Dodek: Mispronouncing names isn’t okay, and it has nothing to do with being ‘woke’

Agreed. Wonder how the citizenship judges and staff manage to ensure this:

Trouble has hit Canada’s largest law society. Each year the Law Society of Ontario welcomes several thousand new lawyers into its ranks. The new barristers and solicitors don lawyer’s black robes for the first time in a ceremony that dates back more than 200 years. For each new lawyer and their family, the highlight is when they ascend the stage. Their name is called out and projected on the screen as they walk across the stage. Sometimes their name is mispronounced. That’s wrong and every step should be taken to make sure that doesn’t happen.

To its credit, staff at the Law Society of Ontario have recognized that they need to do better. In a report to the Law Society’s governors – still archaically called “benchers” because once upon a time they would sit on benches – Law Society staff recommended hiring a professional name reader for these “call to the bar” ceremonies.

The policy rationale is straightforward. As the legal profession has become more diverse, so too has the list of candidate names being called to the bar. A lot has changed since John White, Robert Gray, Bartholomew Beardsley, and seven other white men were called to the bar in 1797.

Each new lawyer’s name is called out by a bencher. Despite its best efforts, each year the Law Society receives complaints from disappointed candidates about their names being mispronounced. For some, having their name mispronounced is embarrassing to them and to their families who attend this momentous event. This is understandable, regrettable and completely avoidable.

Hiring a professional name reader would, well, professionalize the process. Who can be against progress and professionalization? Apparently, some of the benchers, that’s who. Last month, they brought a motion to ensure that names continue to be announced only by benchers, on the grounds of, among other reasons, opposing “whacky wokism.” The opposition and the rationale are self-centred and wrong. Fortunately, the motion was defeated.

There are few things more important than one’s name. It reflects one’s identity, individuality and human dignity. That’s why international human rights instruments have long recognized the right to a name, the right to choose one’s name and the right to retain one’s name. Enslaved people often did not have the right to choose their name. Oppressive regimes often target people because of their names. And here in Canada at residential schools, Indigenous children were stripped of their Indigenous names and given Christian names in their place.

I have a last name that is sometimes mispronounced but what sticks in my mind is something that occurred in my first year of high school in Vancouver in 1983. On the first day of school, our shop class teacher read out the roll and after each name quipped: “Canadian, Jew, Indian, Chinaman …” The message could not have been clearer to this multicultural group of 13-year-olds: for some people, there were still insiders and outsiders and your name gave you away.

In Canada, many immigrants changed their names in order to better assimilate into Canadian society. Others did not. Conservative prime minister John Diefenbaker became a lifelong champion of civil rights, in part because of his childhood experience of being mocked and harassed for having a German name.

As dean of the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law, I had the responsibility and the honour of reading the names of each of the more than 350 graduates every year. I worked hard to practise the names. I got the phonetic pronunciations and even had a pronunciation coach. When I read out a graduate’s name and they walked across the stage and had their 10 seconds in the limelight, I envisioned all the hard work that they and their family had done to reach that day.

I will never forget some parents thanking me for pronouncing their family’s name correctly. “No one has ever pronounced our name right before.” It made me tear up and it also made me proud. For me and for them.

I was good at some types of names and not so good with others. I realized and regretted making mistakes. I know I could have done better but perhaps even more importantly, I know the university could have done better than me. I may be many things, but a professional name caller I am not.

We owe it to everyone to get their names right. It’s not about political correctness or wokeness. There are a lot of reasons why but at the end of the day, it just comes down to one: respect.

Source: Mispronouncing names isn’t okay, and it has nothing to do with being ‘woke’

Feds talk a good game when it comes to equity, but are flailing when it comes to strong data, states Auditor General report

Source: Feds talk a good game when it comes to equity, but are flailing when it comes to strong data, states Auditor General report

Suleman: Canada’s immigration processes need open and independent oversight

Not sure that adding another layer will make a significant improvement, rather then improving the annual report to parliament. But understand the frustration over some of the opacity of the government and IRCC:

I am joining the calls for an arms-length watchdog position to be created that monitors IRCC and reports annually to Parliament. The purpose of such oversight is to further scrutinize how IRCC is functioning and meeting its stated program delivery and budget goals. Canadians and those who apply to immigrate to Canada deserve more transparency than the minister and IRCC are offering.

