A memo for Canada: back off of Quebec’s Bill 21

Struck a nerve.

But seriously, it is one thing to argue that comments from English Canada may not be helpful to some of the internal debates within Quebec, another to argue that English Canadians have no right to comment on discriminatory laws whether in Quebec or elsewhere.

But Ontario MPPs take a shot at Quebec with unanimous vote supporting religious freedom may be an example where this may not be helpful.

Not to mention, that there are international human rights conventions and practices that presumably Quebec adheres to:

Let me say to all the bien pensants in the “Rest of Canada” who make up the growing chorus of critics of Quebec’s Bill 21 provisions on the wearing of religious symbols by certain public servants: Have a care. You are playing with fire, and your knee-jerk reaction to legislation supported by a vast majority of Quebeckers risks starting a major conflagration that might consume our country.

First, you should actually read the bill. You should note its very narrow application, only to certain officials who must interact with the public, only while in the exercise of their official duties, and only to people newly hired in these positions.

Second, you should remember that most of Quebec’s French schools, colleges and universities were largely operated by Roman Catholic teachers and administrators, all of whom wore religious garb, until the 1960s. When I attended law school at Laval University from 1960-63, the rector was future cardinal Louis-Albert Vachon, who was named to the Order of Canada and the National Order of Quebec. He is the last of an unbroken line of distinguished clerics to hold this position. Quebec’s famous and progressive Quiet Revolution was largely about escaping the influence of the Catholic Church in this and many other areas.

Third, you should pay attention to the increasing expressions of incredulity, anger and outrage in Quebec’s French-language media over your virtue signalling and self-righteous condemnations of a legitimate act of Quebec’s National Assembly, which is legislating well within its constitutional authority.

And fourth, you should consider that on Oct. 21, 33 per cent of Quebeckers (555,000 more than in 2015) voted for the Bloc Québécois, which had almost disappeared until resistance in the Rest of Canada to Bill 21 reignited the long-dormant but always smouldering view among many Quebeckers that they can never be fully understood and accepted in this country. From there, it is but a step, if Quebec Premier François Legault should ever conclude that public opinion demanded it, to a third referendum on Quebec independence.

It is argued that those likely to be most affected by Bill 21 are some Muslim women living in Quebec who may be forced to choose between a possible future career in Quebec’s public service and their desire to wear religious garb at all times, and that the bill is therefore racist and specifically directed against devout Muslims.

One might ask whether such women would agree to have their own children taught by nuns or priests or monks wearing Roman Catholic religious symbols? Or whether such devout Muslim women might not agree, as did many devout Roman Catholic teachers in Quebec after the secularization of Quebec’s education system during the Quiet Revolution, to forgo wearing religious garb or symbols during working hours in order to be hired in future for certain public-service jobs?

I was raised and educated largely in Quebec. I lived for 20 years in London, Ont., and 10 years in Banff, Alta. I still have family in both places, as well as in Nova Scotia and British Columbia. I have worked in the Premier’s office in Quebec City, the Prime Minister’s office in Ottawa and for a large media corporation in Toronto. For the past 15 years, I have lived in Quebec’s Eastern Townships. It cannot be said that I am ignorant of my country.

I warn the Rest of Canada, in the words of columnist Richard Martineau writing on Saturday in Le Journal de Montréal, Quebec’s most widely read daily, that we are now suddenly on track towards a head-on collision. Mr. Martineau quotes the famous words of Quebec’s Liberal premier Robert Bourassa after the defeat of the Meech Lake accord: “Whatever we say and whatever one may do, Quebec is, today and for always, a distinct society, free and able of assuming its destiny and its development.” We are once again shouting past one another in a dialogue of the deaf. Will Canada accept Quebec as it is, or persist in interfering in Quebec’s internal affairs of which it is largely ignorant? Or will Quebeckers conclude, once and for all, that they are not welcome in this country and must reluctantly leave it?

Cyprus to strip 26 ‘golden’ passports given to investors

Welcome move but one just highlights yet again the potential for abuse and fraud:

Cyprus said on Wednesday that it had started a process to strip 26 individuals of citizenship they received under a secretive passports-for-investment scheme, admitting it had flaws.

The Mediterranean island has been rattled by disclosures of its investments scheme since Reuters reported last month a list of Cambodian beneficiaries, including its police chief and finance minister.

