Success rate for basic training in Canadian military drops

Good intentions but problematic selection and integration processes. Some of the details are indeed disturbing…:

The success rate for basic training in the Canadian military has dropped to 77 per cent over the past fiscal year as the Canadian Armed Forces grapple with the impact of recruiting changes designed to boost enrolment, according to a leaked internal report.

That compares with a historical average of 85 per cent, according to an internal January, 2026, report by Lieutenant-Colonel Marc Kieley, commandant of the Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School (CFLRS) in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Que. 

His report covers the first three quarters of the 2025-26 fiscal year, which began on April 1 last year.

The number of candidates requiring multiple attempts to graduate rose to 14.89 per cent, far higher than 8.44 per cent in the previous year and significantly above other recent annual rates.

The school conducts basic military qualification (BMQ) training and basic military officer qualification (BMOQ) training for the Forces.

In recent years, the federal government, in an effort boost the size of the military, has opened recruiting to foreign nationals who are permanent residents, begun accepting recruits with certain pre-existing medical conditions and dropped aptitude test requirements, among other changes….

Source: Success rate for basic training in Canadian military drops, Juno, who uncovered the memo, more sensationalist take: EXCLUSIVE: CAF training platoon with 83% non-citizens devolved into ethnic infighting

Foreign nationals defrauded by immigration consultants entitled to compensation under new federal rules

Needed. Will be interesting to see the regulations and (annual?) reporting:

Foreign nationals defrauded by unscrupulous immigration consultants, including by being sold fake jobs in Canada, will be able to access compensation, under forthcoming regulations from the immigration department. 

Ottawa earlier this month issued an order to bring in regulations establishing a fund to compensate clients found to have been ripped off by licensed immigration consultants. 

The College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants, which would run the fund, regulates and licenses immigration consultants, practising both in Canada and abroad. 

Foreign nationals can currently complain to the college, which adjudicates on such matters and can fine consultants, but the regulations would create a compensation fund for exploited clients.

The development follows concerns that some licensed consultants have been running scams, including selling jobs to migrants that do not exist, or charging foreign nationals tens of thousands of dollars to obtain a job available to a foreign national in Canada. …

But Toronto immigration lawyer Ravi Jain said the establishment of a compensation fund is a “band-aid solution” to the problem of wrongdoing and bad advice being given by some immigration consultants. 

He said “some immigration consultants strive to be diligent,” but the public would be best served if immigration consultants were required to work with lawyers. 

“They are practising law and even some of the good ones don’t know what they don’t know and the client is left holding the bag,” he said. 

Source: Foreign nationals defrauded by immigration consultants entitled to compensation under new federal rules

Lisée | Les frères invisibles

More on Quebec Muslim Brotherhood fears:

…Une source policière québécoise me rapporte que les services fédéraux — sauf, de toute évidence, l’Agence du revenu du Canada — sont timides lorsque vient le temps de mener des enquêtes qui pourraient générer un ressac dans les communautés culturelles et religieuses visées. Une accusation d’islamophobie est si vite arrivée. Et il est vrai que, comme la majorité des communautés culturelles, les musulmans canadiens ont voté en masse (65 %) pour le Parti libéral du Canada l’an dernier. Chacun a aussi bien noté que premier ministre Mark Carney s’est présenté, six semaines après les élections, à un événement de l’AMC.

Cela rappelle l’extrême prudence, sinon la pusillanimité, affichée par les libéraux de Justin Trudeau face à l’ingérence de la Chine au Canada, particulièrement dans sa diaspora. Tout cela est paradoxal, car l’action des Frères musulmans et de leurs alliés nuit considérablement aux musulmans modérés qui forment la majorité des fidèles. Un effort conséquent de vigilance et d’action pour neutraliser l’action des extrémistes est au contraire dans l’intérêt général, et dans l’intérêt particulier de la communauté.

“On est en droit de noter que l’action de la GRC la plus intense contre les réseaux fréristes à Montréal s’est déployée lorsque les conservateurs fédéraux étaient au pouvoir à Ottawa, donc avant l’élection de Justin Trudeau en 2015. Il est difficile de croire que ce sont les Frères qui se sont assagis depuis. Auraient-ils jugé que l’effervescence entourant la cause palestinienne dans les campus l’an dernier ne serait pas une bonne occasion de recrutement et de financement ?