Proposed Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) amendments will permit the minister to further specify and target immigration applicants under various economic classes. The applicants, mainly skilled and economic immigrants, currently apply through an online portal to enter an express entry selection pool. Ministerial instructions from the minister then instruct who gets selected.

This “pool” approach replaced the “stand in line and wait” approach, since IRPA was enacted in June 2002.

Pre-2002, the minister had to process them, no matter how long it took. The post-2002 pool approach lets the minister control inventories by choosing from those who express interest. It is only after they are chosen that they become applicants.

For the pool approach to work, the minister was granted special “ministerial instructions” powers, which permitted the minister to avoid Parliamentary approval and set selection criteria. The oversight mechanism envisioned was that the minister would report to Parliament annually, after the fact.

The ministerial instruction process was touted as being timely, nimble, targeted and transparent. If the 2022 proposed changes are passed, the minister could further micro-target immigrant selection by occupation, skill level, experience, source country and proposed Canadian city of settlement.

Alarm bells began to ring loudly as the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology began hearings on the proposed changes to the minister’s powers in early May 2022. Did the minister have too much power to issue selection instructions? What were the oversight mechanisms and were more required?

My view is that the minister needs more oversight, but I am not alone in this view. In August 2012, the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) passed Resolution 12-06-A, which notes that, while ministerial instructions can increase the speed with which changes to Canada’s immigration system can be implemented, they “also decrease the system’s predictability and transparency.”

The resolution stressed that the former approach of regulatory amendment by Parliament struck the “appropriate balance between flexibility and predictability.” In February 2013, the CBA passed Resolution 13-04-M urging the federal government to not use omnibus legislation to “enact substantive legislation.”

In November 2013, the CBA wrote to the Senate and again noted that the ministerial instruction process thwarted the “certainty of selection” on which “people plan their lives.” Before the minister was to be granted any more powers, the CBA sought public, meaningful and substantive consultations.

IRCC views reporting to Parliament, after ministerial instructions have already been implemented, as a check and balance on ministerial power. Clearly this is not the case. After-the-fact reporting cannot replace going to Parliament and seeking permission before substantial new selection criteria are implemented.

Most Canadians now accept that bringing more immigrants to Canada is a fundamental part of Canada’s economic and social policy. We need to make sure that the selection processes are not left to ministerial fiat, but rather, are subject to sufficient oversight not only by Parliament but also by an independent scrutineer who reports to Parliament annually. •

Source: Canada’s immigration processes need open and independent oversight

Nicolas: La bonne cible [francophone immigration to the rest of Canada]

Valid debate but not sure how realistic vastly increased targets are given the ongoing failure to meet existing ones. But certainly ambitious, from about 2 percent currently to 12 percent in 2024 and to 20 percent by 2036:

Le débat public ravive, depuis quelques semaines, une peur ancestrale pour bien des francophones : celle de voir le poids proportionnel du français diminuer peu à peu au Canada, au point où la vitalité même de la francophonie serait remise en question.

Cette peur est parfois utilisée pour justifier des mesures populistes qui, tout en étant dommageables pour le vivre-ensemble, n’arrivent pas, en bout de piste, à améliorer grand-chose à la vitalité du français.

Dénoncer ces mesures ne veut pas dire que la crainte qui se trouve derrière est illégitime. Au contraire, il y a mille et une façons de transformer cette préoccupation tout à fait louable pour la pérennité du français en demandes concrètes, constructives et porteuses.

J’en ai parlé avec Alain Dupuis, directeur général de la Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (FCFA) — soit la voix nationale des 2,7 millions de francophones vivant en situation minoritaire dans les neuf autres provinces et les trois territoires. Depuis maintenant des décennies, la FCFA se bat pour que le gouvernement du Canada augmente la proportion d’immigrants francophones reçus à l’extérieur du Québec.