“The council of ministers today affirmed the will of the government for strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the Cyprus investment programme,” the Cypriot interior minister, Constantinos Petrides, told reporters after a four-hour cabinet meeting.

Petrides did not disclose nationalities or identities of those affected, but said it “also concerned those” whose names were mentioned in media reports.

Cypriot sources said the group included nine Russians, eight Cambodians, five Chinese nationals, two Kenyans, one Malaysian and one Iranian.

They involved nine investment projects, whereby groups of foreign investors in partnership can benefit from the scheme.

Cyprus has had a citizenship for investment plan in place since 2013, under which a minimum 2 million-euro ($2.2 million) investment can buy a passport and visa-free travel throughout the European Union.

Advertising the scheme is now banned, but at least one law office used to distribute pamphlets resembling passports to visitors at the island’s main airport.

Authorities said the programme had gone through several transformations, and was overhauled in February 2019 with five different due-diligence layers, compared with one in 2013.

In the five years from the beginning of the citizenship scheme to 2018, the Cypriot government approved 1,864 citizenship applications. Including family members, the number was more than 3,200, and is close to 4,000 today.

“If there were nine investment cases, concerning 26 people, among 4,000 applications, it is logical that some would be problematic when controls weren’t strict,” Petrides said. “There were mistakes – it was a mistake not to have criteria, for instance, for high-risk persons.”

The Reuters investigation showed that influential police, business and political associates of Cambodia’s long-time ruler, the prime minister Hun Sen, had overseas assets worth tens of millions of dollars.

Hun has previously denied opposition allegations that members of his inner circle had other passports and lived the high life overseas. Some 70 percent of Cambodians live on $3 a day, according to the Asian Development Bank.

Petrides, whose ministry signs off on passport applications, said the individuals concerned had the right to appeal.

Source: Cyprus to strip 26 ‘golden’ passports given to investors

25% of citizenship applicants under Sephardic law of return are not Jewish

Pretty high number:

At least a quarter of those who have applied for Spanish nationality under the country’s law of return for descendants of Sephardic Jews are not Jewish, according to the local media.

Of the 153,767 applicants, 52,823 are from four Latin American countries — Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela and Ecuador — the La Razon newspaper reported Sunday. Their combined Jewish population is smaller than 10,000, according to the World Jewish Congress.

That means that nearly 43,000 applicants, or 27 percent of the total who applied before the closing of the deadline for applications in October, are not Jewish based on the relatively liberal definition of who is a Jew applied by the World Jewish Congress.

Only 4,313 applicants, or 2.8 percent, are Israelis and more than one-fifth, or 33,653, come from Mexico, which has the highest number of applicants. Colombia was next at 28,314. The United States had 5,461 applicants and Turkey had 1,994.

Only 31,222 applications had been approved by Oct. 1 and the rest are still pending. September had the most applicants, no fewer than 71,789, since the opening of the window in January 2018.
Spain passed its law of return for descendants of Sephardic Jews in 2015 shortly after Portugal.

Thousands of applicants have asked to be naturalized in Portugal, where the law is open ended.

In both countries, the government described the law as an act of atonement for the persecution and mass expulsion of Jews during the Inquisition that began in the 15th century. Many Jews were forcibly converted to Christianity.

Source: 25% of citizenship applicants under Sephardic law of return are not Jewish

France Announces Tough New Measures on Immigration

One of the better summaries:

President Emmanuel Macron of France tried to seize control of the issue of immigration on Wednesday, as his government announced steps to make the country less attractive to migrants while cracking open the door to skilled foreign workers.

The combined moves were a bid by Mr. Macron to wrest the issue from his main political challengers, the far-right National Rally of Marine Le Pen, which for years has skillfully used immigration in its political ascent.

With critical municipal elections just months away, Mr. Macron has shifted right and begun talking tough on immigration, especially on the perceived abuses of France’s generous social welfare system, hoping to keep Ms. Le Pen’s party, formerly known as the National Front, at bay.

Among Mr. Macron’s new get-tough measures is a provision that asylum seekers would have to wait three months before qualifying for non-urgent health care.

Quebec backtracks on changes to immigration program aimed at students

Good relatively quick correction:

The Quebec government has backtracked on proposed changes to an immigration program aimed at fast-tracking residency for post-secondary students that would’ve seen many of the current participants sent home.

After teary pleas at the legislature from some of those people a day earlier and calls from opposition parties for the Legault government to revisit its decision, Immigration Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette announced Wednesday he would allow students already enrolled in the program to complete it under the old rules.