Croire que l’évocation d’une présence toxique des Frères dans nos sociétés est une « théorie du complot », comme on l’a entendu la semaine dernière à Ottawa, est plutôt un signe de l’existence chez les libéraux fédéraux de ce qu’on appelle, dans les milieux subversifs, des « idiots utiles ».

Source: Chronique | Les frères invisibles

… A Quebec police source tells me that the federal services — except, obviously, the Canada Revenue Agency — are shy when it comes to conducting investigations that could generate a hangover in the cultural and religious communities targeted. An accusation of Islamophobia came so quickly. And it is true that, like the majority of cultural communities, Canadian Muslims voted en masse (65%) for the Liberal Party of Canada last year. Everyone also noted that Prime Minister Mark Carney presented himself, six weeks after the elections, at a CMA event.

This is reminiscent of the extreme caution, if not the pusillanimity, displayed by Justin Trudeau’s liberals in the face of China’s interference in Canada, particularly in its diaspora. All this is paradoxical, because the action of the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies considerably harms moderate Muslims who form the majority of the faithful. A consistent effort of vigilance and action to neutralize the action of extremists is on the contrary in the general interest, and in the particular interest of the community.

“It is right to note that the most intense action of the RCMP against the fraternist networks in Montreal was deployed when the federal Conservatives were in power in Ottawa, so before the election of Justin Trudeau in 2015. It is hard to believe that it is the Brothers who have been tasting each other since then. Would they have judged that the excitement surrounding the Palestinian cause on campuses last year would not be a good opportunity for recruitment and funding?

To believe that the evocation of a toxic presence of the Brothers in our societies is a “conspiracy theory”, as we heard last week in Ottawa, is rather a sign of the existence among the federal liberals of what is called, in subversive circles, “useful idiots”.

Jedwab: Indépendance du Québec et de l’Alberta: La double citoyenneté est loin d’être garantie

True. Experience of the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic is illustrative, residents became citizens or either based upon residency. Over time, Czech Republic’s allowed dual citizenship, Slovak not:

…Cela impliquerait des choix difficiles. Qui conserverait le droit de vote ? Quels droits seraient maintenus ou limités ? Comment définir l’appartenance politique dans un contexte de séparation ? Quelles seront les obligations qui vont émerger ?

Autant de questions qui ne trouveront de réponse qu’à travers des négociations complexes – et très probablement conflictuelles.

L’opinion publique illustre déjà l’ampleur du défi. Selon un sondage Léger réalisé en janvier 2026 pour l’Association d’études canadiennes, une majorité de Canadiens hors Québec s’oppose à ce que les Québécois conservent la citoyenneté canadienne après une éventuelle indépendance. Au Québec, c’est l’inverse : une majorité souhaite la préserver.

Deux visions difficilement conciliables.

Dans ce contexte, présenter la double citoyenneté comme un acquis relève davantage de la stratégie politique que de la réalité juridique. La prudence des indépendantistes albertains – qui parlent de possibilité – reconnaît implicitement cette incertitude.

Car rien ne garantit que le Canada accepterait qu’une large population étrangère conserve durablement des droits politiques complets. Une telle situation soulèverait des enjeux évidents de souveraineté, de représentation et de légitimité démocratique.

Il faut aussi reconnaître une réalité souvent sous-estimée : la citoyenneté canadienne demeure extrêmement populaire.

Deux Canadiens sur trois préfèrent être citoyens du Canada que de tout autre pays. Les Québécois (71 %) figurent parmi ceux qui expriment le plus fortement cet attachement, les Albertains étant un peu moins enthousiastes (61 %).

Même là où l’on parle d’indépendance, pour la majorité, le lien à la citoyenneté canadienne reste profond.

C’est précisément ce qui explique l’émergence de cette idée d’une indépendance sans véritable rupture. On propose de quitter le Canada… tout en conservant ce qu’il offre de plus précieux.

Au Québec et en Alberta, la souveraineté ne sera pas un exercice symbolique. Elle implique la création d’un État distinct, avec ses propres règles, ses propres institutions et son propre ordre politique et juridique.