Au recensement de 2001, la proportion de francophones en milieu minoritaire était de 4,4 %. En 2003, Ottawa s’est donc engagé à ce que 4,4 % des immigrants reçus au Canada soient des francophones, afin que les communautés franco-canadiennes et acadiennes puissent au moins se maintenir au fil des années.

Notons que les définitions de « francophones » utilisées ici sont plus inclusives que celles en usage au Québec. La FCFA définit un francophone comme toute personne parlant français — point. Immigration Canada, de son côté, inclut dans sa définition d’immigrant francophone toute personne qui a le français comme première langue officielle. Il n’est donc pas ici question de langue maternelle, nécessairement.

Cette cible de 4,4 % a-t-elle déjà été atteinte ? Non, jamais. Même qu’en 20 ans, Ottawa n’a recruté plus de 2 % de nouveaux résidents permanents francophones qu’à deux reprises : en 2019 et en 2020.

« C’est important, ces retards-là, explique Alain Dupuis. Ça représente une perte de vitalité, ça représente une fragilisation des institutions, et bien sûr une pénurie de main-d’œuvre importante. » Les communautés francophones sont par conséquent moins diversifiées que la population canadienne générale « parce que le fédéral ne permet pas aux communautés de bénéficier de l’immigration et de tous ses bienfaits ».

Le résultat, c’est que la proportion des francophones en milieu minoritaire diminue d’année en année. De 4,4 % de la population en 2001, ces communautés ne représentaient plus que 3,8 % de la population en 2016. La FCFA attend impatiemment les données du recensement de 2020, et projette que si la situation n’est pas redressée, elle ne représentera plus que 3,1 % du Canada « hors Québec » d’ici 2036.

Il est donc vrai que, pour l’instant, les politiques migratoires d’Ottawa jouent un rôle dans le recul démographique de la francophonie — dans les neuf autres provinces et les trois territoires. C’est pourquoi la FCFA dénonce la situation, et demande au fédéral de rectifie les choses.

Cet hiver, l’organisme a commandé une étude démographique afin de déterminer quelle cible devrait être mise en avant. Pour maintenir la proportion actuelle de francophones dits « hors Québec », il calcule qu’il faudrait qu’Immigration Canada admette 8 % d’immigrants francophones. Si on veut réparer les dommages causés par les promesses brisées d’Ottawa, il faut une cible encore plus ambitieuse.

La FCFA souhaite que le gouvernement fédéral s’engage à admettre 12 % de francophones dès 2024, et fasse progresser cette cible jusqu’à 20 % en 2036. Un immigrant sur cinq d’ici 14 ans : voilà ce qui est visé pour non seulement maintenir les communautés francophones, mais les remettre sur le chemin de la croissance. En nombre absolu, cela veut dire admettre 40 000 immigrants francophones à l’extérieur du Québec dès 2024.

Pour ce faire, la FCFA souhaite que la politique migratoire d’Ottawa établisse des objectifs détaillés dans chaque catégorie d’immigration, pour chaque région, en fonction des besoins spécifiques des communautés. « La pénurie d’enseignants, par exemple, est très importante pour les écoles de langue française, déplore M. Dupuis. Il y a aussi une pénurie de main-d’œuvre en petite enfance, en santé, dans la fonction publique, et plusieurs entreprises peinent à recruter du personnel francophone. »

Un certain travail se fait actuellement du côté du fédéral sur cette question. Le ministre de l’Immigration, Sean Fraser, dit vouloir atteindre la cible historique du 4,4 % d’ici l’an prochain. Et le projet de réforme de la Loi sur les langues officielles prévoit qu’Ottawa soit désormais obligé d’adopter une politique plus complète en matière d’immigration francophone. Cela dit, personne, au fédéral, ne s’est encore prononcé sur les cibles exigées par la FCFA.

Il me semble qu’il y a là une occasion, pour les Québécois, de se montrer solidaires des communautés francophones de partout au pays. Il n’est nullement question, ici, de malmener les chartes des droits et libertés ou de se méfier de la diversité pour protéger le français. Au contraire. Il s’agit d’accueillir plus d’immigrants économiques et de membres de leur famille, plus d’étudiants étrangers, plus demandeurs d’asile et de réfugiés en provenance, principalement, de l’Afrique subsaharienne, du Maghreb et de la France. Et ce, au bénéfice de toute la société, de l’économie comme de l’équilibre linguistique.