Jolin-Barrette, who didn’t meet with the students, said their testimonials at a news conference inside the legislature led him to change his mind.

“I think I’m really sensitive to that because I heard them yesterday and this morning …. I made some changes about the reforms to answer their questions and their preoccupations,” Jolin-Barrette told reporters.

While those currently in the program will be spared, the new restrictive rules will go ahead as expected for future participants as the province attempts to address labour shortages by targeting specific fields where workers are needed.

The about-face comes a day after both Jolin-Barrette and Premier Francois Legault appeared inflexible.

Interim Liberal leader Pierre Arcand said his party tried on eight occasions to have Jolin-Barrette meet with the students.

“The minister hid. He did everything to avoid any type of meeting,” Arcand said. “I do not call this being sensitive.”

Legault said he was shaken by what he heard from the students. “I didn’t like my day,” Legault told reporters Wednesday morning. “When I spoke to my wife last night, she saw very well I had not liked my day. She understood it wasn’t my best day.”

Hundreds of foreign students admitted to the province under the Quebec experience program could have found themselves forced to leave after the province last week tightened the rules for the program.

In place since 2010, the popular program allows foreign students with a qualifying diploma or people with work experience in Quebec to receive an expedited selection certificate, fast-tracking residency and making it possible to stay in the province.

Whereas all programs were admissible in the past, the new rules would only include seven doctoral programs, 24 masters programs, 54 bachelors programs and 59 junior college diploma programs. The list of eligible programs and degrees will be reviewed yearly by the government according to the province’s needs.

“The reform is there because it is necessary to select immigrants based on Quebec’s labour market,” Jolin-Barrette said.

That means a student admitted to a bachelors’ program in demand could discover, two years later, without completing the program, that it’s no longer admissible.

“Indeed, it may be necessary to look at the date of entry so as not to penalize people,” Legault said, without explaining further.

In 2018, there were 11,000 people admitted under the program.

Source: Quebec backtracks on changes to immigration program aimed at students

New Zealand’s migrant boom is good news for Māori. It empowers us

In many ways, the Maori have played a similar role to French Canada forcing recognition that there is not one monolithic identity and the need for compromise, however imperfect, between different groups.

While in general there does not appear to be much tension in Canada between Indigenous peoples and newcomers, there is a need for greater understanding among newcomers (and indeed among all Canadians) regarding Indigenous peoples and the issues.

I would expect, should the newly re-elected Liberal government get around to it, the replacement to the citizenship guide, Discover Canada, will be far richer in its account of Indigenous peoples:

In April 2003, the year New Zealand’s population hit 4 million, statisticians were predicting the country would hit at 4.8 million people in 2046. As in Europe and North America the country’s birth rate was falling, and no one quite knew whether mass immigration would – or even could – continue at pace. Instead, the pressing concern at the time was how to reverse the brain drain.

In the mid-2000s almost 40,000 New Zealanders were upping sticks each year. Miners and truck drivers were packing their bags for Queensland’s mining boom. Bankers and lawyers were taking up plum jobs in London. Teachers, nurses, and other public servants were comparing what they made in Wellington with what they might make in Washington or Ottawa.

And in that very brief moment it felt as if New Zealandwas topping out. In 2008, the aspiring prime minister John Key took a camera crew to the capital city’s 35,000-seat stadium to illustrate just how big mass emigration was. The implication? We were, to repurpose a dangerous phrase, sending our best – to the US and beyond.

But the consensus among the commentariat was that Key’s stadium stunt was just that – a stunt – and even if he and his party came to power there was precious little they could do to reverse what was the natural order of things: a stronger Australian economy, its gravitational pull drawing in more and more New Zealanders.

Of course the commentators were right. The Australian economy remains stronger on most measures, and mass emigration was still a problem in the Key government’s early years. But one thing no one was anticipating was just how quickly the government would compensate for the brain drain with mass immigration.

In 2017, the Key government’s final year in power, net migration (the difference between those coming in or immigrating, including returning New Zealanders, and those going out or emigrating) was at a record 72,300. In 2015, net migration was at 58,000 and in 2013 it was a little shy of 50,000.

These are small numbers for countries such as Australia or the UK, sure, but for this country it was momentous. In the 20 years to 2014, average net migration to New Zealand was only 13,300.