La double citoyenneté, dans ce contexte, est loin d’être garantie. C’est plutôt une hypothèse qui dépendra de négociations, de rapports de force – et d’un Canada qui, inévitablement, devra redéfinir les conditions mêmes de sa citoyenneté.

Source: Indépendance du Québec et de l’Alberta: La double citoyenneté est loin d’être garantie

… This would involve difficult choices. Who would keep the right to vote? What rights would be maintained or limited? How to define political belonging in a context of separation? What obligations will emerge?

So many questions that will only be answered through complex negotiations – and most likely conflictual.

Public opinion is already illustrating the scale of the challenge. According to a Léger survey conducted in January 2026 for the Canadian Studies Association, a majority of Canadians outside Quebec are opposed to Quebecers retaining Canadian citizenship after possible independence. In Quebec, it is the opposite: a majority wants to preserve it.

Two visions that are difficult to reconcile.

In this context, presenting dual citizenship as a given is more of a political strategy than a legal reality. The prudence of Alberta’s independence supporters – who speak of possibility – implicitly recognizes this uncertainty.

Because there is no guarantee that Canada would accept that a large foreign population retains full political rights in the long term. Such a situation would raise obvious issues of sovereignty, representation and democratic legitimacy.

We must also recognize a reality that is often underestimated: Canadian citizenship remains extremely popular.

Two out of three Canadians would rather be citizens of Canada than any other country. Quebecers (71%) are among those who most strongly express this attachment, Albertans being a little less enthusiastic (61%).

Even where we talk about independence, for the majority, the link to Canadian citizenship remains deep.

This is precisely what explains the emergence of this idea of independence without real rupture. We propose to leave Canada… while keeping what it offers most valuable.

In Quebec and Alberta, sovereignty will not be a symbolic exercise. It involves the creation of a separate state, with its own rules, its own institutions and its own political and legal order.

Dual citizenship, in this context, is far from guaranteed. Rather, it is a hypothesis that will depend on negotiations, a balance of power – and a Canada that will inevitably have to redefine the very conditions of its citizenship.

Semotiuk: Canada’s Immigration System Is Quietly Losing Its Balance

One series of suggestions to deal with the current numbers, overly expansionist IMO. Administration of a “one generation rule” (he doesn’t specify what would count as a generation, normally that would be about 20-30 years) would be challenging, with the requirement for community service even more challenging:

…First, Canada should establish a clear, automatic pathway to permanent residence for long-term temporary residents. When an individual has completed two full work permit cycles—or two post-secondary study cycles—typically six years or more of lawful residence, employment, and tax contributions—a pathway to permanent residence should open as a matter of course, provided the individual has complied with Canadian laws.

At some point, time invested in Canada must count. A clearly defined pathway to permanent residence for these people is one way to demonstrate this.

Second, Canada must confront the reality of undocumented individuals living within its borders. It is estimated that about 500,000 such individuals live in Canada. Most are visa overstays; some crossed the U.S.-Canada border irregularly or entered by car, boat, or plane. Many have spent years—sometimes decades—working, contributing, and raising families in the shadows. Many are from countries they fled because of poverty, violence, or war, including Ukraine. A rational system cannot indefinitely ignore this reality. These people live in the shadows and are prevented from building ordinary lives and families. They are vulnerable to criminals, gangsters, and exploiters. Their status erodes the respect our system of justice should enjoy.

A one-generation rule should apply: individuals who have lived in Canada for a sustained period approximating a generation, demonstrated good character, and contributed to society should be granted a pathway to permanent residence. To compensate for jumping the immigration queue, they should be subject to a financial penalty and a period of mandatory community service, such as helping the sick or cleaning up their hometowns, to qualify for permanent residence. Bringing people out of the legal shadows strengthens—not weakens—the rule of law.

Third, Canada should abandon its rigid and largely arbitrary cap on annual permanent-resident admissions, currently set at approximately 385,000. That number may serve administrative planning, but it makes little policy sense in a country already hosting millions of temporary residents. The cap artificially constrains the transition of individuals who are already here, already contributing, and already integrated. Immigration policy should prioritize outcomes, not quotas. There is little substantive difference between someone living in Canada on a temporary work permit and a permanent resident, aside from the temporary status of a work permit holder.