L’immense majorité des Québécois pourrait facilement se rallier derrière les cibles proposées par la FCFA et appuyer l’organisme dans ses démarches. Rien ne dit que l’immigration ne peut pas être un outil pour faire grandir la francophonie canadienne. Si l’on est d’humeur à se chicaner avec Ottawa, je nous propose cette bataille.

Source: La bonne cible

The UK has a new open-door immigration policy – as long as you went to Harvard

Sharp and witty critique (and it is a lazy policy approach by the UK government):

Ever hoped that one day a government body would develop a way for you to measure your self-worth and quantify your potential once and for all? Well, you’re in luck!

The UK recently launched a “High Potential Individual” (HPI) visa aimed at attracting the “brightest and best” from around the world to its soggy shores. If you qualify under the scheme you are welcomed into the country for at least two years, even if you don’t have a job offer.

So who counts as the brightest and best? According to the British government, an HPI is someone who has graduated from a top-50 ranked university outside of the UK in the past five years. You can see the list of the 37 eligible universities here. Twenty-four of the universities listed are in North America, and include institutions like Yale, Harvard, and MIT. None of the eligible universities are in Africa, India, or Latin America. It seems there are officially no bright people in any of those places, then!

Source: The UK has a new open-door immigration policy – as long as you went to Harvard

Quebec closes immigration pathway offered by unsubsidized private colleges

Overdue. Federal government should consider same given similar abuse occurring elsewhere in Canada:

Quebec is planning to close a pathway to immigration available to international students who attend unsubsidized private colleges.

The new rules, announced Tuesday by the provincial government in collaboration with Ottawa, will go into effect for those enrolling after September 2023. 

Only those who have completed a study program in a public or subsidized private college will be able to get a work permit. 

The possibility of a work permit was a major selling point for unsubsidized colleges, which charge as much as $25,000 annually in tuition. 

In Quebec, the number of students from India in particular has skyrocketed, from 2,686 in 2017-2018 to 14,712 two years later. Most of them attend private, non-subsidized colleges.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Xii2p/1/

Reporting by CBC News has shed light on poor management at some of the colleges. In the case of three colleges that suddenly shut down last year, many students have still not had their tuition reimbursed and others were left in legal limbo.

A 2021 report by Quebec’s Ministry of Higher Education revealed shortcomings around recruitment, commercial practices, governance and teaching conditions at 10 private colleges.

Changes meant to address ‘integrity issues’

Quebec Labour Minister Jean Boulet and Ottawa Immigration Minister Sean Fraser said in a joint statement the change aimed to “address gaps brought to light” by the investigation regarding “certain unsubsidized private colleges.”

According to the statement, it will “ensure that Quebec is not used as a gateway for settling permanently in Canada. In the other provinces, international students who have followed an unsubsidized program of study generally do not have access to this work permit.”

In an interview, Boulet said there were issues with the “integrity” of the system.

“We will harmonize with what is done everywhere else in Canada,” he said. 

“Unsubsidized private schools used this post-graduation work permit to recruit [and] attract people who benefited from our school system, then went elsewhere in Canada,” he said.

He added that “international students are a tremendous assets socially, culturally and economically for Quebec society as a whole.”

‘We did nothing wrong,’ college head says

Private colleges were quick to denounce the decision. The National Association of Career Colleges issued a statement saying it was disappointed by the decision, arguing such colleges play an important role in the province and the country as a whole.

“Our industry has, for many months, tried to engage the Quebec government to understand their questions or concerns pertaining to the post-graduate work permit and find workable solutions together,” said Michael Sangster, the CEO of the association.

Michael McAllister, director general of Herzing College in Montreal, said his institution, which was founded in 1968, is among those being punished for the problems at a select number of colleges. 

“We did nothing wrong and we’re getting penalized,” he said. McAllister would have liked to work with the provincial government to come up with a plan that helps meet the province’s labour shortage and recruit more international students who speak French.

Harleen Kaur, who is originally from India, has been advocating on behalf of students and said she feels international students are also being blamed for the poorly run colleges. 

She said the province could have instead made sure colleges are better regulated instead.

“I think the government needs to communicate with the colleges and look deeper into this,” she said.

The change comes more than a year after the release of the province’s report on the private colleges and only days before the National Assembly session wraps up for the summer ahead of the Oct. 3 election.  

Martin Maltais, an expert in higher education policy and a professor at Université du Québec à Rimouski, said the move was a simpler, quicker way to address the problems with unsubsidized private colleges, in lieu of more complicated legislative reforms.

“That’s probably the fastest way to act and and have results,” he said. 

Source: Quebec closes immigration pathway offered by unsubsidized private colleges

And in Le Devoir, with more emphasis on the hardship of students:

Plus de 500 étudiants originaires de l’Inde, qui ont payé jusqu’à 15 000 $ pour faire des études au Québec, affirment avoir été floués à cause de la « négligence » des gouvernements du Québec et du Canada. Ayant épuisé leurs recours juridiques et politiques, leurs avocats tentent désormais d’alerter l’opinion publique sur cette situation qu’ils estiment révoltante.

Ces 502 jeunes Indiens regrettent amèrement d’avoir fait confiance aux publicités décrivant le Canada comme un paradis pour les étudiants étrangers. Ils ont payé à l’avance leur première année de scolarisation au Québec, comme l’exige Ottawa — même si cela contrevient à la Loi québécoise sur l’enseignement privé —, mais le gouvernement fédéral a refusé de leur accorder un permis d’études.

Pour comble d’insulte, il leur est impossible d’obtenir un remboursement : trois collèges privés où ils s’étaient inscrits n’ont plus aucune liquidité et se sont placés sous la protection de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies.

« Immigration Canada a détruit mon avenir. Je me demande pourquoi j’ai choisi le Canada pour faire mes études », dit en soupirant Nisha Jindal, une étudiante de 28 ans qui s’était inscrite en éducation à la petite enfance au Collège M, ayant pignon sur rue à Montréal.

Elle a accordé une entrevue au Devoir depuis la ville de Badhni Kalan, au Pendjab, dans le nord de l’Inde. Cette dynamique jeune femme affirme que son rêve d’étudier et de s’établir au Québec a viré au cauchemar dans des circonstances obscures.

En novembre 2020, Nisha Jindal a commencé ses études en ligne après avoir payé à l’avance la somme de 14 852 $. Il s’agit d’une facture considérable pour une famille indienne : son frère a réhypothéqué l’appartement familial pour permettre à la jeune femme de venir étudier à Montréal.

Dix mois plus tard, en août 2021, un gros nuage a assombri l’avenir de Mme Jindal : Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté Canada a refusé de lui accorder le visa qui devait lui permettre de venir faire à Montréal son stage d’éducatrice à la petite enfance.

Raison invoquée : son parcours scolaire en Inde ne lui permettrait pas de mener des études collégiales au Québec. En vertu d’un système mis en place par le Canada en raison de la pandémie, la jeune femme avait pourtant eu l’autorisation de commencer ses études à distance — ce qu’elle a fait avec assiduité, tous les jours de 15 h à 2 h, à cause du décalage horaire entre l’Inde et Montréal. Elle avait aussi obtenu son certificat d’acceptation du Québec.

« J’ai accepté de payer à l’avance ma scolarité parce que je faisais confiance aux gouvernements du Québec et du Canada. Je le regrette tellement ! Tout le monde nous a abandonnés », laisse tomber Nisha Jindal. Elle reproche à Québec de l’avoir mise en lien avec un établissement qui n’a pas livré les services pour lesquels elle avait payé.

Elle et 501 autres étudiants ne peuvent ni terminer leurs études ni se faire rembourser les milliers de dollars payés à l’avance. L’entreprise Rising Phoenix International, qui possède le Collège M, le Collège de l’Estrie et le Collège de comptabilité et de secrétariat du Québec, à Longueuil et à Sherbrooke, s’est placée sous la protection de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies.

Les dirigeants de Rising Phoenix font face à des accusations de fraude et d’abus de confiance en lien avec le recrutement d’étudiants étrangers.

Une entreprise de Toronto, Cestar, a offert de racheter les collèges de Rising Phoenix, non sans controverse. Selon nos sources, une décision du ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur du Québec est attendue d’ici la fin du mois de juin.

Alain N. Tardif, avocat chez McCarthy Tétrault, estime que cette histoire entache la réputation du Canada dans le monde. « Le gouvernement oblige les étudiants étrangers à payer une année de scolarité à l’avance et, quand tout s’écroule, il ne répond pas », dit-il.

La firme d’avocats a eu le mandat de représenter les étudiants indiens touchés par la restructuration de Rising Phoenix International en vertu de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers. Les avocats ont tenté en vain de forcer Ottawa et Québec à prolonger les visas ou les certificats d’acceptation pour des centaines d’étudiants indiens inscrits dans les collèges de Rising Phoenix. La Cour supérieure du Québec a refusé cette demande.

À défaut d’accorder ou de prolonger les permis d’études, les gouvernements devraient rembourser les étudiants indiens pour des cours qu’ils n’ont pas obtenus, fait valoir Alain N. Tardif. « Pour les étudiants indiens et leurs familles, c’est une tragédie de perdre 15 000 $. Ils vivent beaucoup de détresse », dit-il.

La facture totale réclamée par les 502 étudiants s’élève à 7,5 millions de dollars. Une somme considérable pour les étudiants de l’Inde — où le salaire annuel moyen est estimé à 2434 $ —, mais plutôt anecdotique pour le gouvernement d’un pays riche comme le Canada, fait valoir l’avocat.

Plus de permis de travail postdiplôme

Interrogé sur le sort de ces 500 étudiants laissés à eux-mêmes, Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté Canada n’a pas répondu aux questions du Devoir. Sans commenter l’octroi des permis d’études, qui est une compétence fédérale, le ministre de l’Immigration, Jean Boulet, a toutefois donné plus de détails sur une nouvelle mesure négociée avec son homologue fédéral, Sean Fraser, qui coupera l’herbe sous le pied aux 49 collèges privés non subventionnés du Québec.

En date du 1er septembre 2023, le permis de travail postdiplôme ne sera désormais octroyé qu’aux étudiants issus des collèges subventionnés. Jusqu’ici, les étudiants de collèges privés non subventionnés avaient droit à ce permis de travail après avoir effectué de très courtes formations d’environ 900 heures, comme des attestations d’études collégiales (AEC) ou des diplômes d’études professionnelles (DEP), pouvant coûter jusqu’à 25 000 $.

Des médias, dont Le Devoir, avaient d’ailleurs révélé les nombreux problèmes liés à la piètre qualité des formations dans ces collèges de même que leurs stratagèmes douteux concernant le recrutement, ce qu’avait confirmé le ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur au terme d’une enquête qui avait mis au ban dix collèges, en majorité anglophones.

En entrevue, le ministre Boulet n’a pas nié l’impact de sa décision sur ces collèges. Mais il estime que « ça s’imposait ». « On ne pouvait pas tolérer ce type de stratagème permettant à une personne d’arriver au Québec et, après une formation de courte durée, d’avoir un accès automatique à un permis de travail », a soutenu le ministre, en soulignant que bon nombre de ces étudiants s’en allaient en Ontario ou ailleurs au Canada. Selon lui, il ne s’agit pas de punir les collèges anglophones. « C’est le stratagème qui est visé. » Il a par ailleurs rappelé que le Québec est la seule province canadienne qui permet l’accès au permis de travail postdiplôme au terme d’un programme non subventionné.

Source: «Tout le monde nous a abandonnés»

Immigration: parents and grandparents can now stay in Canada for 7 years

Can understand the frustration of the Conservatives with the Liberals largely pre-empting their private member bill C-242. Would be interesting to see if the existing super visa and these enhancements results in a significant increase in healthcare utilization using CIHI non-resident self-pay data (I’ve used up my free allotment of time!):

Parents and grandparents of Canadian citizens and permanent residents can now stay in the country for up to seven consecutive years.

On Tuesday, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada announced the change to the “super visa” program, which previously only permitted stays of up to two years.

Source: Immigration: parents and grandparents can now stay in Canada for 7 years

Australia: Man suspected of joining Islamic State wins High Court challenge against government decision to strip him of his citizenship

Of note, significant curb on Ministerial discretion:

A key plank of the federal government’s foreign fighter laws has been struck down by the High Court, with the nation’s top judges ruling that suspected terrorists cannot be stripped of their citizenship by the Home Affairs Minister.

The case before the court involved Delil Alexander, who was jailed in Syria after allegedly joining Islamic State.

He claimed he could not be released from jail because he had nowhere to go, after the Australian government stripped him of his citizenship in July 2021.

Mr Alexander left Australia for Turkey, where he also holds citizenship, in 2013.

He told his family he was going to arrange a marriage and would return, but travelled to Syria where he is thought to have joined Islamic State.

The High Court noted an assessment by intelligence agency ASIO at the time found he was reported to have travelled to Syria with a group being helped by a known Australian Islamic State member.

In November 2017, Mr Alexander was arrested by a Kurdish militia and in 2019 was jailed for 15 years by a Syrian court.

He has since been pardoned by the Syrian government but has remained in jail because he cannot go back to Turkey, and Australia cancelled his citizenship.

No one, including Mr Alexander’s family and his lawyers, has heard from him since July last year.

Only judges can decide to strip citizenship if person hasn’t faced trial in Australia, court rules

The main issue in the case was whether the law allowing the Home Affairs Minister to strip him of his citizenship was valid under the Constitution.

“That sanction by the parliament may be imposed only upon satisfaction of the minister that Mr Alexander engaged in conduct that is so reprehensible as to be deserving of the dire consequence of deprivation of citizenship and the rights, privileges, immunities and duties associated with it,” the lead judgement in the decision said.

“The power to determine the facts which enliven the power to impose such a punishment is one which, in accordance with [Chapter 3] of the Constitution, is exercisable exclusively by a court that is a part of the federal judicature.”

Effectively the High Court ruled that while the government of the day could pass laws relating to citizenship, the consequence of stripping someone’s legislation without them facing trial on Australian soil was so serious it should only be handled by a judge.

Six of the seven justices agreed, with only Justice Simon Steward dissenting.

The new federal Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus and Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil said they were still assessing the impact of the ruling.

But the pair played down the significance it may have for other foreign fighters who may pose a risk to Australia if they returned, arguing other measures, including Temporary Exclusion Orders, could prohibit people from returning to Australia for up to two years.

Government sources have told the ABC there are only two people who have had their Australian citizenship cancelled under the specific part of the Citizenship Act, which has now been struck down.

Mr Alexander, and the other individual, are both in jail.

It does not affect people such as Abdul Nacer Benbrika, who had his citizenship cancelled after being convicted of terrorism offences by an Australian court.

Mr Alexander’s lawyer disputes he had been involved with Islamic State

Mr Alexander’s lawyer, Osman Samin, said his client should never have had his citizenship stripped by the government and disputed the assessment by intelligence agencies that Mr Alexander had been involved with Islamic State.

He argued the evidence Syrian authorities relied upon to initially convict him was deeply flawed.

“We potentially have a person who was arrested in a part of Syria, which is not a declared area,” he told the ABC.

“Other than these purported admissions made by Mr Alexander under extreme torture, there is no other evidence that suggests he in any way participated in any terrorism-type conduct.

Mr Samin said there could have been far-reaching consequences if the legislation had not been struck out by the High Court.

“The concept in the legislation was that citizenship may be repudiated by disloyal conduct,” he said.

“Now, importantly, what constitutes disloyal conduct amounting to repudiation can be defined by parliament — so, therefore, while the laws were initially limited predominantly to terrorism-type conduct, if the law was deemed valid there is really no limitation on what the government in future could define as ‘disloyal conduct’.

