Loi 62: Vallée rendra publiques les règles d’application

I have sympathy for the public servants in charge of developing these rules, but good that the government will make them public:

La ministre de la Justice, Stéphanie Vallée, s’apprête à rendre publiques les règles d’application concernant l’échange de services publics à visage découvert, un document qui était à l’origine destiné à l’administration seulement.

Devant «l’escalade» des derniers jours, il est devenu essentiel de «bien communiquer et de bien expliquer» la nouvelle loi 62 à la population, a affirmé la procureure générale lors d’une entrevue de fond avec La Presse canadienne, dimanche.

Mme Vallée s’est dite étonnée des réactions parfois virulentes des Canadiens, à la suite de l’adoption de la loi québécoise sur la neutralité religieuse, mercredi dernier.

Elle a dit ne pas comprendre leur réaction, puisque son gouvernement avait annoncé ses couleurs depuis belle lurette, et que le débat fait rage au Québec depuis au moins 10 ans.

«Il faut repositionner la loi dans son contexte, a-t-elle déclaré, tout en lançant un appel au calme.

«C’est un principe qui fait consensus au sein des parlementaires de l’Assemblée nationale. Donc je vous avoue que l’interprétation donnée est assez particulière, parce qu’on a eu un souci tout au long du projet de loi de préserver l’équilibre et surtout de préserver les libertés individuelles», a-t-elle renchéri.

Un sondage Angus Reid, publié le 4 octobre 2017, démontre que 87 pour cent des Québécois soutiennent les objectifs de la loi 62.

La mesure législative prévoit que tous les services publics au Québec devront être donnés et reçus à visage découvert – notamment dans les transports publics et dans les hôpitaux. La loi permet toutefois des accommodements raisonnables, accordés à la pièce, et n’est pas coercitive, c’est-à-dire qu’aucune pénalité (amende, ou autre) n’y est inscrite.

Les règles d’application, qui seront publiées dès lundi ou mardi, viendront expliquer ce qu’est une prestation de services, et donc, concrètement, où, quand, et comment les gens devront se découvrir le visage.

Les lignes directrices quant aux accommodements raisonnables viendront plus tard.

Par exemple, les Gatinois ont une carte d’accès avec photo qui leur accorde une certaine tarification pour les services municipaux, a illustré la ministre.

«Lorsqu’il y a un enjeu d’identification, parce que la municipalité a fait le choix d’avoir une identification, bien il est certain qu’il sera tout à fait raisonnable de demander à la personne de s’identifier, au même titre qu’on le fait dans la loi électorale, pour s’assurer qu’il s’agit de la bonne personne qui a droit aux services publics», a-t-elle affirmé.

Le Québec trace le chemin, selon la ministre

Les premières ministres de l’Ontario et de l’Alberta ont été les premières à dénoncer la loi, cette dernière allant jusqu’à la qualifier «d’islamophobe».

«Je crois que ça va causer du tort à des femmes marginalisées et c’est très malheureux», a réagi Rachel Notley vendredi.

Le premier ministre du Canada, Justin Trudeau, leur a vite emboîté le pas, arguant qu’aucun gouvernement ne devait dire aux femmes comment s’habiller.

Si on ne veut pas que les femmes soient forcées à porter le voile intégral, peut-être ne devrions-nous pas les forcer à ne pas le porter, a-t-il raisonné alors qu’il était en tournée au Lac Saint-Jean.

Or, Mme Vallée a rappelé que l’obligation du visage découvert touche autant le voile intégral que la cagoule ou le bandana qui masquent le visage.

Elle a affirmé que si les politiciens canadiens étaient si mal à l’aise, qu’ils réagissaient si «rapidement», c’était parce qu’on était dans du «droit nouveau» et que le Québec traçait le chemin, tout comme il l’a fait avec sa loi sur l’aide médicale à mourir.

«Ce n’est pas facile de tracer la voie lorsqu’on légifère, lorsqu’on présente du droit nouveau; d’un côté comme de l’autre, on est la cible de critiques, de ceux qui considèrent qu’on va trop loin, de ceux qui considèrent qu’on ne va pas assez loin», a déclaré la ministre.