Meanwhile, numerous studies have shown that Canada needs more immigrants. In fact, Canada does not lack immigrants. It lacks a mechanism to recognize those it already has.

Source: Canada’s Immigration System Is Quietly Losing Its Balance

CIMM: Canada’s Immigration System – IRGC

Of note:

That, further to the testimony from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) on March 9, 2026 related to the presence of agents of the Iranian Regime and agents of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in Canada, and further to the committee’s study on Canada’s immigration system, and further to the imminent danger that the presence of IRGC officials and regime agents in Canada may pose to Canadian public safety, the committee report the following to the House:

  1. Government officials have admitted the known presence of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officials and regime agents residing in Canada;
  2. There are gaps in legislation and procedures that may allow IRGC officials to avoid detection prior to arrival and deportation after;
  3. The Government should exercise the full force of the existing law regarding the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist entity, specifically by expediting the execution of deportation orders of regime officials who are non-citizens under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act;
  4. The Government should immediately undertake a comprehensive review of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with an eye to modernize it to prevent regime officials from avoiding deportation by:
  5. Clearly ensuring non-citizens are deemed inadmissible if involved in regime-linked businesses, spreading propaganda, or human rights abuses;
  6. Extend inadmissibility to immediate non-citizen family members of regime officials; and
  7. Create an exemption from non-refoulement protections for inadmissible non-citizen regime officials proven to be complicit in human rights abuses.
  8. The Government should, within 30 calendar days following the passing of this motion, table a report to Parliament explaining why it has not made public the identities of known non-citizens who are Iranian regime officials or agents who are currently present in Canada; and
  9. It is imperative that the Government stop approving refugee claims from nations with regimes hostile to Canada without an in person interview being conducted first;
  10. That the Government of Canada undertake a thorough legal review of the measures raised above to ensure consistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada’s international legal obligations.

Source: CIMM: Canada’s Immigration System – IRGC

Geist: Why the Senate got antisemitism only half-right

Valid critique:

…The deepest irony lies in what the report says it wants to restore. Deborah Lyons, the previous Special Envoy on Combatting Antisemitism, understood the problem the Senate does not. Her handbook on the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism exists because anti-Zionist language was being used to launder antisemitism, and Canadian institutions, police, educators, and civil servants needed a working framework to distinguish legitimate, protected criticism of Israeli government policy from hate.

The handbook is explicit that Canadians can criticize the Israeli government at length and stay on the right side of the antisemitism line. But deploying double standards, contesting the country’s right to exist, or treating its Jewish supporters as legitimate targets of violence or political exclusion is another matter. The House Justice Committee reached the same conclusion in 2024. The Senate now recommends restoring Lyons’s office while declining the analytical work that made it useful.

For months, Jewish Canadians have argued that words are not enough. Neither, it turns out, is a report that documents the problem and declines to name half of it.

Source: Why the Senate got antisemitism only half-right

Have a Canadian Great-Great Grandparent? It Could Make You Canadian.

More US coverage to the C-3 changes, this from the NYT. Keeps on amazing me that nobody, including myself, noted this implication during discussions of the Bill:

…The change could extend Canadian citizenship to “potentially millions of people around the world, many of whom have never lived in Canada and may have only a distant ancestral tie to it,” said Rick Lamanna, a Toronto-based partner at Fragomen, a global immigration and relocation company.

The new policy, he added, stood in contrast both to those of other advanced economies seeking to limit immigration, and to the Canada’s own significant tightening of other immigration routes.

In the last two years, Canada has slashed the numbers of foreign students, temporary workers and the number of permanent residents. That has already resulted in Canada’s population shrinking.

The policy expanding who can qualify for Canadian citizenship also stands in stark contrast to the evolving discourse about who should be American in the United States, where President Trump wants to see even birthright citizenship curtailed.

Among developed economies, Canada now has one of the most inclusive rules on passing down citizenship generation to generation.

Until 2024, Italy offered citizenship by descent without any generational limit, a path many Americans utilized, but it has since limited citizenship to people with an Italian parent or grandparent.

