40% decline in permanent residents becoming Canadian citizens since 2001, data shows

2023/02/17 Leave a comment

Of concern, accelerating trend that I started identifying a number of years ago:

StatCan numbers reveal the percentage of permanent residents who become Canadians has plummeted over the past 20 years.

The Institute for Canadian Citizenship says Statistics Canada data points to a 40 per cent decline in citizenship uptake since 2001.

The group’s CEO, Daniel Bernhard, calls the drop alarming and says it should serve as a “wake up call” to improving the experience newcomers have in Canada.

In 2021, nearly 45.7 per cent of permanent residents who’d been in Canada for less than 10 years became citizens.

That’s down from 60 per cent in 2016, and 75.1 per cent in 2001.

The StatCan data did not identify reasons for the drop, but Bernhard suggests Canada’s cost of living and job prospects are likely factors.

He says the institute is investigating root causes.

“There are a myriad of issues,” said Bernhard.

“But ultimately, what’s changing is that people have decided that they’re less interested in being `Team Canada.”’

Bernhard said the decline affects Canada’s long-term economic and social outlook.

“This is a problem for all of us who care about Canada’s future prosperity and dynamism,” he said. “We need to solve this for the future of our country.”

The federal government has said it wants to boost immigration by adding 1.45 million permanent residents over the next three years, starting with 465,000 in 2023 and increasing to 500,000 in 2025.

Source: 40% decline in permanent residents becoming Canadian citizens since 2001, data shows

The National Post take:

As Canada ratchets up immigration to the highest levels in its history, surprising new figures from Statistics Canada are showing that nearly half of all recent immigrants are no longer bothering to seek Canadian citizenship.

The numbers were publicized this week by the Institute for Canadian Citizenship. And according to the group’s CEO Daniel Bernhard, they may be a sign that the Canadian dream is no longer working out for newcomers.

“What’s changing is that people have decided that they’re less interested in being ‘Team Canada,’” Bernhard said in a statement, adding that the figures are a “wake up” call to the Canadian immigrant experience is treating new arrivals.

In 2021, of the permanent residents who had come to Canada within the last 10 years, just 45.7 per cent had become citizens. In 2001, that figure was 75.1 per cent.

It’s not the first time that evidence has emerged to show that new immigrants are not as enthralled with Canada as in prior decades.

A March Leger survey — also commissioned by the Institute for Canadian Citizenship — found that more than one fifth of recent immigrants were already making plans to leave. Among under-34 immigrants, in particular, 30 per cent said they were “likely” to leave Canada within the next two years.

As to why, newcomers are citing the same concerns with the country as native-born Canadians: Skyrocketing housing costs and diminishing access to government services such as health care.

In the Leger poll, even among immigrants who wanted to stay, their number one reservation was “high cost of living.”

In a bid to boost GDP, the Trudeau government has already raised Canada’s immigration intake to the highest levels in Canadian history, and is on track to bring in 500,000 newcomers annually by 2025. Absent any dramatic policy changes, this influx will likely worsen many of the issues that are already beginning to scare away new Canadians.

On Tuesday, CIBC CEO Victor Dodig warned that if Canada continued packing in immigrants without a viable plan to absorb them, it could spur an unprecedented “social crisis.”

“New Canadians want to establish a life here, they need a roof over their heads. We need to get that policy right and not wave the flag saying isn’t it great that everyone wants to come to Canada,” Dodig said at an event hosted by Canadian Club Toronto.

One other factor potentially driving down rates of immigrants seeking citizenship is that Canada’s immigrant stream is increasingly coming from countries that do not tolerate dual citizenship, thus prompting many newcomers to remain permanent residents in perpetuity.

The chief examples are India and China. Indian nationals are required to surrender their Indian passport the moment they become Canadian citizens. Chinese prohibitions on dual citizenship were illustrated most glaringly in 2021, when the Beijing government tightened its control on Hong Kong by forcing 300,000 residents with joint Canadian citizenship to either leave or tear up their Canadian passport.

Both countries now represent a significant share of Canada’s current immigrant influx. As per 2021 figures, 18.6 per cent of recent Canadian immigrants reported India as their birthplace, while 8.9 per cent reported being born in China.

For context, just three per cent of recent immigrants were born in the United States.

In 2022, Canada officially welcomed 431,645 immigrants. Notably, the last time in Canadian history that immigration levels were this high — during the settling of the prairies in the years preceding the First World War – it was also paired with surging levels of outmigration as many newcomers swiftly abandoned their new Canadian homesteads.

“A lot of people left; outmigration was as high as in-migration for a very, very long time,” Adele Perry, a researcher of Western Canadian history, told the National Post in 2012.

Source: Canada is scaring away its new immigrants

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Henley & Partners, Leader In Controversial ‘Golden Passports,’ Sets Sights On U.S.’s Ultra Rich

2023/02/17 Leave a comment

Of note:

Henley & Partners, the U.K.-based consultancy, has become the most prominent facilitator of so-called “golden passport” and “golden visa” schemes for the ultra-rich after decades of securing passports for the wealthy in Russia, India, China and more. Now it’s turning to the U.S. as its next major market, boasting an unprecedented uptick in the number of high net worth Americans seeking second citizenship.

Migration investment schemes, which effectively allow people to purchase citizenship or residency in exchange for an investment in a country, have long been controversial but came under a harsh new light after Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Forbesfound that nearly half of 35 sanctioned billionaires had a second (or even third) passport, including through European investment migration schemes. Many of the most prominent citizens by investment schemes have since moved to halt sales to Russian applicants, revoke passports or shut down altogether—including most recently Ireland, which announced abruptly on Tuesday it was shutting down its decades-old scheme. Portugal’s program, which has been one of the most lucrative for Henley & Partners, is currently being reviewed by its government.