L’obligation du visage découvert n’a jamais été codifé au pays, à part en 2007, lorsque des amendements ont été apportés à la loi électorale québécoise. Le Québec pourrait donc servir de modèle, a suggéré la ministre.

Dans une lettre ouverte qu’elle a fait parvenir «à la société en général» vendredi, Stéphanie Vallée soulignait justement le «leadership» de son gouvernement, qui a osé établir des règles de vivre-ensemble, alors que la question des accommodements pour motifs religieux fait couler beaucoup d’encre ici, comme ailleurs dans le monde.

À ce stade-ci donc, pas question de reculer, selon elle. La loi 62 passera le test des tribunaux.

À M. Trudeau qui ouvre la porte à une contestation du fédéral, elle répond qu’il «serait dommage qu’on doive faire ce débat-là avec nos homologues fédéraux».

Mais s’il le fallait, le Québec «n’abdiquera pas» et défendra son droit de légiférer, ainsi que les éléments de sa loi, «bec et ongles», a-t-elle dit.

La ministre Vallée a indiqué en entrevue que le débat entourant la loi 62 était «vraiment l’illustration de la particularité de la société québécoise».

Elle ne croit toutefois pas fournir des munitions au Parti québécois, qui pourrait faire ses choux gras de cette affaire. La formation affirme déjà être «déçue» du manque de respect des Canadiens envers le Québec.

Source: Loi 62: Vallée rendra publiques les règles d’application | Caroline Plante | Politique québécoise

Banning the niqab is bigoted and sexist. Or is it? Margaret Wente

Wente plays the contrarian:

If you’re a liberal thinker, you probably know where you stand on Quebec’s controversial religious neutrality bill. You hate it. Banning women in face veils from receiving public services (such as, potentially, riding the bus) is cruel, intolerant, unworkable, discriminatory, sexist, divisive, and an attack on religious freedom. The bill has been denounced by Rachel Notley, Kathleen Wynne, human-rights lawyers, Muslim groups, and nearly every opinion writer in English-speaking Canada. “Quebec’s niqab ban is a shameful sop to nativist voters,” thundered the Toronto Star. (The Globe’s editorialists oppose it, too.)

At least a dozen countries have passed similar laws. Some of them might surprise you. Take Norway – widely hailed as one of the most tolerant nations on Earth. The Norwegian government wants to ban face veils in all schools and universities, for students and instructors alike. “Face-covering garments such as the niqab or burka do not belong in Norwegian schools,” said the acting minister of immigration and integration. “The ability to communicate is a basic value.”

Then there’s Germany, whose leader, Angela Merkel, put out the welcome mat for more than a million immigrants and refugees. But that welcome is conditional. Germany should ban face veils “wherever legally possible,” she said last year. Why? “We do not want any parallel societies, and where they exist we have to tackle them.” France has banned face coverings in public spaces since 2011. In other words, not all countries with these bans are sinkholes of bigotry and oppression.

Can you be a progressive and also favour banning the niqab? Plenty of Quebeckers think so. A whopping 87 per cent of them support the bill, and many say it doesn’t go far enough. Despite the views of the Toronto Star, not all are knuckle-dragging xenophobes from Hérouxville. Yet the English-language commentary has been downright hysterical. According to the critics, women wearing veils will be kicked off buses in the dead of winter, denied life-saving medical treatment, and essentially cut off from life. As Warda Naili told CTV, “I will be a prisoner in my own house.” (Like some of the most ardent champions of the veil, Ms. Naili is a Western convert to Islam.

Niqab bans aren’t likely to spread to the rest of Canada – at least for now. It’s a Quebec thing. It has to do with secularization, the strict separation of church and state, and the obsession with preserving Quebec’s distinct identity. If the doctrine in the rest of Canada is diversity, the doctrine of Quebec is maintaining its distinct culture at all costs. As for religious freedom, it’s worth noting that even in Canada this freedom is not absolute. (We don’t tolerate polygamy, for instance.) Religious rights always compete with others, and even the European Court of Human Rights has agreed that the requirement to show one’s face in public is not unreasonable. As Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard put it, “You speak to me, I speak to you, I see your face, you see mine. It’s part of communications. It’s a question in my mind that is not solely religious, it’s human.”