And this year the country will reach another population landmark: 5 million people. It took more than 20 years to grow from 2 million to 3 million. It took 30 years for it to grow from 3 to 4 million. It took only 16 years to reach 5 million. And we are, because of that growth, a country transformed.

Population growth and the capital that comes with it aretransforming the Auckland skyline. Tradespeople from Asia, the Philippines especially, are in good part responsible for rebuilding Christchurch after the devastating earthquake in 2011. Tourism and dairy, New Zealand’s leading export industries, are thriving off the back of migrant labour.

You can spot the transformation in schools, workplaces and universities, and the streets as well. Māori make up 16.5% of the population, up from 15% in 2013. We’re present in every part of the country’s private and public life, and in a way that was unthinkable half a century ago.

Māori make up 23% of MPs – a disproportionate share – and Māori lead or co-lead every sitting parliamentary party, bar Jacinda Ardern’s Labour. It’s fashionable to imagine New Zealand as a 1950s Britain – the temperate climate, a buttoned-down national character, and the things that were best about Britain like a cradle-to-grave welfare system – but in reality this is a Māori country.

For a very brief moment in the 80s that fact was at the heart of New Zealand’s constitution. The government understood the country as “bicultural”. Two peoples were in partnership, Māori and the European settlers who came after, and we’d run the show as equals. Sure, there was a gap – sometimes even a chasm – between promise and practice, but the aspiration was there.

The problem, though, is mass immigration from the 90s onwards quickly made biculturalism unworkable. In 2019, Asian peoples make up 15% of the population and Pacific peoples another 8%. In this new country only one kind of culturalism works: multi.

For people who oppose Māori reasserting their claim on political powerthis is great news. Māori are just one minority among many, the opponents insist, claiming they’re not even indigenous. But for the small number of Māori who tie their political claims to their demographic power it’s quite terrible. On current trends Asian peoples will overtake Māori as the second-largest ethnic group in New Zealand. This is an “ethnic-cultural tension point”, as the country’s leading demographer put it, confirming that in every settler colony, population politics is toxic.

Except when it isn’t. The truth is immigration isn’t diminishing Māori claims on political power. It’s strengthening those claims, pushing each one forward. At Ihumātaohundreds of land protectors are occupying the historic site and reclaiming it for the local tribes. Among the occupiers are groups such as “Asians for Tino Rangatiratanga” meaning Asians for Māori political power. Visitors to the land and supporters of the occupation include west African Islamic scholars, Cook Islands royalty, and indigenous Taiwanese people.

This is what sets New Zealand apart – and maybe above – other countries in the Anglosphere. Māori rights aren’t contingent on their status as a (growing) minority. Population power doesn’t secure our rights. The Treaty of Waitangi does. The country’s founding document reaffirms Māori political power (in the treaty’s own words it reaffirms our “tino rangatiratanga”). And equally so the treaty protects migrants, guaranteeing that New Zealand is their place to stand as well. The only thing the treaty expects of them is to recognise and respect Māori political power. The bargain is that simple and, if Ihumātao is any guide, it’s one that migrants are more than willing to make. This is the reason I’m so happy about New Zealand at 5 million.

Source: New Zealand’s migrant boom is good news for Māori. It empowers us

France to Fix Annual Limits for Professional Immigration

Seems a bit too government driven to succeed and respond to market needs in a timely fashion, in contrast to greater role for employers in Canada and Australia (and provinces in the case of Canada):

France plans to set annual quotas for professional immigration, fixing limits for job areas where the country lacks workers with the necessary expertise, Labor Minister Muriel Penicaud said in an interview on BFM TV.

The system will be “a new approach, a little like the approach that Canada and Australia use, it’s quite similar,” Penicaud said. The goal is to better match professional migrants and unmet staffing needs than under the current system, according to the minister.

The government will start talks with social partners and regions in coming weeks to determine the requirements, the minister said. France will draw up a list of job areas where it lacks sufficiently trained workers, and will offer work visas for a defined period and job. The new system should be in place by summer of next year, Penicaud said.

The number of professional migrants to France currently stands at 33,000 a year, and Penicaud doesn’t expect “great changes” to that number because of the new rules. “France will recruit according to its needs,” Penicaud said.

Penicaud mentioned roofers and geometricians as examples of where France lacks trained staff. The government’s priority remains to train 900,000 job seekers next year as well as young people to fulfill all available jobs, she said.

The minister said the decline in French unemployment is encouraging, and should economic conditions not change “too much,” it’s reasonable to expect the drop to continue through to the end of the year.