Despite the crackdowns in Europe, Henley & Partners says business is better than ever—and not for the reasons many may expect. On Wednesday, at a glitzy private luncheon at the Lotte New York Palace, a five-star hotel in Manhattan, the firm’s leaders, including CEO Juerg Steffen, touted the record number of inquiries and applications received by Henley & Partners in 2022, with the highest number coming from a somewhat surprising market—the U.S.—which Steffen claims is about 20% of the firm’s citizenship investment business in 2022, followed by India.

Overall, Henley & Partners’ business grew 25% last year, and another 35% the year before, Steffen told Forbes in an interview before the event. The company would not share revenues for “competitive reasons” but it takes a cut out of every visa or citizenship application, with higher charges for applications with multiple people (70% of applicants are families). The migration firm also runs a government consultancy business advising countries on how to start and run investment migration programs, which Stefan said makes up about one third of the group’s total business. The firm saysit helped set up “many” of the 30 residence and/or citizenship programs it facilitates, such as St. Kitts & Nevis, which it helped relaunch starting in 2006. Steffen claims the investment migration industry is now worth some $30 billion, including the amount invested, though others have pegged it closer to $3 billion.

According to a “USA Wealth Report” published in conjunction with the event, the number of Americans making inquiries to Henley & Partners about citizenship investment and residency options has increased more than four fold since 2019 (the company did not share exact numbers for either data point). The firm claimed it received more inquiries from wealthy Americans than any other nationality last year. That includes Russians and Chinese, though the former is likely explained by many of these programs halting Russian applicants, and the latter by China’s strict coronavirus-related travel restrictions; Steffen said there has been an uptick in interest from wealthy Chinese since the country’s borders reopened in January.

To accommodate the new levels of interest, Henley & Partners announced the opening of three U.S, offices in New York, Los Angeles and Miami. Steffen also said the company is planning to expand its workforce from 300 to 400 people by the end of the year. Previously, the company’s office in Canada handled all inquiries from Americans. One employee of the newly formed New York office said it is already working with 200 clients.

As for why wealthy Americans would be interested in getting another passport, Steffen claims that a number of U.S. billionaires started approaching Henley & Partners after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. “From our perspective it has probably to do with the political environment but also how the government handled Covid at the beginning. They realized, we have a private jet but we can’t just leave and go to another country even if it’s perhaps more secure. Then they realized how important it is to have more than one residence and citizenship,” he said.

But the U.S. is politically and economically stable relative to some of the countries where Americans are reportedly seeking access. According to the report, the most sought after programs among Americans were Portugal’s Golden Residence Permit Program, which requires a minimum real estate investment of nearly $300,000 and can take up to 18 months to process, followed by Malta’s, a program that requires its applicants to live in the country for 36 months and make a minimum investment of about $790,000. Also commonly pursued was Caribbean citizenship through St. Kitts & Nevis, which requires a significantly smaller $125,000 investment and can take less than half a year, according to the firm.

Critics have long pointed to the schemes as a vessel for potential corruption, money laundering and tax avoidance. “We consider that the sale of citizenship through ‘golden passports’ is illegal under EU law and poses serious risks to our security,” Didier Reynders, the European Commission’s commissioner for justice and consumers, saidlast March as the commission escalated its campaign against citizenship by investment schemes by calling an end to the programs.

In an April 2022 interview with Forbes, ” Eka Rostomashavili of the anti-corruption watchdog Transparency International acknowledged that while there are “legitimate reasons for wanting to have a second passport,” she argued. Many wealthy Russians sanctioned for their connections to the Kremlin have EU passports “because they probably don’t want to live in the mess that they helped create.”

As the biggest player in the investment migration industry, Henley & Partners has landed in the hot seat more than once in recent years after a slew of reports raised questions about some of people it has helped get passports. The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) published a report in March 2022 detailing how the firm helped a “bevy of high-risk clients” gain citizenship, including some individuals with questionable backgrounds who were later sanctioned or convicted of crimes.

Henley & Partners has repeatedly responded to these allegations asserting it follows all local and international laws and regulations. In his interview with Forbes, Steffen echoed these points, saying that while the industry is largely unregulated, Henley & Partners follows an extensive due diligence process that involves looking at a person’s criminal record from everywhere they’ve lived in the past 10 years and consulting with external investigative companies that write reports ranging from 30 to 70 pages on each potential client. “For us, it’s of course, very important from a reputational perspective,” said Steffen. He said that it took a year to move through all the regulatory hurdles required to start its business in the U.S.

Whether the demand is as high as it claims, moving into the U.S. market seems to offer another important benefit to Henley & Partners, which is a shot at building legitimacy for an industry that has been delivered significant blows over the past year. Steffen says he isn’t worried. While some programs have tightened their application criteria or even closed, he said the firm has been conversing with many new governments open to launching programs. “It’s getting mainstream and most of the countries actually have these programs now,” said Steffen.

Source: Henley & Partners, Leader In Controversial ‘Golden Passports,’ Sets Sights On U.S.’s Ultra Rich

Filed under Citizenship, citizenship-by-investment Tagged with ,

Reaction to Conservative support for the notwithstanding clause

2023/02/17 Leave a comment

From the right (Ivison) to the left (Raj):

Most MPs come to Ottawa with good intentions, resolving to follow their conscience to make life better for their communities. Often though, they find that their conscience is not going in the same direction as their party. A decade ago, I remember Indo-Canadian Conservative MP Tim Uppal sending me a set of head scarves for my western Quebec soccer team, to wear in a solidarity protest against the Quebec Soccer Federation’s turban ban. Today, Uppal says he opposes Quebec’s Bill 21, the law that bans some public servants in the province from wearing religious symbols such as turbans to work.

Yet, earlier this week, he and the rest of the Conservative party voted in favour of a Bloc Québécois motion that called on the House of Commons to remind the government that it is solely up to Quebec and the provinces to decide on the use of the notwithstanding clause.