What’s notable is that the views of the English-language commentariat are out of step not only with Quebeckers but with English Canada as well. Only three in 10 Canadians across the country support the right of women to wear face coverings. Is this proof that anti-Muslim sentiment is dangerously widespread? Or does it simply mean – as I believe – that Canadians want immigrants to fit in?

To be sure, Bill 62 is fraught with politics and hypocrisy. Although it is supposedly aimed at all religions, the only people it will affect are Muslim women. Mr. Couillard would like to be re-elected next year, and this improves his chances. One suspects he wouldn’t be too distressed if the whole thing were tossed out by the courts.

For what it’s worth, my own view is that you shouldn’t pass a law unless you need it – and given the handful of veiled women in Quebec, we don’t need it. But I could be wrong. Recently I talked with Roksana Nazneen, a Muslim from Bangladesh, who describes the growing embrace of the niqab in Quebec and elsewhere as an enormously regressive trend. “It fights integration,” she says. She argues that guilt-ridden feminists just don’t get it. They do not know what the niqab means and they should not be fighting for the right of women to self-oppress. And make no mistake: “The niqab means that men should not hear your voice.”

What kind of Muslim community do we want 10 years from now, she asks? And what will be the consequence of the backlash that would almost certainly be unleashed by the spread of Muslim religious conservatism? These are among the many questions raised by Quebec’s controversial new law. Some of its opponents might be wise to ponder them.

Source: Banning the niqab is bigoted and sexist. Or is it? – The Globe and Mail

Australia: Government hit with ‘surge’ of citizenship applications after Dutton’s bill fails in Senate | SBS News

Not surprising. Embarrassing climb down by the government of a seriously flawed bill:

The Department of Immigration has received a rush of applications for Australian citizenship this week, after the government failed to pass sweeping reforms that included a tougher English language test.

Department officials said citizenship applications had fallen to a low “plateau” since immigration minister Peter Dutton announced the crackdown in April.

But last week the government missed a deadline to pass the bill through the Senate, sparking a new rush on applications.

The government’s sweeping reforms to citizenship will be redrafted with an easier English language test and eventually reintroduced to the Senate, immigration minister Peter Dutton has confirmed.

“Since the announcement last week there’s been another surge,” Immigration Department official Christine Dacey told Senate Estimates on Monday evening.

The bill would have increased waiting times for permanent residents from one to four years, as well as introducing a new English language exam and a test on “Australian values”.

Ms Dacey said there was another spike when the changes were first announced in April.

“There was a very large spike on or about the 20th of April, and then there was kind of a plateau, which was lower than compared to 12 months ago,” she said.

Last week, Mr Dutton confirmed the government would redraft its citizenship reforms and try again to pass them through the Senate.

The government’s controversial citizenship changes have suffered a major blow in the Senate despite a last-ditch bid by Peter Dutton.

He said the government was willing to accept migrants who pass an English entrance exam at the Band 5 on the international testing standard, rather than Band 6 as previously proposed.

The tougher Band 6 test was a major sticking point in the Senate, including for the crucial Nick Xenophon Team on the crossbench. Band 5 is described as “modest” English user, rather than a “competent” one.

But there is no indication yet that any of the senators who voted against the bill have changed their minds.

More than 118,000 people are waiting for their Australian citizenship applications to be processed by immigration department officials.

Mr Dutton confirmed those waiting for a response to their applications would now be processed under the existing rules.

Source: Government hit with ‘surge’ of citizenship applications after Dutton’s bill fails in Senate | SBS News

‘An issue that pulls at the heartstrings’: MPs review rules that reject immigrants on medical grounds

Will be interesting to see where CIMM sees an appropriate balance between compassion and cost:

Members of Parliament begin a review today of rules that reject immigrants because they could be a drain on Canada’s social services and health-care system.

As it stands, applicants can be refused if their condition is a potential danger to public health or safety, or if immigration officers believe they could cause “excessive demand” on the system.

Determinations are based on whether anticipated costs are expected to exceed the average Canadian per-capita health or social services costs over a five-year period, or if they could add to an existing waiting list that might delay care for Canadian citizens or permanent residents.

Liberal MP and immigration committee chair Rob Oliphant said the government has signalled interest in the issue in the wake of high-profile cases, including the one of a York University professor whose application for permanent residency was turned down because his son has Down syndrome.

