Statement by Liberal Party of Canada Leader Justin Trudeau on the anniversary of multiculturalism

To note the language used (have not seen comparable statements by Conservatives and NDP – 44th anniversary after all is not a significant milestone save for the election!):

The Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement on the 44th anniversary of Canada’s official policy of multiculturalism:

 “Today marks the 44th anniversary of Canada’s adoption of an official policy of multiculturalism.

 “Since 1971, our policy of multiculturalism has proudly reflected Canada’s unique cultural diversity. Canadians are united by our shared values and steadfast commitment to freedom and equality. Multiculturalism reaffirms our belief that individual and cultural community contributions enhance and enrich our national fabric.

 “Canadians have proven that a nation can be strong not in spite of our differences but because of them, and we all have a responsibility to be custodians of this country’s character. Canada’s success is rooted in its unique approach to liberty through inclusive diversity. While we have built vital institutions like the Charter, sustaining this liberty requires continued political leadership.

 “On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, I join Canadians from coast to coast to coast in celebration of the anniversary of Canada’s official policy of multiculturalism.”

Source: » Statement by Liberal Party of Canada Leader Justin Trudeau on the anniversary of multiculturalism

NOTA – None of the above (#371)

“Votez blanc” (blank vote or None of the Above – NOTA) and the possible translation as “vote white” given current context of identity politics and ‘old stock Canadians’.

Prime Minister’s Office ordered halt to refugee processing: Globe article and response

Following this Globe story, PM Harper stated that:

… when it comes to admitting refugees, his government ensures the selection of the most vulnerable people while keeping the country safe and secure.

“The audit we asked for earlier this year was to ensure that these policy objectives are being met. Political staff are never involved in approving refugee applications,” Harper said. “Such decisions are made by officials in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.”

No PMO vetting of refugees, say Conservatives

But it appears that it was not prompted by security:

Sources tell CTV News that a temporary halt to the processing of some Syrian refugees was ordered earlier this year to make sure the types favoured by the Prime Minister’s Office were being prioritized.

Department of Citizenship and Immigration insiders told CTV’s Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife that PMO staff went through the files to ensure that persecuted religious minorities with established communities already in Canada — ones that Conservative Leader Stephen Harper could court for votes — were being accepted. Insiders say PMO actively discouraged the department from accepting applications from Shia and Sunni Muslims.

Private applications, which are often from church groups, were allowed to continue while the rest were on hold.

Should this be true, it is highly inappropriate both in substance (taking identity and ‘shopping for votes’ politics to a new level) and in process (PMO directed rather than PCO directed), not to mention morally wrong given the impact on refugees and the delays incurred.

During my time at PCO (1998-2000), when PMO had concerns about handling of files, PCO would play a strong policy coordination (and sometimes direction) to departments in close coordination with PMO. But the bureaucratic chain of command was respected.

This indicates a lack of confidence of CIC (and Minister Alexander’s ability to direct the department) to implement preferences for more vulnerable ethnic groups. Globe article that started it all below:

The Prime Minister’s Office directed Canadian immigration officials to stop processing one of the most vulnerable classes of Syrian refugees this spring and declared that all UN-referred refugees would require approval from the Prime Minister, a decision that halted a critical aspect of Canada’s response to a global crisis.

The Globe and Mail has learned that the Prime Minister intervened in a file normally handled by the Citizenship and Immigration department in the months before dramatic images of a dead toddler brought the refugee crisis to the fore. The processing stop, which was not disclosed to the public, was in place for at least several weeks. It is unclear when it was lifted. At the same time, an audit was ordered of all Syrian refugees referred by the United Nations in 2014 and 2015.

The Prime Minister’s Office asked Citizenship and Immigration for the files of some Syrian refugees so they could be vetted by the PMO – potentially placing political staff with little training in refugee matters in the middle of an already complex process.

PMO staff could have also had access to files that are considered protected, because they contain personal information, including a refugee’s health history and narrative of escape, raising questions about the privacy and security of that information and the basis on which it was being reviewed.

As a result of the halt, and the additional layers of scrutiny, families that had fled Syria and were judged by the United Nations refugee agency to be in need of resettlement had to wait longer to find refuge in Canada. It also meant there were fewer cases of UN-referred Syrians approved and ready for sponsorship when the public came forward in large numbers after the drowning death of three-year-old Alan Kurdi in August.

The Prime Minister’s Office did not directly respond to a request for comment, nor did it confirm Stephen Harper’s involvement.

A spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander, however, said the government was concerned about the integrity of the system and ensuring that security was not compromised in any way.

“The processing of Syrian Government Assisted Refugees resumed only after there was confidence that our procedures were adequate to identify those vulnerable persons in most need of protection while screening out threats to Canada,” said Chris Day, spokesman for Mr. Alexander. He noted that processing of privately sponsored refugees, who are not referred by the UN but by their Canadian sponsors and who make up a growing portion of Canada’s refugees, continued throughout this period.

Critics have long complained about the centralization of decision-making in the PMO – and it would be unusual for a prime minister to sign off on refugee files that have already been vetted by the UN refugee agency, Canadian visa officials and in a small minority of cases by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Canada Border Services Agency.

Source: Prime Minister’s Office ordered halt to refugee processing – The Globe and Mail

This election will be won on citizenship issues. To our shame – Gilmore

Scott Gilmore on the identity politics of citizenship and the niqab:

You can be sure that Immigration Minister Chris Alexander does not actually think a new tip line is an effective safeguard to prevent honour killings. Similarly, no one in Harper’s circle genuinely believes that two women in niqabs pose any threat to our social fabric, nor our security. Likewise, Harper doesn’t really worry that accepting 10,000 refugees (1/30th of one per cent of our population) over the course of two months, versus two years, will harm our country in any way. And his security experts have never suggested that the most expedient additional measure to safeguard Canadians from terrorist attacks is to strip a dozen criminals of their citizenship.

What the Conservatives do believe, however, is that encouraging one group of Canadians to fear another group of Canadians is an exceptionally effective way to get out the vote. When written so bluntly, it sounds preposterous. But that’s what identity politics is: a conscious effort to divide the body politic, and set it against itself. In this election, the CPC politicians have talked about citizenship almost constantly and, every time, it involved Muslim Canadians. Every time, it was so they could pit Canadians against Canadians.

The free-trade election of 1988 settled the question: “Are Canadians brave enough to enter the global economy?” The citizenship election of 2015 will decide if Canadians are brave enough to trust each other in the face of fear-mongering and bigot-baiting.

The Sons of Russian Spies Want Their Canadian Citizenship Back | Time

Interesting case and curious to see how the court rules:

The sons of two Russian spies are insisting that the Canadian government has wrongfully stripped them of their Canadian citizenships after their parents’ true identities were discovered and the family was deported to Russia.

Alexander and Timothy Vavilov, 21 and 25 respectively, were both born in Toronto, Canada, but were stripped of their citizenship after their parents, Andrey Bezrukov and Elena Vavilova, were discovered as “deep cover” Russian spies in the U.S., according to Canadian tabloid newspaper, the Toronto Star.

The Vavilovs insist that they knew nothing of their parents’ spying and have taken the Canadian government to court to have their citizenship certificates reinstated. Alexander is now studying in Europe while his brother, Timothy, works in finance in Asia.

The Canadian government says that they don’t have to reinstate their citizenships as their parents worked for a foreign government while in Canada, even though the couple denied that they did any spying while in the country.

The Vavilovs’ lawyer, Hadayt Nazami, told the Star that “punishing children for the deeds of their parents is morally and legally wrong.”

Bezrukov and Vavilova came to Canada to develop “legends” to facilitate their spying endeavors in the U.S. There, they adopted the identities of two dead Canadians, Donald Heathfield and Tracey Ann Foley, according to the Star.

After leaving Canada, they moved to France and eventually settled in the U.S., where they began carrying out many of their spying duties, the Star reports.

To the shock of their allegedly unknowing children, the couple was arrested by FBI agents on June 27, 2010, at their Cambridge, Mass., home as a part of a crackdown on Russian spies in the U.S. The family was eventually sent back to Russia in a spy swap agreement with the U.S.

“It is not fair to punish us for something we have nothing to do with. We have done nothing wrong,” Alexander told the Star. “Whether or not the government decides to reissue my citizenship, I will always be Canadian at heart.”