This is the same clause that was invoked by Francois Legault’s Quebec government pre-emptively to shield it from court challenges — which was prescient because the Quebec Superior Court judged last year that Bill 21 violates religious freedom but is beyond the reach of the judiciary. A panel of judges at the Quebec Court of Appeal is now weighing whether the bill disproportionately discriminates against Muslim women who wear the hijab (even the notwithstanding clause does not protect legislation that discriminates on the basis of gender).

I wrote to Uppal and said I was surprised at the party’s position on the use of notwithstanding. “I understand it’s popular in Quebec but we both know it’s blatant discrimination,” I said.

In reply, Uppal said that the motion was about the ability of the provinces to use the notwithstanding clause as guaranteed in the Constitution. “We are not interested in getting into a drawn-out constitutional battle. There are more important issues to focus on,” he said. It would be mildly amusing to watch political parties make age-old mistakes for the first time, if the consequences weren’t so serious. The Conservative party’s discomfort at siding with the Bloc, in pursuit of soft nationalist votes, risks alienating ethnic voters.

It is reminiscent of Justin Trudeau’s indiscretion early in his leadershipwhen he said he favoured keeping existing representation in the Senate because it was to Quebec’s advantage — a statement that did not go down well in other parts of the country where he was trying to build support. It may once have been possible to simultaneously pander to different groups on opposite sides of the same issue, but it is no longer. We have the internet now.

Uppal has been trying to reassure the World Sikh Organization that he and his party remain opposed to Quebec’s secularism law. He has said the Liberals are trying to spin a narrative that the Conservatives explicitly support the pre-emptive use of the clause.

Who knows why anyone might believe that line, except for the fact that it is demonstrably true.

The Bloc’s motion is not abstract — it relates directly to the pre-emptive use of Section 33 of the Constitution by the Legault government in its secularism and language legislation.

Sikh groups have, correctly, asserted that this erodes the Charter and suspends human rights. Uppal claims that the notwithstanding provision is a longstanding part of the Charter, which is true, but he cannot ignore that this vote empowers Legault and endorses his position. I know the arguments in favour of use of notwithstanding — and support them to a point. Stephen Harper’s former deputy chief of staff, Howard Anglin, made an impassioned argument in support of Section 33 recently, arguing that judges violated the “1982 bargain” by egregiously overreaching in their judgments. “Judges make poor gods,” he said. “Call me a stickler for democracy but I prefer the people wielding ultimate power in any society to be accountable, and, in a pinch, removable.”

He’s right. But until recently, the clause was used when politicians wanted to correct what they believed was judicial excess. Now it is being invoked (by Quebec and Ontario) at the beginning of the process to camouflage unjust laws. Federal justice minister David Lametti says that such use “guts Canadian democracy and means the Charter doesn’t exist” — a bold statement that commits his government to act.

Trudeau said in late January that Lametti is looking to refer the use of Section 33 to the Supreme Court, pending the ruling from the Quebec Court of Appeal on the religious symbols case. The prime minister’s intervention provoked a choleric reaction from Legault, who says it is up to the Quebec National Assembly to decide the laws that govern the province.

The premier argues the Canadian Charter is part of the Constitution Act that Quebec didn’t sign — an argument that ignores Quebec’s own charter, adopted unanimously by the province’s legislature in 1975, which is clear that every person has the right to full and equal recognition of his or her human rights, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, gender or religion. “Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of nullifying or impacting such rights,” it says. Legault has been discriminating against the allophones and anglophones that constitute 20 per cent of Quebec’s population because it is popular with the francophone majority, who have been persuaded by their government that the French language and Quebec culture are threatened.

The federal government has little option but to oppose such blatant injustice, but in doing so the country’s unity will likely be tested. If Lametti asks the Supreme Court to impose restrictions on the use of Section 33, it could prove explosive. The court may refuse to hear the case on the grounds of conflict of interest — Section 33 was designed to limit the power of the courts. If the top court’s anglo majority does overturn the law, it could be the casus belli the separatists have been waiting for and could send Canada hurtling toward another referendum.

In their defence, the Conservatives might argue that western premiers don’t want restrictions placed on a notwithstanding clause that has been used by Alberta and Saskatchewan.

But the real reason Conservatives voted for a Bloc motion — never a smart or admirable thing — is to pander for votes in Quebec.

They may get them, but the cost could be their integrity and the trust of ethnic communities who could lose confidence in Poilievre’s party as a protector of minority rights.

Conservative MPs might want to refresh their memories on the thoughts of the philosophical founder of their movement, Edmund Burke, on the subject of natural law and individual rights. “The liberty of no one man, no body of men, and no number of men, can find means to trespass on the liberty of any person, or any description of persons, in society. This kind of liberty is indeed but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws and secured by well-constructed institutions.”

Source: In Quebec, the Tories can choose principles or pandering. Not both

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s Quebec lieutenant made a shocking declaration this week that went unnoticed in English Canada, telling reporters that Conservatives “of course” agree with the provinces’ pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause.

On Tuesday, Quebec MP Pierre Paul-Hus said the party “might not necessarily” contest Quebec’s Bill 21 at the Supreme Court — reversing Poilievre’s previous stance. Then, Paul-Hus added, “Is the use of the notwithstanding clause in a pre-emptive manner, as the provinces have used it — are Conservatives in agreement with that?”

“Bien oui,” he said, meaning, “Of course” — or, literally, “Well, yes.”

That might be news to some of the Conservative MPs who vocally opposed Bill 21, a discriminatory law that bars those wearing religious symbols from holding certain public-sector jobs.

But perhaps they shouldn’t be surprised.

This week, they all sided with the sovereigntist Bloc Québécois and voted to tell Ottawa — the Liberals and any future federal government — to butt out of the notwithstanding clause debate. (Only Manitoba’s Candice Bergen, Nova Scotia’s Rick Perkins and Ontario’s Alex Ruff, who represents Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, didn’t show up for the vote, and only the Liberals and NDP opposed.)