Mr Samin said Mr Alexander’s sister, who was running the case on his behalf, was “extraordinarily relieved” but “equally anxious” about the circumstances her brother found himself in, languishing in a jail in Damascus.

“There are so many stories of foreign prisoners being killed in this particular prison that, of course, the family at the moment are only concerned with his welfare, and simply want to know whether he’s still alive essentially.”

Source: Man suspected of joining Islamic State wins High Court challenge against government decision to strip him of his citizenship

Should permanent residents be allowed to vote in Ontario? Experts say it might be time

Haven’t seen many calls by experts for federal and provincial voting rights for Permanent Residents, only with respect to municipal election. As I have written before, not in agreement given the relatively straightforward path for Permanent Residents to become citizens (although the Liberal government delivering on its 2019 and 2021 election commitments to eliminate fees would help).

And why did Nagra not become a citizen given that she has lived in Canada for most of her life?

More substantively, the focus needs to be on measures to increase participation among eligible voters, than simply expand the pool, whether by age changes or immigration status:

Maneet Nagra wanted to vote in last Thursday’s Ontario election, and she even got a voter card in the mail. All she had to do was head to the polling station with one piece of ID and mark an X.

One big problem held her back: she’s a permanent resident and therefore isn’t allowed to vote.

“I got the card and I thought I could vote. I got kind of excited. And then, I searched it out and it turns out I can’t,” Nagra told CBC Toronto.

Source: Should permanent residents be allowed to vote in Ontario? Experts say it might be time

Corak: What will COVID Mean for the Future of Fiscal and Social Policy? Temporary Foreign Workers aspects

From a recent presentation by Corak:

The federal government was very attentive to a whole host of concerns that can only be charitably described as poor public policy. These include repeated extensions of the CEWS, intergenerational transfers of capital gains, and most recently campaigns for extensions and forgiveness of loans taken through the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA).

There is an important discussion to be had about the moral hazards associated with these changes, and their consequences for a dynamic and efficient small business sector. Indeed, all of this is piled onto a corporate tax structure that is increasingly making small businesses a tax haven and putting a break on productivity growth.

But the coup de grace in this unfortunate policy evolution is the government’s acquiesce to the demand for an expanded Temporary Foreign Worker program. Employers now have the opportunity to hire up to one-fifth, and in some cases 30 percent, of their low-wage workforce through the Temporary Foreign Worker program.

This represents a major wage subsidy, even if it is not recorded as an expenditure in the government’s books. It is just the opposite of what policy directed to an inclusive labour market should be doing. Low wage workers, those who have a tenuous foothold in the labour market either because they themselves are recent immigrants, have a disability, or are young, will likely see more limited wage growth and job opportunities as a result of this policy change.

This change may also potentially shut off the possibility of upgrading employment and human resource practices in the care economy, particularly in Long-Term Care facilities and in early childhood care. The pandemic illustrated that the use of contingent and itinerant work arrangements in long-term care homes had devastating and shameful consequences. The challenge for a policy maker wishing to promote an inclusive labour market is to transform this sector into a “craft” based economy, with upskilling of workers who offer community and family based care and support.

An unfortunate legacy of COVID on public policy directed to employers is the threat of growing inefficiencies and inequities as a result of subsidies that cannot be rationalized by any sort of market failure.

Post COVID policy incoherence threatens an inclusive labour market

Public policy may continue to make determined and important changes in a progressive and inclusive direction, and even take steps toward a tighter social safety net that some will appreciate as a basic income.

But other choices bring the very goal of a “strong and inclusive labour market” into question and in the long term threaten the sustainability of more generous transfers to individuals. The labour market will be more inefficient and inequitable because of sustained subsidies to small business and increased reliance on temporary foreign workers. 

And more polarization and inequality of jobs, wages, and market incomes will in turn make the maco-economy more unstable and more challenging to manage.

What will COVID mean for the future of fiscal and social policy? The future is unclear not because of inherent uncertainty, but rather because of explicit choice and the incoherence that it has engendered.


Source: What will COVID Mean for the Future of Fiscal and Social Policy?