Source: The Sons of Russian Spies Want Their Canadian Citizenship Back | TIME

Here’s how Quebec’s immigrant vote differs from the rest of Canada

Here_s_how_Quebec_s_immigrant_vote_differs_from_the_rest_of_Canada_-_Macleans_caAs the analysis notes, difference entirely due to the effect of the Bloc:

After the last three federal elections, Ipsos has conducted exit surveys with tens of thousands of people across the country, more than 12,000 of whom were immigrant voters. The market research firm found that outside of Quebec, immigrant votes more or less mirror the votes of other Canadians. However, in Quebec, an interesting pattern emerges. Immigrant voters express significantly less support for the Bloc Québécois. Instead, these votes tend to go to the Liberals. Check out the chart below to see how the votes have broken down in Quebec and the rest of Canada over the last three elections.

Source: Here’s how Quebec’s immigrant vote differs from the rest of Canada – Macleans.ca

Bureaucracy baffled by Harper’s niqab stance: Quotes and Interview

Following the PM’s more measured comments Wednesday on the niqab and the public service, comments by me and others:

Unions and other political party leaders were quick to condemn the Conservative leader’s remarks. However, it wasn’t clear if there were more than a few, if any, women who wear the niqab – a veil that conceals the face except for the eyes – in the federal public service.

A request to wear the Islamic garb would have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis under the federal government’s “duty to accommodate” policy – which would set a precedent for all departments, said Andrew Griffith, a former senior public servant who writes extensively on citizenship and multiculturalism.

“Frankly, I don’t think the issue has ever come up and it’s unlikely it would have happened without consultations at the high levels,” he told the Citizen.

At a campaign stop in Saskatoon Wednesday, Harper repeated his intention, if re-elected, to consider federal legislation modelled on Quebec’s Bill 62, introduced by the provincial Liberal government in June. If passed, that law would prohibit public servants from wearing niqabs in provincial offices.

“Let me be very clear, we’ve actually been saying the same thing for several months,” said Harper. “The Quebec government, the Liberal government in Quebec, has brought forward legislation to require that people reveal their identity when delivering or receiving frontline service. They have tabled a bill before the Quebec assembly, we’ve said we will look at that bill before taking further steps.

“The Quebec government has been handling this controversy in a very responsible manner and we will do exactly the same things.”

The Public Service Alliance of Canada, which represents the majority of federal employees, said it doesn’t know how many women working in the public service wear a niqab – if any – and has never received concerns or complaints about the garment.

Still, PSAC President Robyn Benson said a ban on the niqab or any religious symbol would violate the anti-discriminatory provisions of employees’ collective agreements and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

“This is just another cynical attempt by the Harper Conservatives to distract from what is really at stake in this election: the reckless government cuts that have impacted millions of Canadians,” said Benson.

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair Wednesday called Harper’s remarks “bizarre.”

“For him to run an election campaign on the backs of minorities, stigmatizing, singling out, going after minorities … he’s looking to divide Canadians,” Mulcair said.

But beyond the barbs, puzzling questions loom.

Griffith argued the public service should get a better handle on religious and minority groups as part of its employment-equity strategy so managers are better prepared if and when a request to wear the niqab actually does arise.

The number of Muslims working in the public service is likely in line with the proportion who are Canadian citizens (the public service has a hiring preference for Canadian citizens). Muslims women represent about 1.8 per cent of the population.

Source: Bureaucracy baffled by Harper’s niqab stance | Ottawa Citizen

And my interview on CBC’s Ottawa Morning:

Should public servants be allowed to wear the niqab?Andrew Griffith is a former director general at Citizenship and Immigration Canada. He’s also written about multiculturalism and government.Listen 7:10 

Harper wants to ‘examine’ ban on niqab in public service and the ‘duty to accommodate’

Beyond playing identity politics on the issue, there is a need for a more substantive discussion, based upon evidence (including the data on the religious affiliation of public servants as in my background note Religious Minorities in the Public Service) and how the “duty to accommodate” policy would be applied in the case of a request (and how any previous requests – if they exist – were handled).

Any request would not just be handled at the working level but would most likely involve HR officials and more senior officials and would likely emerge into the public domain.

A quick review of TBS’s Duty to accommodate guide for managers shows it largely focuses on accommodation for persons with disabilities, with little guidance with respect to religious accommodation. The Canadian Human Rights Commission and provincial equivalents provide more guidance and examples, but no examples of niqabs or gender-based segregation based upon my quick review (corrections welcome).

And a reminder, the duty to accommodate does not mean agreeing to the specific request or the specific form of accommodation requested:

A re-elected Conservative government would “examine” whether to prohibit public servants from wearing the face-covering garment known as the niqab, leader Stephen Harper said Tuesday.