The motion proposed by the Bloc read: “That the House remind the government that it is solely up to Quebec and the provinces to decide on the use of the notwithstanding clause.”

The notwithstanding clause was a compromise that allowed prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau to enshrine the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms into the Constitution. It gives legislatures the right to override some Charter rights for a renewable period of five years. Several politicians around the table at the time felt the political cost of using the clause would dampen the temptation to use it.

But that thinking has drastically shifted. In 2019, Quebec’s government introduced Bill 21 to popular support. Knowing the legislation was discriminatory, Premier François Legault pre-emptively invoked the notwithstanding clause to protect it from court scrutiny. The clause was pre-emptively used again last year by Quebec when it passed Bill 96, legislation that limits the rights of anglophones in the province and curbs the use of other minority languages.

Then, last fall, Ontario Premier Doug Ford attempted to pre-emptively invoke the clause, too — this time to stop educational support workers from striking.

Widespread public opposition and the unions’ collective action forced Ford to back down, but not before Ottawa spent days contemplating how it should respond. Should it ask the Supreme Court if the provinces had the right to use the clause pre-emptively? Within Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office, staff argued the power of disallowance — a constitutional provision that gives the federal government the right to disallow provincial laws — was outdated (it hasn’t been used since 1943), but they searched for creative ways to send a message that Ottawa wasn’t happy and that it believed the notwithstanding clause needed parameters around it.

At the time, and again this week, Justice Minister David Lametti argued the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause was robbing the courts of having their say.

“It was always meant to be a last resort, in the context of constitutional negotiations,” he said. “It’s a grave matter when we use a law to breach people’s rights in Canada (and) the use of the notwithstanding clause must be an exception.”

The Bloc, unsurprisingly, doesn’t want the federal government telling Quebec what it can and can’t do.

But it is more than noteworthy that the Tories agree — regardless of whether Paul-Hus was making up party policy on the fly or if he had Poilievre’s benediction.

The vote Monday suggests several things.

First, we can expect that as prime minister, Poilievre would sit back and allow any province to pass discriminatory laws using the notwithstanding clause. This is what the Bloc motion called for. This is what Conservative MPs supported.

Second, Poilievre is aggressively courting nationalist voters in Quebec, embracing the same playbook that failed for Erin O’Toole and Andrew Scheer, and his position on Bill 21 may be shifting again. During the French-language Conservative leadership debate last May, Poilievre said he “would not reverse the federal decision” to fight both Bill 21 and 96 at the Supreme Court. But if the Liberals are no longer in office when these laws reach the country’s top court, can Poilievre be counted on to defend minority rights? Monday’s vote suggests not.

Lastly, the Conservative MPs who vehemently opposed Bill 21, who argued against O’Toole’s non-intervention policy and paved the way for his ouster and Poilievre’s leadership, acted disingenuously. Opposing Bill 21, believing that pre-emptive use of the clause should be limited, or that the federal government should fight the bill at the Supreme Court, meant voting against this motion.

Several MPs I spoke with said they believed they were simply reaffirming what the Constitution states, making a statement of fact.

It clearly was about much more than that.

Either you believe in something, or you don’t.

Source: Would Pierre Poilievre’s Tories let provinces strip us of our rights? ‘Of course,’ one of his MPs says

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Israel broadens law to strip ‘terror’ convicts of citizenship

2023/02/17 Leave a comment

Of note:

Israel expanded Wednesday its policy of stripping citizenship over “terrorism” offences, with parliament announcing lawmakers had passed legislation targeting those who receive funds from the Palestinian Authority.

The bill, which passed with 94 votes in favour and 10 against in the Knesset, also paves the way for Israel to expel people from the country or annexed east Jerusalem.

A rights group said the move was “in violation of international law”, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed it on Twitter as “our answer to terrorism”.

A statement from parliament said lawmakers had approved “the revocation of citizenship or residency of a terrorist operative who receives compensation (from the PA) for committing an act of terrorism”.

The Palestinian Authority gives stipends to numerous families of prisoners, or detainees themselves, including those convicted of killing Israelis.

Israel says making payments to the families of attackers encourages further violence, but for some Palestinians such payments are a key source of income.

Adalah, an organisation that advocates for Palestinians’ rights in Israel, said the law “not only creates an additional avenue for the revocation of the citizenship of residency of Palestinians… under the Israeli regime, but also facilitates their expulsion”.

“The law explicitly and exclusively targets Palestinians as part of Israel’s entrenchment of two separate legal systems based on Jewish supremacy,” the group charged in a statement.

The law may affect hundreds of east Jerusalem Palestinians and dozens of Israeli citizens, according to Dani Shenhar, head of the legal department at Israeli rights group HaMoked.

“The threshold is very low, so we’re very worried about it, especially the effect on east Jerusalem,” he told AFP when the bill was tabled last month.

The text approved by lawmakers lays out a judicial procedure for denying legal status following a request by the interior minister.

– ‘Conditional citizen’ –

Most Palestinians living in east Jerusalem hold Israeli residency permits rather than citizenship.

The new legislation allows deportation “to the territories of the Palestinian Authority (in the occupied West Bank) or the Gaza Strip”.

Gaza, controlled by Hamas Islamists, has been under an Israeli-led blockade since 2007.

Israel has occupied the West Bank and east Jerusalem since the 1967 Six-Day War.

Ahmad Tibi, an Arab opposition lawmaker, denounced the law as discriminatory.

“When an Arab commits a crime, they are a conditional citizen, whereas when a Jew commits even a more serious crime, revoking their citizenship is unheard of,” he said during Wednesday’s debate in parliament.

Lawmakers on Wednesday also approved in a preliminary vote a bill to allow the deportation of family members of those convicted of “terrorism”, in cases in which they are found to have supported the crime or known about it and failed to report it to the authorities.