“If these are mostly economic migrants coming in and making money and paying taxes, is there really a net benefit, or is it a net cost? We don’t know and we want to find out,” he said.

Figures provided to CBC News from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada show a sharp decline in the number of applications rejected on medical grounds in the last three years. In 2016, 337 applicants were deemed inadmissible, down from 473 in 2015 and 619 in 2014.

Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel said the longstanding federal policy has attempted to strike a difficult balance.

“It’s an issue that pulls at the heartstrings, because there are many cases of people who come to Canada with dire medical needs who will be found to be medically inadmissible,” she said. “It brings out the compassionate care of Canadians.”

Rempel wants to hear from witnesses on whether the policy is being applied adequately and consistently, and what the impact of any potential change could be on overall costs and waits for services for Canadians.

Ability to pay not a factor

According to the rules around medical inadmissibility, a willingness or ability to pay is not a factor for services that are publicly funded like physician or hospital care, since there is no cost-recovery regime in place.

However, it is a consideration in assessing an applicant who has financial means to defray costs of medication or services that are not publicly funded, such as HIV antiretroviral therapy.

Ottawa-based immigration lawyer Ronalee Carey called the policy “two-faced” because it allows a discrimination against immigrants that would never be permitted against Canadians with intellectual or physical disabilities.

She said the estimated health costs of these potential immigrants is a small fraction of the total cost of the country’s health-care system, and that the policy ignores other contributions the newcomers could make to society.

More than money

“It’s more than just money and economics,” she said. “It’s a political decision and that’s why we elect officials, but I would really ask them to look at what these people bring to us beyond a health-care problem. What does the entire family bring?”

Identified public health and safety issues range from active pulmonary tuberculosis and untreated syphilis to mental health issues such as pedophilia, sociopathic behaviour disorders or paranoid states or substance abuse that can lead to violent, hostile or disruptive behaviour.

The immigration committee begins its study this morning, hearing from officials in the immigration department. MPs will also hear from legal and economic experts and advocacy groups.

Source: ‘An issue that pulls at the heartstrings’: MPs review rules that reject immigrants on medical grounds – Politics – CBC News

Travelling

Travelling over the next few weeks and so will be posting less than usual.

Commentary: The View from Europe: Citizenship programmes: a race to the bottom? – Caribbean News Now

David Jessop on how Caribbean countries are in what appears to be a race to the bottom in citizenship-by-investment programs:

In most Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) nations, citizenship is available at a cost. It can be purchased by almost anyone who can afford it. There is no qualifying period and no residential requirement. All that is needed is a one-off payment into either an agreed form of investment or to a government development fund, plus background checks on the individual concerned.

Depending on the location and scheme chosen, the basic cost is now between US$100,000 and US$400,000 plus fees. Not only does this confer a passport, but it also offers free movement within the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and visa free entry to many other countries. At further cost, citizenship can be extended to families and relatives.

The creation of such citizenship by investment (CBI) programmes has been mainly driven by the Caribbean governments’ concerned need to find new ways to raise revenue because of their otherwise limited capacity to compete globally.

St Kitts, Grenada, Dominica, Antigua, and St Lucia have such arrangements, but St Vincent has not. Belize suspended its controversial programme in 2002.

For the most part, such schemes showed early promise.

Slides shown in June this year, by Trevor Alleyne, the IMF Division Chief for the Caribbean, at a conference on global mobility and tax strategies, suggest that taken together, the contribution made to GDP by Caribbean CBI programmes peaked in 2014. Then, for example, St Kitts earned 14% of its GDP from citizenship, enabling it to substantially offset what otherwise would have been negative growth. However, since then its programme earnings has gone into a slow decline.

In a probable reflection of this and the need to stimulate renewed interest, its government recently announced a new route to citizenship at a basic rate of US$150,000, ‘a proportion of which’, it said, would be paid into a hurricane relief fund. The decision appears to make redundant a part of its existing programme, which offers citizenship for a minimum contribution of US$250,000 to the country’s National Development Fund

To be fair, it may also reflect a comment made recently by the governor of the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank (ECCB), Dr Timothy Antoine. Launching the ECCB’s strategic plan earlier this month, he urged OECS governments to consistently set aside a portion of citizenship revenues to use as leverage to attract climate finance under the Paris Climate Accord.