“That’s a matter we’re going to examine,” Harper told Rosemary Barton during an interview on CBC’s Power & Politics Tuesday. “Quebec, as you know, has legislation on this. We’re looking at that legislation.”

The prime minister was referring to Bill 62, introduced by Quebec’s Liberal government in June, which contains measures to prohibit public servants from wearing niqabs in provincial offices.

Harper’s notion earned swift denunciations.

“Stephen Harper is trying to play politics with sensitive issues. It smacks of political manipulation,” said Paul Dewar, the incumbent NDP candidate in Ottawa Centre.

Catherine McKenna, the Liberal candidate in Ottawa Centre, agreed. “The niqab in the public service is not a serious issue, it’s a diversion tactic.”

Ron Cochrane, co-chairman of the National Joint Council, called it an “example of Harper trying to create a problem where there isn’t one now.”

“If there are people who wear the niqab providing services to Canadians, no one has ever complained about their dress, so why is he making it an issue when it hasn’t been before?”

“This election is too important to be distracted by Mr. Harper’s questionable tactics,” said Debi Daviau, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. “Unlike this prime minister, we respect the rule of law and our focus is on defending our ability to deliver essential public services to Canadians.”

The niqab issue has become a hot-button election topic in recent days, as the Federal Court of Appeal rejected the government’s application for a stay of a Federal Court decision in favour of a Muslim woman, Zunera Ishaq, who wants to wear a niqab during her citizenship ceremony.

Source: Harper wants to ‘examine’ ban on niqab in public service | Ottawa Citizen

Community Foundations of Canada: 2015 Belonging (Exploring Connection to Community)

Well worth reading this report, both for the range of indicators used and related content, as well as the creative and effective use of graphics.

I provided them an advance copy of Multiculturalism in Canada: Evidence and Anecdote to assist their work on indicators and it was rewarding to see this data being used:

Pluralism and Diversity

The ethnic diversity of our communities also contributes to trust and belonging. Caucasians that live in diverse neighbourhoods have a stronger sense of belonging to Canada than their peers residing in low-diversity neighbourhoods. However this reality is not felt everywhere as belonging among people of visible minorities is unaffected by neighbourhood diversity. Having friends from different ethnic backgrounds also has positive impact on belonging.34 In 2013, 59% of people reported that at least a few of their friends belonged to a visibly different ethnic group, up from 54% in 2003

Political Inclusion

Canadian voting rates have been falling in recent decades, but it’s not yet clear if there’s a link between voting and belonging. What we do know is that voting for the first time is often described by newcomers as an experience of belonging. Increasing representation among elected officials and the public service is important in strengthening belonging for underrepresented groups of Canadians. There are fewer racialized people among elected officials and the public service, for example, than their proportion of Canada’s population. The argument is that people feel a greater sense of ownership over their community and country when they see themselves and their experiences reflected in decision-makers.

Community Foundations of Canada: 2015 Belonging (Exploring Connection to Community)

CRRF Webinar: Multiculturalism and The Power of Words

 Short summary and links to the presentations by David Matas and myself:

words letterpress photo
The first Directions webinar was held on October 6th at 11 am EST.

The webinar featured members of our journal’s Editorial Advisory Panel, Andrew Griffith and David Matas. Andrew and David spoke about their research as it relates to The Power of Words, with a specific focus on multiculturalism in Canada. Their presentations and questions from participants are posted below.

The webinar was moderated by Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux.

The Winter 2015 issue, The Power of Words responds to the question, “Is our lexicon a positive force or part of the problem?”

Published in print and online January 2016, The Power of Words speaks to the importance of reviewing and evolving science terminology in response to changing demographics and settlement trends. The concept of hyphenated Canadians, terms such as ‘visible minorities’ and ‘newcomers,’ and even the idea of ‘race relations’ require ongoing reassessment, and are being challenged and re-examined in the context of our changing society. How do language and lexicon in policy, in the media, and in daily interactions influence our experiences, identities, attitudes, and relationships? How can discourse create and perpetuate unbalanced power relations, marginalizing certain groups and individuals? How can we use language to promote positive race relations in a harmonious Canada?

Presentations

Andrew Griffith’s presentation >

David Mata’s presentation >

Audio

Did you miss the webinar, or would you like to listen to the discussion again? Check out the audio recording of the webinar here.

Source: Articles and Announcements – Webinar: Multiculturalism and The Power of Words

For a slightly expanded version of my presentation (an additional slide contrasting the words of Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau):

CRRF Power of Words – My Deck