Israel has previously stripped residency and citizenship, including that of French-Palestinian lawyer Salah Hamouri who was deported in December.

The Jerusalem resident had been arrested and jailed on several occasions by Israel, which revoked his residency permit citing ties the outlawed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

In 2017, an Israeli court revoked an Arab citizen’s nationality over an attack against Israelis.

That was the first time an amendment passed in 2008 had been used to revoke an Israeli citizenship.

Also in 2017, Israel announced it was stripping citizenship of 20 people who had allegedly joined the Islamic State group.

Human Rights Watch said Israel has stripped 15,000 east Jerusalem Palestinians of their right to residency since 1967, warning the practice may constitute a “war crime”

Read more: https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2023/02/israel-broadens-law-strip-terror-convicts-citizenship#ixzz7tSJe8PQY

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with ,

Conservatives clarify opposition to Bill 21 following vote for notwithstanding clause

2023/02/16 Leave a comment

Not sure that they will be able to appease all the various groups, whether community or regional, with this approach of trying to have it both ways:

The federal Conservatives are trying to reassure the World Sikh Organization of Canada that the party remains opposed to Quebec’s secularism law after its MPs voted in support of a provision the province used to make it into law.

On Monday, the Conservatives voted en masse in favour of a Bloc Québécois motion recognizing that provinces have a “legitimate right” to use the notwithstanding clause, including pre-emptively.

In Tuesday’s letter to Balpreet Singh, a spokesman for the Sikh association, deputy Conservative leader Tim Uppal said the Liberals are trying to spin a narrative that the Conservatives explicitly support the “pre-emptive use” of the clause.

The clause is a provision in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that allows provincial and federal governments to pass laws that circumvent parts of the Charter for a period of up to five years.

When the clause is invoked pre-emptively, it effectively prevents anyone from launching a legal challenge in court.

“We’re talking about the suspension of human rights and the erosion of the charter,” Singh said. “And that’s a huge hit. Not just for minorities, but for all Canadians.”

The Sikh organization is among groups vocally opposed to Quebec’s secularism law, which bans some public servants in positions of authority from wearing religious symbols such as turbans at work.

Premier Francois Legault’s government invoked the notwithstanding clause to usher in the law, as well as Bill 96, which reforms provincial language laws.

In 2021, the Ontario government used the notwithstanding clause to restore parts of the Election Finances Act. It also invoked the clause last year to impose a new contract on education workers, but quickly backed down from the measure.

In his letter, Uppal says the notwithstanding provision is a “long-standing part” of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the ability of provinces to use it is “the legal reality.”

He goes on to say Trudeau’s government has “not made any attempts to change it,” despite having been in power since 2015.

“Since Bill 21 was introduced in March of 2019, the Liberal government has taken no action in the courts to oppose it,” Uppal said.

Uppal says that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has been clear he is against the Quebec law, and while he respects the province’s ability to pass its own legislation, he hopes it is repealed.

Singh said Tuesday that he appreciates the clarification, but is disappointed with the Conservatives choosing to vote for a motion that appears to be “empowering” provinces to use the clause.

“You can’t say that they can use the notwithstanding clause willy-nilly,” he suggested, while also arguing against Bill 21.

Source: Conservatives clarify opposition to Bill 21 following vote for notwithstanding clause

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi urges politicians to stand up for Amira Elghawaby

2023/02/16 Leave a comment

Of note:

Former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi addressed concerns about Islamophobia in Canada to the Senate Committee on Human Rights virtually on Monday afternoon.

During his presentation, the former mayor urged politicians to stand up for Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s first special representative on combating Islamophobia.

Elghawaby has been mired in controversy since being appointed to the role due to a 2019 opinion column about Quebec’s religious symbols law — widely known as Bill 21 — that she co-authored. She has since apologized.

Nenshi, who has been a vocal critic of Bill 21, says he’s been “extraordinarily vexed” in the last few weeks about the lack of political response to the situation.

“The fact that the special representative has been browbeaten, has been harangued, has been lectured to, has been forced to take meetings with people who are not interested in listening to her but are interested in using her to score political points — to me, really highlights a very serious problem in our country,” said Nenshi in his presentation.

He points to moves the Alberta government has made in effort to deter vandalism of faith institutions, but says that only goes so far. Policymakers also need to stand up for those being impacted by hate, he says.

“I thought that it would be important to make a statement in the corridors of power in Ottawa, in the institutional framework of government to say, ‘Guys … as policymakers, you actually have to be able to have a little more courage,'” said Nenshi on CBC Calgary News at 6.

“We talk about it as though it’s about courage or bravery to stand up for people, but it’s really not. It’s the easiest thing in the world to do, and it is actually just about doing the right thing.”

Recommendations to government

In the meeting, Nenshi was asked to list three recommendations the committee should make to the government to address Islamophobia.

Source: Former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi urges politicians to stand up for Amira Elghawaby

Filed under Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Federal government paying to move migrants from Quebec to Ontario

2023/02/16 Leave a comment

Burden sharing!

The federal government transported almost all of the migrants entering the country through Roxham Road to other provinces over the weekend, said Quebec Minister of Immigration Christine Fréchette on Tuesday, calling the wave of relocations a “new approach” from Ottawa.

Three hundred seventy-two of the 380 migrants who arrived in Quebec by that route on Saturday and Sunday were relocated, largely to Ontario, the minister said in a scrum in Quebec City on Tuesday.

She saluted Ottawa for fulfilling the province’s demand for help with the recent influx of asylum seekers through the irregular border crossing south of Montreal and called on Justin Trudeau’s government to continue.

“We are starting to see results,” said Ms. Fréchette. “We’re very happy with that.”

The federal government has been relocating Roxham Road migrants regularly because of capacity constraints in Quebec since last summer, and would not confirm whether the spike in relocations was a new policy or a blip. Since June, more than 5,300 migrants have been relocated from the province, including some 500 to Windsor, Ont., and roughly 2,700 to Niagara Falls, Ont.