In contrast, in Dominica, and to a much lesser extent in Grenada, the contribution made by citizenship programmes to GDP has been increasing. In Dominica’s case, its National Development Programme earnings before Hurricane Maria struck, had reportedly reached US$50 million per month: sums that were being used to pay down debt, support public works, as well as to provide budgetary support and employment.

In an indirect confirmation of the value of Dominica’s low basic fee of US$100,000, and the fierce competition now existing between OECS nations for citizenship applications, Antigua this month reduced its basic fee for citizenship to the same US$100,000 level.

The least successful CBI programme has been St Lucia’s.

Earlier this year, its government halved the previous cost of citizenship for individuals, also to US$100,000, and adjusted downwards the fee for all other categories, making the country’s programme for a short time the cheapest in the region. It also lifted a self-imposed limit on the number of applications that could be processed annually, and revoked previous requirements relating to an applicant’s net worth on the basis that other countries were offering discounts or incentives.

What is emerging from this apparent race to the bottom are several issues.

Firstly, well thought through, well administered programmes linked to national development programmes, where judiciously applied and with clear outcomes, appear to offer the best avenues for government and countries to reap the greatest rewards.

Second, global and inter-regional competition suggests the emergence of a zero-sum game in which nations may seek to offset a decline in income by further reducing pricing. If this happens, it follows that a higher number of successful applicants will be required if income from citizenship is to sustain or enhance GDP growth.

Thirdly, if governments are unable to significantly grow applicant numbers through price reductions, or through encouraging greater citizenship related investment in real estate or bonds, they may have to turn again to tourism to increase revenue, and to new tax breaks to spur investment.

In short, Caribbean CBI programmes may not have as a bright a revenue earning future as they have had in the past.

While many high net worth people continue to seek second or third citizenships, it appears likely that the numbers of applicants per Caribbean country may decrease as global competition grows, at worst accelerating the sector’s decline.

In theory, OECS nations with CBI programmes could consider some sort of approach involving harmonisation. However, in the real world of multiple unresolved sub-regional ideological, economic and personality differences, it is hard to imagine achieving a consensus that lasts.

Unfortunately, OECS governments have shown little willingness to address questions about the sustainability of their citizenship programmes, or to indicate whether they have fresh ideas about the ways in which they might redesign existing schemes to ensure continuing income without lowering fees any further.

All of which is to say nothing about the sometimes-questionable comments and defensive public relations exercises undertaken by some agents selling CBI programmes, about the questions that remain about the due diligence processes some governments pursue, or the serious international concern that has arisen about the issuance of diplomatic passports.

Almost every nation in the world provides a path to citizenship. Despite this, many citizens and some governments in principle object to the idea that nationality is something that can be sold. In this the Caribbean is no exception.

As long as citizenship programmes exist, questions will also remain about the granting of rights and free movement within CARICOM to those who are not required to reside, make no long-term economic or personal contribution, and who have no historic or cultural affinity to the region.

Source: Commentary: The View from Europe: Citizenship programmes: a race to the bottom? – Caribbean News Now

A third of Switzerland’s population mistrusts Islam, according to survey

Some interesting data:

The survey, which questioned 3,000 people across Switzerland, was designed to take the pulse of multicultural coexistence in Switzerland, a nation which is home to people of more than 190 nationalities and more than 10 religious groups. The survey covered permanent residents in Switzerland and wasn’t confined to Swiss nationals.

Overall, 36% said they could be bothered by the presence of people of a different nationality, religion, skin colour, language, or lifestyle.

At the same time, 66% recognized racism as an important social problem.

On a daily basis, foreign languages bothered those surveyed more than race, nationality or religion. Differences in nationality or skin colour bothered 6% of those surveyed, compared to 10% for religion and 12% for language. These annoyances were felt most in professional life.

Beyond annoyance, 14% claimed to be fearful of foreigners. Fear wasn’t reserved exclusively for foreigners. 4% were afraid of Swiss.

When questioned regarding religion, Muslims were viewed most negatively. 14% voiced hostility towards Muslims, compared to 8% towards Jews.