« Parce qu’on est en 2019 » : où en est-on avec la parité en politique?

A history of gender parity in cabinet making and how it has been portrayed:

Le 20 novembre, le premier ministre Justin Trudeau va nommer son nouveau cabinet, qu’il promet paritaire, comme le premier qu’il a formé en 2015.

Les femmes sont minoritaires tant à la Chambre des Communes que dans toutes les chambres législatives des provinces et territoires. Pour y pallier, la nomination de conseils des ministres paritaires, c’est-à-dire composés d’autant d’hommes que de femmes, s’est répandue. Bien qu’elle ne soit pas un phénomène nouveau au Canada, cette parité n’est toujours pas la norme.

C’est Jean Charest, alors premier ministre du Québec, qui a lancé le bal en 2007, en nommant le premier conseil des ministres paritaires du pays. Rachel Notley (Alberta, 2015), John Horgan (Colombie-Britannique, 2017) et François Legault (Québec, 2018)ont également répété l’exercice.

Sur la scène fédérale, la nomination du premier conseil des ministres composé d’un nombre égal de femmes et d’hommespar Justin Trudeau en 2015 avait fait grand bruit. La phrase « Parce qu’on est en 2015 » donnée en réponse à des journalistes qui voulaient connaitre les raisons derrière cette décision a d’ailleurs été reprise un peu partout à travers le monde.

Nous avons cherché à mieux comprendre les différents arguments déployés dans les médias à l’annonce de cabinets comptant un nombre égal d’hommes et de femmes. La couverture médiatique est généralement favorable à ces annonces, mais elle donne également à voir un certain nombre de réticences à l’égard des mesures visant à soutenir un meilleur accès des femmes au sein de la sphère politique.

Un portrait généralement positif

Les articles et chroniques qui abordent la composition paritaire des conseils des ministres mettent de l’avant le côté historique de l’annonce ou la présentent comme le reflet d’une société et d’une époque où l’inclusion et l’égalité sont des valeurs importantes.

L’espoir de voir une nouvelle norme s’instaurer à la suite de l’annonce du cabinet Charest, en 2007, est également très présent : « La parité entre hommes et femmes est un exploit, une première en Amérique du Nord, qui mettra de la pression sur les autres gouvernements du Canada, le fédéral en particulier », écrit le chroniqueur Michel Vastel le 19 avril 2007.

Que ce soit dans le cadre d’articles, de chroniques ou de lettres d’opinion, différentes stratégies de persuasion visent à présenter la parité et ses mesures d’implantation comme bénéfiques pour la société : recours à des statistiques sur le nombre d’élues, exemples des stratégies mises en place sur la scène mondiale, ou évocation des impacts d’un plus grand nombre de femmes sur les prises de décision. La chercheure Véronique Pronovost, de la Chaire Raoul-Dandurand, de l’UQAM, écrivait ceci dans une lettre ouverte publiée dans Le Journal de Montréal, en 2015: « les études portant sur les conséquences de la parité au sein des organisations le confirment: que ce soit au sein des entreprises ou des instances décisionnelles, la parité engendre de nombreux bienfaits ».

L’appui ne se fait toutefois pas toujours sans réserve et les revendications pour des mesures plus durables, comme des lois ou un plus grand effort des partis à nommer une parité de candidatures aux élections sont également exprimées, principalement dans les journaux francophones.

Des avis contraires

L’engouement, bien qu’il soit majoritaire dans les journaux, n’est pas généralisé.

La compétence des femmes nommées dans le cabinet Charest avait été soulignée. Mais des craintes sur ces mêmes compétences ont été exprimées dans le cas de Justin Trudeau. Pour certains, c’est le premier ministre lui-même qui est à l’origine de cette controverse, comme on peut le lire dans cette chronique écrite par Mark Sutcliffe, dans The National Post : Justin Trudeau a mis l’accent sur ce choix prédéterminé en fonction de la parité au lieu de présenter son cabinet comme le résultat naturel de son abondant choix de gens talentueux. « Cela aurait fait plus pour les femmes occupant des postes de direction que de cocher une case de sa liste de promesses. »

L’idée selon laquelle parité et compétence ne vont pas de pair figure d’ailleurs au premier plan des contre-arguments évoqués, tous cabinets confondus. Des journalistes vont même jusqu’à dénoncer l’injustice vécue par les hommes qui, plus nombreux à être députés, ont ainsi moins de chances que les femmes de se voir confier un ministère. Comme l’écrit la chroniqueuse Lysiane Gagnon dans The Globe and Mail, « le caucus libéral compte 134 hommes et 50 femmes, ce qui signifie qu’au début, chaque députée avait environ trois chances de plus que ses collègues masculins d’être nommée au Cabinet. L’équité entre les sexes ne devrait-elle pas s’appliquer également aux hommes ? »

Une question de volonté politique ?

Le choix de nommer un nombre égal d’hommes et de femmes est également dépeint comme un signe de volonté politique, une façon de démontrer l’importance que le premier ministre accorde à l’égalité. En l’absence de règles ou de lois qui forcent les partis politiques à agir, il est vrai que les personnes qui en sont à la tête jouent un rôle important dans l’augmentation de la proportion de femmes ministres.

Au Québec, il a fallu attendre 10 ans avant de voir un nouveau premier ministre, François Legault, désigner un conseil des ministres paritaire (comme Jean Charest l’avait fait en 2007 et en 2008). Justin Trudeau a quant à lui annoncé durant sa campagne que son deuxième cabinet comporterait un nombre égal de femmes et d’hommes. Il lui aurait été difficile de faire autrement sans sembler renier les valeurs d’égalité et de féminisme qui ont caractérisé le début de son premier mandat.

House of Commons becoming more reflective of diverse population

My latest in Policy Options:

How well does Canada integrate immigrants and visible minorities into political life? While the barriers to entering political life are significant, as the Samara Centre for Democracy study on nomination processes has shown, the recent election is cause for hope.

This article is based on an analysis of the 2019 election I undertook, using a dataset developed together with the Hill Times, Samara, and McGill University political scientist Jerome Black. We drew on a mix of official party biographies, media articles, social media, and name and photo analysis (we did not include Indigenous candidates and MPs). We also compared the 2019 results with those for the 2015 election and with visible minority representation in other countries’ legislatures. Our results show that in 2019 in Canada the visible minority composition of MPs elected is reasonably representative of the immigrant and visible minority populations in the country as a whole.

….

Source: House of Commons becoming more reflective of diverse population

Canadian public opinion on immigration and refugees

The latest Focus Canada results on immigration. No major change:

The 43rd Canadian Federal Election just concluded was a tightly-contested campaign in which the incumbent Liberal Government led by Justin Trudeau found itself in a tough fight for reelection just a few years after it took office on a promise of “sunny ways” and broad political support. Many anticipated that immigration might emerge as a major election issue that would be used by some if not all parties as a wedge to energize their base or peel away support from competitors. The recent influx of asylum seekers at the southern border in Quebec and Manitoba, the emergence of a new populist party staking a position against “mass immigration”, and increasing animosity toward migrants in the US and elsewhere has fed concerns that Canadians were becoming more anxious about current immigration policies and the flow of newcomers into their communities.

It did not happen. Apart from a few anti-immigrant billboards popping up, immigration and refugees did not feature prominently in the election campaign, and the Peoples Party of Canada attracted less than two percent of the votes, failing to elect a single MP to Parliament. Why these issues did not materialize can be explained by the results of the most recent Environics Institute Focus Canada survey, which was conducted in the final weeks of the campaign. This research reveals that Canadians as a whole continue to be more positive than negative about the number of immigrants arriving in Canada and the benefits they bring to the country’s economy. Moreover, public concerns about such contentious issues as whether newcomers are adequately embracing Canadian values and the legitimacy of refugee claimants have not increased over the past year; if anything they have moderated. Immigration was not a top of mind issue for the vast majority of Canadian voters from any political party.

As on past surveys, attitudes about immigration and refugees differ across the population. Positive sentiments are most prevalent among younger Canadians and those with a university education. Negative views are most evident in Alberta, among Canadians ages 60 and older, and those without a high school diploma. In Quebec, despite the recent controversy over its new legislation banning religious dress, public opinion about immigrants is as positive if not more so than in other parts of the country.

The largest divergence continues to be along partisan political lines, primarily between supporters of the Liberal Party, NDP and Green Party, who are the most positive about immigration and refugees, in sharp contrast with those who would vote for the Conservative Party. This gap in sentiment notwithstanding, immigration is not an issue that strongly divides Canadians (as the recent election demonstrated), and this stands in sharp contrast to the current electoral divisions in other western countries.