A federal source said this is part of a long-standing initiative, paid for by Ottawa, but did not clarify whether the number of people being relocated outside Quebec have been expanded. The source added that people who do not want to relocate can stay in Quebec.

The Globe and Mail is not naming the source because they were not authorized to speak about the matter.

Ms. Fréchette called on the federal government to maintain the recent heightened rate of removals, repeating her government’s position that Quebec’s “welcoming capacity” has been surpassed. Roughly 60,000 asylum seekers arrived in Quebec last year, double the annual number from before the pandemic, the minister has said.

That has sparked a fierce political debate in the province about how to manage the situation, with the opposition Parti Québécois tabling a motion in the National Assembly recently calling on the government to “close” the border crossing.

Federal opposition parties have also repeatedly called for a review of the Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States, a long-standing pact that requires border agents from each country to turn away asylum seekers from the other if they present themselves at official land border crossings.

Roxham Road, along the border between New York State and Quebec’s Eastern Townships, has become the primary route for irregular entries into Canada in recent years. The RCMP intercepted 34,478 asylum seekers who did not use official ports of entry to enter Quebec between January and November of 2022, according to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada data, compared with just 316 in the rest of the country.

On Tuesday, Ms. Fréchette called the weekend’s mass relocations a “first step” that could potentially come to involve other provinces receiving asylum seekers from Roxham Road. She said the federal government recently booked 500 hotel rooms to house migrants in Ontario as a sign of seriousness.

“I don’t have information about what happened on Monday, but we are expecting that this new approach persists,” she said.

In the future, she added, her government is asking that the share of asylum seekers who stay in Quebec be kept around 22 or 23 per cent, in keeping with the province’s demographic weight within Canada.

Roxham Road has become one of the stickiest issues in Quebec politics as Premier François Legault’s nationalist Coalition Avenir Québec government has sought to manage public unease with the increase in irregular migration.

On Tuesday, Mr. Legault met with U.S. ambassador to Canada David Cohen to ask for a speedy renegotiation of the agreement governing asylum seekers between the countries.

“I said to him, ‘I don’t understand why it’s taking this long to settle with the United States.’ What we’re asking is that the Safe Third Country Agreement be applied to all ports of entry, including Roxham.”

Source: Federal government paying to move migrants from Quebec to Ontario

And the article in Le Devoir:

La ministre de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration, Christine Fréchette, s’est réjouie mardi du fait que presque la totalité des demandeurs d’asile ayant traversé la frontière par le chemin Roxham la fin de semaine dernière ont été envoyés en Ontario.

Parmi les personnes qui ont emprunté cette voie de passage irrégulier samedi et dimanche, seules 8 sur 380 sont restées au Québec, a affirmé Mme Fréchette en mêlée de presse. « On est très contents de ça et on espère que ça va se maintenir dans le temps », a-t-elle dit.

Récemment, « 500 chambres additionnelles » ont été réservées par Ottawa en Ontario afin d’accueillir des demandeurs d’asile, a-t-elle affirmé.

La ministre Fréchette soutient que « la capacité d’accueil du Québec a été dépassée ». « On demande à ce que la proportion des demandeurs d’asile qui restent au Québec équiva[ille] au poids politique du Québec à l’intérieur du Canada, a-t-elle ajouté. Donc on parle de 22 à 23 %. Là, on serait dans des eaux acceptables. »

Christine Fréchette admet toutefois que le dossier sera « réellement réglé » par une renégociation de l’entente entre le Canada et les États-Unis sur les tiers pays sûrs. Le chemin Roxham, situé au sud de Montréal, n’est pas soumis à l’accord, car il s’agit d’une voie de passage irrégulier. Un total de 39 171 demandeurs d’asile y ont été interceptés l’an dernier.

En juillet dernier, Jean Boulet, qui était alors le ministre québécois de l’Immigration, avait salué la décision du gouvernement fédéral de rediriger en Ontario une centaine de demandeurs d’asile entrés de façon irrégulière au Québec.

Le bureau du ministre fédéral de l’Immigration, des Réfugiés et de la Citoyenneté, Sean Fraser, dit s’adapter depuis l’été dernier en fonction de la capacité du Québec et de ses besoins. « On reconnaît qu’au Québec, c’est un gros fardeau », a dit au Devoir Émilie Simard, porte-parole du ministre.

Legault et l’ambassadeur américain

Plus tôt mardi, le premier ministre québécois, François Legault, a dit qu’il continuerait à faire pression sur son homologue canadien, Justin Trudeau, afin qu’il « accélère » les négociations avec les États-Unis concernant l’accord sur les tiers pays sûrs.

Il a d’ailleurs profité de sa rencontre le jour même avec l’ambassadeur américain au Canada, David L. Cohen, pour déplorer le fait que le chemin Roxham n’est pas inclus dans l’entente.

Sur Twitter, M. Cohen s’est réjoui d’avoir pu discuter des « objectifs des États-Unis et du Canada en matière d’énergie propre, de commerce et de nos frontières communes ».

Source: La ministre Fréchette se réjouit du transfert de demandeurs d’asile en Ontario

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Irwin Cotler: To combat antisemitism, we must first agree how to define it

2023/02/16 Leave a comment

While I am a great fan of Cotler’s contribution, his advocacy for the IHRA definition needs to be nuanced as it can and is sometimes being used to discourage criticism of Israeli government policies. Given the Netanyahu government’s various actions (judicial reform, settlements, citizenship revocation), Israel will come in for more criticism that cannot and should not be deemed antisemitic – but some may do so invoking the definition.

Personally, I was surprised that Cotler in not among the signatories to Statement by Canadian jurists on proposed transformation of Israel’s legal system:

We are presently experiencing a resurgence in global antisemitism — the oldest, longest, most enduring and virulent of hatreds. Indeed, since my appointment as Canada’s special envoy for preserving Holocaust remembrance and combating antisemitism in November 2020, I have witnessed the increasing mainstreaming, normalization and legitimation of antisemitism in the political, popular, campus, and media and entertainment cultures.