The survey made an important distinction between Islam and its followers. The percentage mistrusting Islam, as opposed to followers of the religion, was 33%, a figure far higher than the 14% voicing hostility towards Muslims.

The survey also questioned those on the receiving end of discrimination. In 2016, 27% of the population said they had experienced discrimination over the last five years. Among this group, 54% said the discrimination was based on nationality, particularly when job hunting.

Source: A third of Switzerland’s population mistrusts Islam, according to survey

‘Sunshine’ approach to diversity in federal public service working, [Policy Options] study says

Toronto Star article (excerpt) based on my Policy Options article, Diversity in the public service’s executive ranks:

An employment equity regimen that relies on public disclosure rather than a mandatory quota system seems to have improved representation from women, visible minorities and Indigenous people in the public service, according to a new study.

Women now make up 54.4 per cent of federal government employees while visible minorities and Indigenous people account for 14.5 per cent and 5.2 per cent of the workforce, respectively, according to the report by the Institute for Research on Public Policy.

The latest government statistics say 50.4 per cent of Canada’s population are women, 20 per cent are visible minorities, and 4 per cent are Indigenous. The Canadian government defines visible minorities as non-white people other than Indigenous people.

Under the Employment Equity Act, the federal government is obligated to report annually on diversity within the government and in the federally regulated private sector.

The growth has been steady for both women and Indigenous people, who started at 46.1 per cent and 2 per cent respectively in 1993 when data became available, said report author Andrew Griffith.

And the almost quadrupling of representation for visible minorities from a mere 3.8 per cent in 1993 was remarkable, he noted.

“The transparency, sunshine-law approach and the politics of shame has shifted the representation of public services by a remarkable extent,” said Griffith, a retired director-general with the Immigration Department and now an independent policy analyst specializing multiculturalism and diversity.

“The organic and uncontroversial approach may have worked better than a quota system that would have created more resistance and tension.” 

Source: ‘Sunshine’ approach to diversity in federal public service working, study says | Toronto Star

La loi 62 «ne passera pas le test» des tribunaux, selon Bouchard et Taylor

More from Bouchard and Taylor:

Le gouvernement libéral fait fausse route avec sa loi sur la neutralité religieuse (projet 62), estiment les ex-commissaires Gérard Bouchard et Charles Taylor. Dix ans après la commission Bouchard-Taylor sur les accommodements raisonnables, les deux hommes montrent d’ailleurs du doigt l’absence de « volonté politique » touchant l’application de leurs recommandations.

« On a l’impression qu’après dix ans, la volonté politique de donner suite à nos recommandations n’est pas vraiment là », avance M. Bouchard. « Il y a une certaine tendance chez les politiciens à opter pour la tendance électoraliste, et cette tendance est trop forte », renchérit M. Taylor, rencontré avec son ex-collègue en marge d’un colloque sur les dix ans de la Commission, hier.

Une trentaine d’experts se sont penchés, les 19 et 20 octobre à l’Université de Montréal, sur la décennie écoulée depuis la mise en branle de la commission Bouchard-Taylor. « Où en sont nos sociétés en matière de gestion de la diversité culturelle et religieuse ? » Voilà la question que les panélistes du Colloque international et interdisciplinaire tentaient d’éclaircir.

« La société civile est active dans le domaine de la recherche. Même les petites municipalités mettent en place des choses pour intégrer les migrants », se réjouit M. Bouchard. « Mais c’est le politique qui ne suit pas. On revient toujours à la même chose », poursuit-il, souhaitant qu’un gouvernement prenne enfin des « initiatives courageuses » dans le débat.

« COMPLÈTEMENT RATÉ »

Et ce n’est pas avec la loi sur la neutralité religieuse que l’État tranchera la question de la laïcité, disent-ils. « C’est complètement raté », affirme M. Taylor. « Si le gouvernement laisse ça comme ça, c’est un coup d’épée dans l’eau », ajoute M. Bouchard. Selon eux, Québec aurait dû, à tout le moins, définir le concept de laïcité, et pas seulement celui de neutralité.

