lerners, said workers have been told their problems will disappear if they're willing to renounce their dual citizenship. 

Some workers are not willing to do that because they want to retain links to their country of origin. 

Others with dual U.K.-Canadian citizenship are prohibited by Britain from dropping their U.K. citizenship, said Simpson. 

She said GM has not responded to the issues raised in the complaints to the human rights commission. 

Instead, when the commission appointed an investigator to look into some of the complaints, the company responded with "procedural rebuttals," arguing the complaints had not been filed in time, said Simpson. 

The company response is without merit, she said. "But this delays the process." 

The labour board complaint says the CAW has "unfairly and arbitrarily" failed to pursue their grievances against GM, a breach of the union's responsibilities under the Labour Relations Act. 

An official at the union's national office had no comment yesterday, saying the complaint has not been received. 

GM could not be reached for comment. 

GM's London operations have since been bought by U.S.-based defence giant General Dynamics. 

Copyright © The London Free Press 2001,2002,2003


----------



## Michael Dorosh (21 Aug 2004)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> My recommendations....
> 
> for those who want to do business with the US government, I suggest follow their rules and regulations or don't bid on the work.  Seems simple enough.....



The US government has no business thinking it can dictate policy within Canadian borders....seems simple enough....


----------



## rdschultz (21 Aug 2004)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> My recommendations....
> 
> for those who want to do business with the US government, I suggest follow their rules and regulations or don't bid on the work. Seems simple enough.....



Fair enough, but thats not what this article is about.  Its about Canadian workers of a US company, operating in Canada, which does business with the US government.  The fact that some of them have worked there for decades (i.e. long before they started making the Stryker) indicates they are upset that this contract forced them to go from effective workers to ineffective ones.  Which is a valid beef in one aspect, but many seem unwilling to comprimise (i.e. denounce one citizenship, or put up with requiring an escort), so I say fuck 'em. 



			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> The US government has no business thinking it can dictate policy within Canadian borders....seems simple enough....



Again, that isn't what this is about.  Its not the US dictating our policy, its about GM having a contract.  If they want to produce the item, they have to meet the standards.  If they can't (which isn't the case, its the workers who are pissed because they did), or our labour standards prevent them from doing so (which remains to be determined), they shouldn't have bidded on the contract in the first place.  

Besides, if Canada wants to hang out with the US, and the US requires something out of the partnership, we can't really complain about it.  We either put up with the requirement, or we don't, and just never talk to them again.


----------



## clasper (21 Aug 2004)

While I see the need to limit access to the plant for someone who may carry (for example) a Syrian passport, should this security rule apply to dual citizens of NATO allies?  I would think that UK or German citizens could be vetted for security risks just as easily as Canadian citizens.

But as has been said, these are the rules GM accepted when they bid for the contract.  The regulations may not be the most sensible, but governments have come up with dumber rules in the past.


----------



## Goober (21 Aug 2004)

hoser said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Again, that isn't what this is about.   Its not the US dictating our policy, its about GM having a contract.   If they want to produce the item, they have to meet the standards.   If they can't (which isn't the case, its the workers who are pissed because they did), or our labour standards prevent them from doing so (which remains to be determined), they shouldn't have bidded on the contract in the first place.
> 
> ...



Regardless, its discrimination, and against Canadian law. However, its the courts that will determin if its discrimination or not.



> Besides, if Canada wants to hang out with the US, and the US requires something out of the partnership, we can't really complain about it.   We either put up with the requirement, or we don't, and just never talk to them again.



Its not that simple, sorry. Whether we choose to "hang out" with the US or not doesn't matter. Were joined at the hip. The Canada-US trade relationship is the largest in the world worth more than $440 billion US last year alone. Its a two way street, and you can't say we can't complain about the US taking thier ball home.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (21 Aug 2004)

clasper said:
			
		

> While I see the need to limit access to the plant for someone who may carry (for example) a Syrian passport, should this security rule apply to dual citizens of NATO allies?  I would think that UK or German citizens could be vetted for security risks just as easily as Canadian citizens.
> 
> But as has been said, these are the rules GM accepted when they bid for the contract.  The regulations may not be the most sensible, but governments have come up with dumber rules in the past.



And some Syrian national who hasn't lived in the middle east since he was six years old, who has called Canada home his entire adult life, and whose job it is to solder wires onto an instrument panel is somehow going to cause catastrophic damage to the entire Stryker fleet and put American national security at risk?

More evidence of a growing police state in the US, whose xenophobia I had presumed previously to have limits.  The only people to use the term "foreign national", in my experience, who have been the US, who use the term like it's a dirty word.

Then again, their President also used the deeply offensive racial epithet "Paki" in public because he simply didn't know any better.


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Aug 2004)

I am also interested in the portion of the article where the CAW is taking it on chin the with respect to it's duty of fair representation [DFP] of the unionized employees. Advancing a breach of DFP against a union involves meeting a very high threshold, much higher than what is expected of an employer, so IMO, there is more going on here than what is being reported. Incidentally, similar to many universities in Ontario, there were isolated incidents of deeply offensive celebration in some local CAW plants in response to the 911 attacks, but to my knowledge, the GDSL plant was not included. And, just to be clear, the CAW did not organize/condone/support those incidents, however if required, they would have vigorously supported their members right to freedom of expression, just not on company time. 

The case should be a slam dunk for the aggreived employees, they have an overwhelming tide of  case law on their side. IMO more power to them, however the whole  incident could have  been avoided with a little better managerial and political leadership.

Parts of the case referred in the article was nurtured and supported by cross cultural organizations in the locality of the plant. Once, for the heck of it, I went to one of their meetings on Dundas St., it was one of the most disturbing meetings I have ever attended, not for it's content, but for the sheer volume of private expressions of hatred against all things American ....    IMO the local economy will probably never see another 6billion dollar investment from the US like that again, and Canada will probably lose this very important defence production facility.


----------



## rdschultz (21 Aug 2004)

Goober said:
			
		

> Regardless, its discrimination, and against Canadian law. However, its the courts that will determin if its discrimination or not.



It obviously is discrimination, as it fits the very definition.  Whether its legal or not is what remains to be seen.  



> Its not that simple, sorry. Whether we choose to "hang out" with the US or not doesn't matter. Were joined at the hip. The Canada-US trade relationship is the largest in the world worth more than $440 billion US last year alone. Its a two way street, and you can't say we can't complain about the US taking thier ball home.



You're right, its not that simple, I oversimplified.  But my point stands.  If the US defence concerns prevent a Canadian company (or, in this case, an American company with Canadian operations) from fulfilling a contract, then the Canadian company has to either put up, or shut up.  What would you rather see, some workers who can't work because of their citizenship, or a bunch of workers who can't work because the plant is closed down?  

We have every right to complain about Canada-US relations at every juncture.  I just don't think theres a valid complaint here.  From what I can gather, they still employed most/many of the workers, but because of security concerns, their movements were restricted.


----------



## Goober (21 Aug 2004)

hoser said:
			
		

> It obviously is discrimination, as it fits the very definition.   Whether its legal or not is what remains to be seen.



Yes, thats probably a more accurate statement than mine was.





> ...But my point stands.   If the US defence concerns prevent a Canadian company (or, in this case, an American company with Canadian operations) from fulfilling a contract, then the Canadian company has to either put up, or shut up.
> ...



True.



> ...   What would you rather see, some workers who can't work because of their citizenship, or a bunch of workers who can't work because the plant is closed down?
> 
> ...



Good point as well.


----------



## Goober (22 Aug 2004)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Dorosh,
> 
> my CDN Highlander "Friend," we need to have a serious discussion!   By the way, "Yank" is considered a racist epithet (used by British soldiers in the US Revolutionary war), one that I don't appreciate, so please if you see anyone using it in a post, please correct them.....thanks in advance



If Yank is a considered a racist term, why does the US have a baseball team called the Yankies? I always thought that Yank meant a US citizen from the North East.

_[Edit] To clearify, this is an honest question, not a snippy remark._


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Aug 2004)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Dorosh,
> 
> my CDN Highlander "Friend," we need to have a serious discussion!  By the way, "Yank" is considered a racist epithet (used by British soldiers in the US Revolutionary war), one that I don't appreciate, so please if you see anyone using it in a post, please correct them.....thanks in advance



It's a good thing that particular war has been over for 200 years, then, because I would hate to offend someone in a powdered wig and tight pants, my Yankee friend.


----------



## clasper (22 Aug 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> And some Syrian national who hasn't lived in the middle east since he was six years old, who has called Canada home his entire adult life, and whose job it is to solder wires onto an instrument panel is somehow going to cause catastrophic damage to the entire Stryker fleet and put American national security at risk?



Your hypothetical Syrian would have difficulty obtaining a security clearance if he didn't renounce his Syrian citizenship, so why should we allow him access to sensitive military equipment?   The Stryker instrument panel may not be the most sensitive piece of equipment around, but we should be more discrete about it than the dashboard of a minivan.



> More evidence of a growing police state in the US, whose xenophobia I had presumed previously to have limits.   The only people to use the term "foreign national", in my experience, who have been the US, who use the term like it's a dirty word.



When I was living in the US, I didn't mind the term "foreign national", but being called a "resident alien" really rankled.


----------



## loyalcana (22 Aug 2004)

clasper said:
			
		

> Your hypothetical Syrian would have difficulty obtaining a security clearance if he didn't renounce his Syrian citizenship, so why should we allow him access to sensitive military equipment?   The Stryker instrument panel may not be the most sensitive piece of equipment around, but we should be more discrete about it than the dashboard of a minivan.



A Syrian national cannot renounce his citizenship if he is of military age and the process for renouncing your citizenship in Syria is extremely complex(probably intentionally so).


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Aug 2004)

This is Canada, you don't have to be loyal to the country, just to your own interests. 
Re: powdered wigs and tight pants. That must be before the era of the "Clothe the the Gentry" program, you know, the combat smoking jacket with cumber-bun [sp?].


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Aug 2004)

Some workers are not willing to do that because they want to retain links to their country of origin

I hate to see anybody lose thier jobs but.....this stuff is really getting old to me!


----------



## Gunnerlove (22 Aug 2004)

If I was a terrorist hell bent on gathering whatever kind of info on the Stryker that could be usefull to anyone, you can be sure that I would dump my extra citizenship and keep on spying. To think this rule will make any difference to national security is foolish at best. I wonder if this came out of the frenzied bill passing that followed 9/11?

But remember this directive came from the same country that restriced exports of Cadillacs with the night vision system to the middle east and Macintosh computers to the world as they both incorporate dual use technologies. Kind of like my wrenches can work on a Cessna or some wacky Russian flying machine, see dual use and another stupid rule.     

(Note: all you really need to fix a Russian aircraft is an adjustable wrench(Metric), a slot screwdriver, and a unidirectional force generator(hammer) so in reality my wrenches would not be needed) 

 ;D


----------



## lfejoel25 (23 Aug 2004)

Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> If I was a terrorist heck bent on gathering whatever kind of info on the Stryker that could be usefull to anyone, you can be sure that I would dump my extra citizenship and keep on spying. To think this rule will make any difference to national security is foolish at best. I wonder if this came out of the frenzied bill passing that followed 9/11?
> 
> But remember this directive came from the same country that restriced exports of Cadillacs with the night vision system to the middle east and Macintosh computers to the world as they both incorporate dual use technologies. Kind of like my wrenches can work on a Cessna or some wacky Russian flying machine, see dual use and another stupid rule.
> 
> ...




Gunnerlove..... you have obviously not worked on any russian aircraft.  cuz then you'd know that you would need an AMBIDEXTROUS  uniderectional force generator.  because everybody knows that british made right handed unidirectional  force generators don't work on left handed russian inertial insertion connection devices.


----------



## canuck101 (23 Aug 2004)

Nice comments.   The United States of America is not part of Canada they are a Country.  Americans can pass any law that they feel is good for them and we can do nothing about it.  We can bitch all we want but we are not citizens of the United States of America.  We can pass laws that the US may not like and good for us they can do the same.  The difference is they have the most powerful military to back up there laws and what do we have. ;D

cheers


----------



## axeman (23 Aug 2004)

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.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Aug 2004)

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.



You don't think that is going to or will ever happen with our economies so tightly linked do you?


----------



## Goober (23 Aug 2004)

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.



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.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (23 Aug 2004)

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.


----------



## Goober (23 Aug 2004)

Thanks for the correction and the specifics


----------



## hooya (23 Mar 2005)

Anyone knows the update of the case, how's  their complaints of the discrimination of national origin?


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Mar 2005)

There hasn't been a decision yet.


----------



## Dare (24 Mar 2005)

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.


----------



## karl28 (24 Mar 2005)

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 ?


----------



## hooya (24 Mar 2005)

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!


----------



## Cloud Cover (24 Mar 2005)

His name is Paul Cavalluzzo. He's also Mahar Arar's lawyer. POS. Take your cue from that.


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Mar 2011)

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


----------