In order to combat this concerning surge in antisemitism, we must begin by defining it. Because antisemitism knows no borders, it is important that Canadian institutions at all levels embrace the same definition, in order to facilitate collective efforts to combat it.

Significantly, in 2022, Canadian governments and institutions continued to embrace the most authoritative, comprehensive and representative definition of antisemitism that exists today ­— the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism.

The provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan all officially adopted the definition in 2022, as well as the City of Vancouver. The Government of British Columbia has also expressed support for the use of the definition in B.C. These governments join Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, as well as the Government of Canada, which all previously adopted the definition.

The IHRA definition is the result of a 15-year-long democratic decision-making process involving intergovernmental bodies, governments, parliaments, scholars and civil society leaders. Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel was a leading inspiration for the definition and a key initiator of a process in which I had the privilege of participating as a parliamentarian and minister of justice, and which ultimately led to its approval by the IHRA — a 35-country intergovernmental body — in 2016.

As Canadians, we can be proud of the distinct Canadian connection to this process of adoption. The IHRA definition is anchored and drawn from the 2010 Ottawa Protocol on Combating Antisemitism, which was endorsed by every major Canadian political party and unanimously adopted by Parliament.

It is also inspired by the equality rights and anti-discrimination provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, reflecting, as Ahmed Shaheed, the United Nation’s special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, put it, “The human-rights lens through which antisemitism should be viewed.”

It likewise offers an explanation of the different manifestations of antisemitism that exist today. Traditional antisemitism is the discrimination against, assault upon and denial of the rights of Jews to live as equal members in whatever society they inhabit. The new antisemitism is the discrimination against, assault upon and denial of the rights of Jews and the State of Israel to live as an equal member among the family of nations. What is common to each form of antisemitism, traditional and new, is discrimination.

The IHRA definition provides examples of both forms of antisemitism. The examples addressing older forms include stereotypes of Jews as controlling the media, world governments and the economy. Examples of newer forms include denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination and holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the State of Israel.

These latter examples have provoked some opposition, with opponents alleging that the IHRA definition will stifle criticism of the actions of the Israeli government, as well as advocacy for Palestinian human rights. This claim is as misleading as it is unfounded.

In fact, distinguishing between what is and what is not antisemitic enhances and promotes free expression and peaceful dialogue. In particular, the IHRA definition explicitly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

Accordingly, the definition serves to protect speech that is critical of Israeli policy — which I have myself engaged in — so long as it does not cross the delineated boundaries into antisemitism. Conversely, using this definition, genuine antisemitism, such as those examples listed above, can be defined and recognized.

The IHRA definition therefore sets the parameters for a healthy, democratic, tolerant debate and dialogue. It fosters non-hateful communication, and prevents both actual instances of antisemitism as well as unjust labelling of antisemitism. In doing so, it aligns with Canadian values of equality, diversity and human rights.

My hope for 2023 is that the Canadian jurisdictions that have not yet adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism will do so, and that the ones that have adopted it begin to implement and use it. The IHRA definition is an indispensable resource in helping to identify, recognize and define antisemitism, and adopting it is the critical first step towards Canada’s collective effort to combat the rising tide of antisemitism.

National Post

Irwin Cotler is Canada’s special envoy for preserving Holocaust remembrance and combating antisemitism and a former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada.

Source: Irwin Cotler: To combat antisemitism, we must first agree how to define it

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with

Khan: Expanding immigration will not erase racism in Canadian society

2023/02/16 Leave a comment

This is a somewhat silly header. After all, would cutting immigration erase racism?

More substantially, Khan’s commentary lacks historical perspectives, as there has been progress since the elimination of racial preferences in the 1960s. International comparisons with other OECD members provide a more balanced assessment, where Canada is one of the stronger countries in its integration outcomes. Public opinion research, particularly that of immigrant and minority populations, tends to portray that most are reasonably satisfied with their life in Canada, with relative few differences with the non-minority groups.

Of course, Canada far from perfect but to only focus on the shortcomings without acknowledging progress or comparing Canada with other countries reads more like a rant than measured analysis. To use an Australian term, this narrative is that of a “black armband” where everything is negative.

Of for a Canadian term, this is a woke version of Polievre’s “everything is broken.”

That being said, immigration should not just be a numbers game “the more the merrier” as I have and continue to argue:

In its latest immigration plan, the federal government says it hopes to welcome almost 1.5 million new permanent residents between 2023 and 2025, up from approximately one million in the immigration targets for 2020-22. The economic benefits of increased immigration aside, there remains a major elephant in the room that Canada is still not ready to address – racism and discrimination against “visible minorities” – code for non-white immigrants.

While recent surveys claim that public opinion in Canada is more in favour of immigration than ever, recent practices suggest otherwise. Examples include heightened surveillance of select immigrant populations, intense scrutiny of some of their financial resources and discrimination against migrant workers. There have also been incidences of hate crimes against members of immigrant groups. The government must address the issue of racism in immigration policy with a series of broad measures. Otherwise, if left unaddressed, these incidences have the potential to work against Canada’s intentions to continually increase immigration levels and grow its economy.

This is the key failing of the government’s plans on immigration, past and present. Although the latest plan does discuss anti-racism measures much more than previous versions, it is strictly in the context of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s own organizational strategy. Unfortunately, it does not address the real issue – that racism is not just organizational, it is endemic in Canadian society.

A national immigration plan cannot succeed in the long term if it does not acknowledge or address racism and discrimination in society. This is important because eight out of the top 10 source countries for immigrants to Canada, accounting for almost 70 per cent of annual intake, are non-white countries from the Global South.