« On avait proposé [à l’époque] un vrai régime de laïcité avec toutes ses composantes : la neutralité, la séparation [de l’Église et de l’État], la liberté de choix, l’égalité des cultes… On ne comprend pas pourquoi ils n’ont pris qu’un seul morceau alors que les quatre composantes se complétaient. N’en tirer qu’une seule laisse tout un édifice qui n’est pas en place », explique l’historien.

Selon eux, la loi ne « passera pas le test » des tribunaux.

ENCORE ACTUEL

Le rapport Bouchard-Taylor publié en 2008 pourrait encore aujourd’hui servir d’outil au gouvernement, estiment les auteurs, notamment en s’appuyant sur les « forts éléments de consensus » dégagés entre autres sur la question de l’interculturalisme. « Si [un gouvernement] attend l’unanimité dans la population, ça n’arrivera jamais », tranche M. Bouchard.

Source: La loi 62 «ne passera pas le test» des tribunaux, selon Bouchard et Taylor | Fannie Lévesque | Politique

Black people awaiting trial in Ontario jails spend longer in custody than white people

Good data-based analysis and discussion on the factors behind the data:

Black people in Canada’s most populous province spent longer behind bars awaiting trial than white people charged with many of the same categories of crimes in each of the past five years, according to data obtained by Reuters.

Between April 2015 and April 2016 — the most recent period in which data is available — black people awaiting trial in Ontario jails were there longer, on average, than white people charged with the same crime in 11 of 16 offence categories Reuters examined. There were approximately 6,000 black people and nearly 26,000 white people remanded to pre-trial detention during the period.

The data showed similar patterns in the four prior years.

Among the categories examined, black people spent almost twice as long in remand in 2015-2016 for weapons offences, equivalent to an additional 38 days. They also spent 46 per cent longer for serious violent offences and 36 per cent longer on charges of obstructing justice.

In three categories, white people awaiting trial were held longer in remand during the same period. Those included drug possession, theft and traffic offences. In two categories, the difference was 1 per cent or less.

The data also showed black people arrested and held in custody between 2011 and 2016 were more likely than white people to spend more than a year in pre-trial detention.

Reuters obtained the previously unreported data through access-to-information requests from Ontario, which asks inmates to indicate their race when they enter jail. Other provinces either do not collect this data or categorize it differently.

A spokesperson for Ontario Attorney General Yasir Naqvi said the province “takes systemic racism seriously and is working to address racial inequities,” but declined to comment on the data. The Ontario Crown Attorneys’ Association, which represents the province’s prosecutors, and the Association of Justices of the Peace, which represents the people who decide most of Ontario’s bail cases, declined to comment.

More than a dozen defence lawyers as well as prosecutors, criminologists, and a judge interviewed by Reuters said shortcomings in Canada’s bail system appeared to play a role in the racial disparities shown in the data.

Unlike the United States, Canada virtually eliminated cash bail almost half a century ago. Instead, courts often require prisoners awaiting trial to secure a surety, meaning a relative or close friend who can appear in court and subsequently monitor them.

A surety needs assets to pledge, a crime-free record and, often, a home where the accused person can live until the case is complete. A surety cannot represent more than one defendant at a time.

Current and former prosecutors interviewed for this story said securing a surety can be onerous and the requirement is perhaps relied upon too often; but some said sureties remain the best way to protect the public and ensure defendants show up for trial.

Harder on the poor

Critics of the system say the poor are less likely than middle-class or wealthy people to have connections to provide the assets to pledge or housing to act as a surety. They add that this has an outsized impact on minorities, who are over-represented among Canada’s poor.

“Surety is a huge issue in Ontario,” said Nicole Myers, a criminologist at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. “If you are from a marginalized community or a criminalized community, it can be very difficult to find a surety the court deems appropriate.”

The data did not take into account specifics of each case, the person’s criminal record, the frequency of plea deals, whether the person had a bail hearing and why bail may have been denied.

Reuters focused on offences with the largest pre-trial populations when comparing the average periods in remand, to minimize the impact of outliers. Inmates charged in multiple offence categories were counted in only the more serious one; multiple charges could affect someone’s chances of getting bail.

Studies, including one published last year by the Ottawa police, have found Ontario’s black communities are more heavily policed than white ones.

Source: Black people awaiting trial in Ontario jails spend longer in custody than white people – Toronto – CBC News