Only a handful of other countries have in recent years broadened their citizenship to people with more distant ancestry, including Portugal and Slovakia, but with some limitations.

The burden of proof to pursue this new route to becoming Canadian is still significant, a spokesman for the Canadian immigration ministry said, particularly since it could require deep archival research and recovering documents that could be more than a century old.

“While these recent changes extended access to Canadian citizenship by descent, having distant Canadian ancestry alone does not make someone automatically eligible,” said Matthew Krupovich, a spokesman for the immigration ministry.

Documents that meet the bar for the Canadian authorities can include birth certificates, citizenship or naturalization certificates, or other official records showing family relationships and citizenship status, but not information gleaned from genetic testing.

There is early evidence that the new rules are already spurring higher demand for historical records. The Nova Scotia Archives, for example, has seen a sharp increase in requests for official copies of historical records, from about 260 requests in all of 2024 to about 1,500 in just the first three months of 2026, said John Macleod, a manager at the archives.

Still, the numbers for the first few weeks since the changes have gone into effect also highlight that most people fail to secure citizenship. Between Dec. 15 and Jan. 31, about 6,280 applications for proof of citizenship were processed by the Canadian authorities. Of those, 1,480 were confirmed as citizens by descent under the new rules, the immigration ministry said.

The motivation behind pursuing Canadian citizenship varies from person to person. …

Source: Have a Canadian Great-Great Grandparent? It Could Make You Canadian.

Adams and Parkin: Polls are getting more and more insane

Good discussion of current polling challenges and arguments to track evolving attitudes and values:

…There is a still a role for responsible pollsters in these crazy times. Tracking approval ratings remains useful. Currently, the erosion of Mr. Trump’s approval at the very least offers much-needed encouragement to the citizens who oppose him. Taking the long view can be productive as well: Comparing public views today on a consistent set of metrics to those from years past can offer more signal than noise compared to overnight reactions to another outlandish statement.

We should also shift our focus to tracking more enduring values. It is natural to want to know whether opinions are shifting on the President’s policies. What we really need to know, however, is how social values are evolving. Have Americans really become more accepting of violence, more religious, more patriarchal, less cosmopolitan, or less interested in other cultures? This type of polling attracts less attention, yet ultimately gives us the clues we need about what’s driving America’s deepening ideological cleavages.

When the polling industry took off in the middle of the 20th century, led by George Gallup and others, it challenged the ability of politicians to claim, without risk of contradiction, that they spoke for the people. Polls tested those claims, ensuring that the voice of every citizen could be heard. The mission of survey research helped strengthen democracy then, and can continue to do so now. Only a genuine faker would call them fake news. 

Source: Polls are getting more and more insane

Kazemzadeh: Canada’s Arctic security depends on more than defence — here’s how immigration could help

The Arctic argument (only about 300 Permanent Residents in 2025, about 1,000 TRs IMP):

…Immigration and migration are usually considered part of economic policy. In the Arctic, they’re also a security strategy.

Research shows that immigration can help address demographic and labour challenges in rural and northern regions. However, attracting newcomers is only part of the equation — retaining them remains a major challenge.

Statistics Canada data shows that retention rates vary widely across regions, with northern and smaller communities often struggling to keep newcomers over the long term.

This matters for security. A temporary workforce doesn’t build resilient communities. Long-term settlement does. If newcomers to the North stay, they contribute to infrastructure development, local economies and essential services. They become part of the social fabric that supports everything from search-and-rescue operations to climate adaptation efforts….

Canada’s Arctic sovereignty has long been associated with geography and military presence. But sovereignty is now also about resilience — the ability of communities to live, work and thrive in the North.

The Centre for Immigrant Research, a Calgary-based Canadian think tank, argues in its recent work on the North that immigration and migration — when thoughtfully designed and implemented in partnership with Indigenous and territorial governments — can play a key role in strengthening regional resilience and national sovereignty.

Therefore, Canada has an opportunity to rethink its approach. While defence investments are essential, they aren’t sufficient on their own. In the Arctic, security ultimately depends on people — and on ensuring they are able to build and sustain long-term lives in the North.

Source: Canada’s Arctic security depends on more than defence — here’s how immigration could help