This disconnect is becoming blatantly obvious in many ways. For instance, it is impossible to view the increase in immigration numbers without looking at the impact of regressive laws and policies such as Bill 96 in Quebec on new immigrants.

Racism affects not only our social connections with immigrants, but also our economic dependence on them. Canada’s approach to immigration has been to view migrants as a source of labour. That approach is bound to create tensions in the long term.

Immigrants may help with Canada’s labour shortages and aging demographics. But if the environment toward them is socially hostile, the chances of them gaining economic ground decrease substantially. In that case, Canada will no longer be a desired destination for people wanting to migrate. Or they will leave because the living conditions are toxic.

This hostility is on display in how Canada refers to immigrants in an official capacity. Immigrants are numerical “targets” to achieve in a given timeframe. International students are deemed the “ideal immigrants,” a common racist stereotype. Canada should not attract students based on how much labour or revenue they can provide in the long term – or because many students themselves use this as an opportunity to gain Canadian permanent residency – but rather how education can enrich their futures. Immigration levels are about “breaking records,” as numbers are increased based on labour shortages rather than the capacity to absorb new people from different parts of the world.

Phrases used by the government to justify rising numbers, such as “filling labour shortages, creating jobs, and driving economic growth,” perpetuate stereotypes of immigrants. The term “visible minority,” or the politically correct “racialized newcomers,” indicates a continued “othering” of immigrants. Semantics hide the racist notion that immigrants are only as useful as their revenue-generating skills. Everything else is their own problem.

This approach to reducing immigrants to labels and economic tools completely ignores the existence and reality of racism as a social and economic hurdle for immigrants. Canada sees new immigrants as a way to fill labour shortages, but the statistics tell a different story. New immigrants are far behind their Canadian-born counterparts in finding employment. Yet, the push to increase immigration levels to record highs continues without anyone talking to employers about immigrants’ inability to find work. This may only increase unemployment rates amongst racialized groups.

Racism also applies to our policies toward refugees and asylum seekers. Recent cases have shown how authorities continue to treat refugees from Afghanistan differently compared with those from Ukraine. If Canada is choosing to discriminate among seriously at-risk populations such as refugees fleeing war and death based on – it can be assumed – their race or religion, this itself proves the point that racism is more than just an organizational issue. It is endemic in our society.

For instance, Canada’s recent appointment of a representative to combat the rise in Islamophobia in this country reflects the federal government’s concern that violence and racism toward racialized communities is becoming normalized. But it ignores longstanding racism against the original inhabitants of this country.

Indigenous communities continue to be oppressed, and the arrival of immigrants, many of them unaware of Canada’s dark colonial past, only adds to Indigenous communities’ distrust of settlers.

Among racialized communities in Canada, Black and Asian Canadians also continue to experience some of the highest levels of discrimination.

If Canada truly wants its millions of new immigrants to be able to contribute to the country, it must address racism and discrimination as broad societal issues. We need a holistic policy approach, not one that is piecemeal.

To do this, the thinking around immigration needs to evolve and specifically address the following in policy and practice:

First, there is a need to change the language around immigration to Canada. This starts with changing how Ottawa frames immigration and immigrants as a labour supply issue. Immigration is a human right and not a numbers game. It must work for both the migrant and the host country.

Second, immigration is never purely economic. Regular immigrants also attempt to escape conflict, discrimination and political instability in their home countries. This is important to remember when assessing admissibility and the potential of each immigrant beyond just their economic capabilities.

Third, anti-racism efforts must be incorporated into the philosophy of services provided to immigrants including settlement services, employment, housing, education and health. This will require different federal, provincial and territorial departments to work in tandem with each other, not in silos.

Last, any immigration plan must also come with a strategy that socially protects the rising number of immigrants rather than just economically compensates them. Addressing racism and race relations must be important elements when designing immigration policy in a country that calls itself multicultural.

Immigration cannot just be about achieving targets and numbers. It is not an assembly line opportunity. Ultimately, we are dealing with individuals and families who also have hopes and expectations of Canada. Undermining these expectations through racial discrimination is the last thing anyone seeking to start a new life in a new country needs.

Source: Expanding immigration will not erase racism in Canadian society

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with

Canada needs to boost home building by 50 per cent to keep up with immigration, report says

2023/02/15 Leave a comment

Yet another study highlighting some of the implications and impacts of Canada’s high level of immigration:

Canada needs to ramp up home building by 50 per cent just to keep pace with immigration, according to a new report.

The country is on track to break ground on about 210,000 housing units this year, according to Desjardins Securities. But the Desjardins report says about 100,000 additional housing starts are needed this year and next, as Canada gets ready to admit a record number of immigrants.

Many economists and real estate industry experts believe there is a severe shortage of housing in the country – and it will only get worse. Canada has increased immigration levels to make up for the shortfall during the first year of the pandemic and to help fill jobs in construction, health care and other areas.

With the federal government planning to admit 1.45 million new permanent residents over the next three years, the report says, housing starts must become a priority, in part because of the time it takes to complete a housing unit.

“We have to dig out of a hole and move higher ultimately,” said Randall Bartlett, Desjardins’ senior director of Canadian economics.

A large share of new immigrants end up in Ontario and B.C., two provinces where home prices have historically risen faster than in the rest of the country.

Although the typical home price across Canada dropped 13 per cent from the peak last February by December, the average price in the most popular destinations – Toronto and Vancouver – still tops $1-million.

“If these newcomers to Canada continue the recent trend of moving to Ontario and British Columbia, affordability there and nationally will erode further,” says the report, authored by Mr. Bartlett and Marc Desormeaux, the bank’s principal economist.

At the same time, rental rates have been quickly increasing as many would-be homebuyers have had to continue renting owing to higher mortgage rates.

Desjardins’s call for more home construction echoes statements from the national housing agency, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., which has repeatedly said the country needs to increase its supply of homes.

Source: Canada needs to boost home building by 50 per cent to keep up with immigration, report says

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →