To really tackle Beijing’s interference, Canada must engage with the Chinese diaspora

Good commentary:

What needs to happen before Canada takes action on foreign interference? Apparently something as drastic as leaks of top-secret intelligence documents to the media.

Last week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded to recent reports of Chinese foreign interference and disinformation campaigns in Canadian federal elections by announcing that his government would appoint an independent special rapporteur to investigate, provide recommendations and decide if a public inquiry is necessary. Further steps include reviews by intelligence bodies on such foreign-interference issues and new funding for civil-society organizations to combat disinformation.

Mr. Trudeau also announced consultations on a foreign-agent registry and the appointment of a new foreign-interference co-ordinator at Public Safety Canada. (Consultations on a foreign-agent registry – a policy previously pursued by Kenny Chiu, the former Conservative member of Parliament who was reportedly targeted by a Beijing-led online disinformation campaign – were actually announced back in December.)

This is all welcome news, and it signals that Ottawa may finally be taking foreign interference seriously. But the government continues to rely on top-down methods to address the issue, despite the fact that it alone cannot adequately take on the problem – and nor should it be the sole institution to take on the challenge. While funding is coming for non-governmental organizations to tackle disinformation, what is needed is a whole-of-society approach.

This includes engagement with a broader range of traditional and non-traditional stakeholders, such as academia, the private sector, media and local communities. Crucially, it prioritizes engagement with these stakeholders and with NGOs, aims to facilitate active participation in the decision-making process and strives to rebuild trust in our public institutions. In the specific case of foreign interference, it would allow the challenge to be tackled in ways that do not demonize equity-deserving groups.

In contrast, the current and proposed actions by the Canadian government overlook the targeted individuals and affected communities at the heart of China’s foreign-interference efforts. Canada’s response continues to miss opportunities to engage with the Chinese diaspora and dissident communities who have long been sounding the alarm on the Chinese Communist Party’s meddling in our democracy.

The issue of foreign interference, after all, goes beyond electoral meddling. It also involves the covert amplification of pro-Beijing narratives and the suppression of anti-Beijing ones. This has ramifications for the Chinese diaspora, which has found itself caught in the crossfire between two worlds and the geopolitical tension between them.

The status quo represents a silencing on two fronts. While the Chinese diaspora faces increasing anti-Asian sentiment and marginalization in Canada, the baggage of another home has followed them across oceans. Those who dare to speak out against the CCP, even on Canadian soil, endanger not only themselves but their friends and loved ones back in China or other PRC-controlled territories.

This is why the whole-of-society approach should centre on the Chinese diaspora – particularly the vulnerable communities within it, such as Hong Kongers, Uyghurs and Tibetans. While the diaspora and dissident communities bear the brunt of foreign interference by the CCP, these groups are often ignored when they could be helping to combat it. Many Hong Kongers, for instance, are well versed in tactics used by the CCP to target voters, having seen them in action firsthand in their own elections.

Canada must also engage with stakeholders who can communicate in the languages spoken in the community, who understand how cultural norms intersect with broader Canadian society, and who can meet members of the community where they are at. To increase civic engagement we must be able to communicate and educate in ways that are both respectful of one’s self-determination and understanding of the geopolitical tensions vulnerable groups must contend with.

National security concerns such as foreign transnational repression must be considered, too, to ensure that targeted communities can safely and freely engage in democracy without ramifications.

Foreign interference is a challenge that is here to stay. While the federal government is taking encouraging first steps, these can only be the beginning. A whole-of-society approach is required not only to address this issue, but to give a voice to those who have been silenced for so long.

Ai-Men Lau is a research analyst at Doublethink Lab and adviser to Alliance Canada Hong Kong. She is a contributor to Alliance Canada Hong Kong’s 2021 Report “In Plain Sight: Beijing’s unrestricted network of foreign influence in Canada.”

Source: To really tackle Beijing’s interference, Canada must engage with the Chinese diaspora

Conservatives had sudden, unusual drop in votes in ridings of concern for Chinese interference: data

Good analysis of election data and hard to argue that there was no effect due to Chinese government influence or interference given the scale and concentration of the drop. The pollsters consulted I think are being overly coy and neither I believe has detailed polling of Chinese Canadians or understanding of their issues (the Harper government was more harsh on China and yet did well among Chinese Canadians):
Evidence of China’s alleged influence in the 2021 federal election might be found as much in what didn’t happen as what did — namely, the significant number of previous Conservative voters who did not show up to cast a ballot in ridings in British Columbia and Ontario.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced probes into allegations of foreign interference last week after several media reports suggested Beijing had directed an interference campaign in a few ridings in the Toronto and Vancouver areas.The National Post reviewed voting tallies from ridings identified as areas of concern by various reports and by Conservative campaign officials. The ridings are all home to large populations of Chinese Canadians.

Across multiple ridings, a similar pattern emerged: Conservative candidates saw significantly fewer supporters coming to the polls, however the Liberals did not see large gains, indicating not that large numbers of voters switched allegiances, but that for some reason, large numbers of voters did not vote at all.

Markham–Unionville is one of the ridings Conservatives have pointed to as a concern. The former MP, Bob Saroya, won the suburban Toronto seat in 2015 and 2019 as a lonely blue island in a sea of Liberal red across the region.

In 2015, Saroya received 24,605 votes, about 3,000 more than his Liberal challenger, allowing him to take a seat from the Liberals even as the Trudeau government was swept to power. Saroya held the seat in 2019, receiving just over 26,000 votes, but in 2021 his vote total fell by more than 7,000 and he lost.

The victorious Liberal MP, Paul Chiang, put on a strong campaign garnering nearly 22,000 votes. It was Chiang’s first election, and on doorsteps he emphasized his strong local roots in the riding and his decades of work as a police officer. Trudeau visited the riding several times. But Chiang only received 1,500 more votes than the previous Liberal candidate did. Far more important to the election result was the steep drop in support for Saroya.

Chiang has shown no evident favouritism to China since being elected, voting for a motion condemning the Chinese government for their treatment of the Uyghur genocide just last month.

In B.C., former Conservative MP Alice Wong won the seat for Richmond Centre in 2015 with more than 17,000 votes and in 2019 with more than 19,000 votes. But in 2021, her vote count sank by almost 6,000 votes, to 13,440. She lost to a Liberal, despite the Liberal vote increasing only by about 2,000.

Several other ridings around Toronto and Vancouver with large Chinese Canadian populations saw declines in Conservative support, without the bulk of that support switching to other parties.

Former Conservative MP Kenny Chiu lost his Steveston-Richmond East riding after 4,400 fewer Conservative supporters voted for him in 2021 than in 2019. He has alleged a misinformation campaign was spread on Chinese social media apps, including WeChat, about his party and his positions, including that the Conservatives were going to ban WeChat.

However, Chiu also said many of his constituents were extremely cautious of COVID and Trudeau’s decision to run an election during a pandemic hurt his campaign.“It’s understandable right in the middle of the pandemic, that people not only would not open their door, let alone go out to the ballot and vote,” Chiu said.

Chiu’s riding has been hotly contested in the past. He won fairly narrowly in 2019 after losing in 2015. He said he is still convinced there was outside interference, because the time between the 2019 and 2021 elections had been so short, and most of the news about the Liberals during that time was negative.

“Between 2015 and 2019, there are four years. Between 2019 and 2021, there are 22 months, and all of that (time) it’s all pandemic and it’s full of government scandals,” Chiu said.

Éric Grenier, a polling analyst who runs The Writ website, said it’s clear the Conservatives lost support in a wide swath of ridings, and supporters mostly stayed home“It is pretty clear that the Conservatives were in trouble in ridings with big Chinese Canadian populations, because they did lose a lot more support in those ridings than they did in neighbouring ridings,” he said.

Grenier said many factors could explain the drop. To begin, overall voter turnout dropped by five per cent between 2019 and 2021. He also points to local candidate factors and other possibilities.

“In these ridings, it’s clear that something was happening that was motivating those voters, it’s just impossible to say what it was.”

Andrew Enns, vice president with polling firm Léger, said these ridings are an anomaly because the Conservative vote declined, even as it rose more broadly across Ontario and British Columbia. He agrees there could be many other factors at play.

“You’ve got to really look at other factors, the quality of the candidate. Did something happen to that local candidate in the campaign? And I don’t have any answers to that. But it is certainly an unusual trend.”

Enns said it is also possible Chinese Canadians soured on the Conservatives. While there was evidence of misinformation circulating about the party’s view on China, the party’s then leader, Erin O’Toole, generally favoured a more hawkish stance with the country.

Source: Conservatives had sudden, unusual drop in votes in ridings of concern for Chinese interference: data

Who Is Afraid of Caste Equity in Canada?

Of note, from the more activist perspective:

On March 8, 2023, International Women’s Day, the Toronto District School Board’s trustees voted on a resolution (16 in favour and five against) recognising caste oppression and asked the Ontario Human Rights Commission to create the framework to address caste oppression in public education. The motion was spearheaded by Dalit feminist trustee Yalini Rajakulasingam and supported by Anu Sriskandarajah.

This historic initiative in Canada recognises caste oppression on par with racism and sexism. Once the Ontario Human Rights Commission develops a framework and protocols to address caste-based oppression, it will become part of the Human Rights Code. If mandated, all public and private institutions will include rules against caste discrimination in their diversity, equity and inclusion policies. Victims will have access to legal recourse.

Anyone familiar with caste stigma and the violence endured by caste-oppressed Dalits and other minorities should have welcomed this move as a progressive step. But Indian-origin privileged caste Hindus in Canada organised a protest demonstration in front of the TDSB office. In the name of the Canadian Organisation for Hindu Heritage Education, they launched a coordinated campaign against Rajakulasingam and other trustees who supported the motion. The protestors had the support of the Hindu American Foundation and other right-wing organisations in North America.

Privileged caste Hindus as cultural ambassadors

The end of colonial empires, the emergence of a new global order based on nation-states and the collapse of communist regimes led to globalisation. This globalisation relied on the movement of not only capital but also skilled and unskilled labour across Europe, Australia and North America, including to Canada. Moreover, at one level, the shared history of English colonial rule made the North American landscape familiar to the new immigrants from India, especially privileged caste Hindus with generations of English-language education.

As a result, by the 1990s, caste Hindus emerged as the most successful and visible of minorities in North America. They occupy high positions in the corporate sector, government and politics. Thus, they emerged as the cultural ambassadors of India. Notably, given their inherited caste privileges, they had easy access to elite education that enabled them to navigate and succeed in the white power ecosystem.

Moreover, the white colonial powers, such as Germany, France and England, and others like Russia, were obsessed with Sanskrit and Aryan cultures, even tracing their roots there. That is why the orientalist construction of Hinduism by the Europeans as a religion of non-violence, otherworldly yogis and vegetarianism set privileged caste Hindus as different from other racialised minorities, even though they faced racial oppression and violence periodically along with other minorities.

Moreover, historically in the construction of racialised societies in settled colonial spaces like in North America, caste became a template to order and govern by dehumanising non-white souls. In this context, one can see an invisible connection between caste and white supremacy that produced the Aryan race supremacy of Adolph Hitler’s Nazi Germany and the Italian fascism of Benito Mussolini. The rise of Hindu supremacist nationalism in India in the 1990s was predicated on the theory of one nation, one religion and one language, undermining the plural and diverse cultural history of India. It targeted minorities such as Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Dalits and indigenous Adivasis who do not subscribe to the Hindu supremacist agenda.

In this context, privileged caste Hindus who have emerged as India’s cultural ambassadors and faces of the Indian diaspora are normalising a Hindu supremacist ideology. They are targeting and discrediting non-Hindu minorities as anti-nationals and ‘Hinduphobic’ for speaking about the growing violence against minorities and other oppressed sections under the current regime in India, by conflating India with Hinduism.

Why caste equity matters in Canada

This homogeneous construction of Hinduism erases the everyday killings, rapes and lynching of caste-oppressed people. Equally important is how it undermines the violence endured by non-Hindu minorities such as Muslims, Christians and Sikhs in India, Canada and the US. In recognition of this reality, the California State University system and universities across the US and Canada are outlawing caste discrimination and including caste in their diversity, equity and inclusion policies. Recently, the Seattle city council outlawed caste discrimination as the city hosts several corporate headquarters that attract migrants from South Asia.

Racial oppression is visible, and the victims can seek legal recourse. Caste oppression is invisible and has no legal recognition. Privileged caste people in positions of power, while not acknowledging their caste privilege, inflict insidious discrimination, micro-aggressions and humiliation at workplaces and social gatherings. Canada, especially the Greater Toronto Area, is home to countless oppressed caste people. They face everyday forms of aggression, exclusion and discrimination. Even the children who attend schools in the Toronto area face caste-based slurs and humiliation.

Despite Canada being a tolerant and accepting society, caste oppressed people cannot come out and report their sufferings due to the fear of caste stigma and retaliation from their dominant caste colleagues and neighbours.

Fear of equality

Given the hierarchical nature of the caste system, dominant communities have felt entitled to their inherited privileges for centuries. Caste not only accrues social status, but also comes with the material benefits of free labour and the right to violence. Thus, any recognition of caste injustice and violence makes them uncomfortable. They feel the earth under their feet is moving, like they’re losing control over systems of power, both real and imagined. That is why they do everything they can to uphold their privileges and accuse anyone who shows a mirror to their face of ulterior motives.

For example in 2019, I delivered a lecture on caste-based violence in India at the Noor Cultural Center in Toronto. Ragini Sharma, the main organiser of Hindu supremacists in Toronto, protested the event. Attempts were also made to disrupt the proceedings. Not surprisingly, most of the disruptors were older men in their 70s and 80s. I felt sorry for them, as they teach their children and grandchildren hatred instead of empathy for fellow human beings. Ironically, they use the language of multiculturalism, decolonisation, religious fear and anything that helps their agenda of holding on to their privileges.

Even after moving out of their native lands and settling in liberal countries like Canada, where there is no necessity for caste to survive, they feel their existence is under threat if someone talks about caste oppression. They not only deny the existence of caste and but use all weapons at their disposal to discredit those who raise the matter. The ludicrous denial of caste is like the white supremacist denial of racial oppression and the persecution of indigenous people in Canada.

The stories of oppressed castes in South Asia are like those of the indigenous people in Canada, as they were denied fundamental human rights and dignity as human beings. In this context, by recognising caste oppression, the Toronto District School Board has become a trailblazer in upholding people’s humanity without barriers and discrimination. No human being deserves to live under the fear of oppression and exclusion.

Chinnaiah Jangam is Associate Professor in the Department of History, Carleton University.

Source: Who Is Afraid of Caste Equity in Canada?

McWhorter: Why Racial Discussions Should Also Focus on Progress

Agree:

I have argued recently that a useful and inspiring history of modern Black America need not be dominated by discussions of white racism. And having done so, it seems reasonable for me to explain, to at least a limited degree, what I would envision as a potentially better approach.

Specifically, I wrote about a draft curriculum of the College Board’s Advanced Placement course in African American studies. So what other topics might it have included, to counterbalance topics — clearly worthy, yet incomplete — such as reparations, Amiri Baraka and the Black Lives Matter movement?

Let’s try, for one, the notion of Black power. The good word would seem to be that we never really have any. But that isn’t true, and any valid chronicle of the history of what’s been happening to Black Americans since the 1960s must not pretend otherwise.

We have now had a two-term Black president, two Black secretaries of state, one Black (and South Asian) vice president and a Black secretary of defense. These were all borderline unimaginable goals a generation ago.

Wilton Gregory, the archbishop of Washington, D.C., was elevated in 2020 to become the Catholic Church’s first Black cardinal. He was the first Black president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops as far back as the early 2000s — a time at which Dennis Archer was also the first Black president of the American Bar Association.

Lowe’s and Walgreens, two of the nation’s largest retailers, are run by Black chief executives. The reason you probably didn’t know that is because there are now enough Black chief executives to bypass the notion of firsts. This contrasts with 2000, when there were only two prominent Black chief executives of Fortune 500 companies — Franklin Raines at Fannie Mae and Lloyd Ward at Maytag — although that, too, was awesome progress over what had come before.

Successes of this kind should be held up front and center, not dismissed as footnotes or all but buried in equal coverage of remaining disparities — although those should of course be covered elsewhere in a curriculum. The question is how people like this achieved as much as they did despite the obstacles, largely but not exclusively racial, they all faced. We might ask why there isn’t more focus on that question.

I often sense that we are supposed to think of people like this with a certain formulaic admiration. They are what are sometimes called “Blacks in wax” (after, presumably, the museum in Baltimore): nice to know about but ultimately fluky superstars irrelevant to what some might say Blackness is really about. Is the idea that, because they have not usually dedicated themselves to political protest in deed or gesture, it somehow makes them less impressive or less important? That itself would be a radical proposition.

Something else: A modern history of Black America should include how Black English has become, to a considerable extent, a youth lingua franca since at least the 1990s. It is absolutely a fact that attitudes toward Black English can be influenced by racism. However, this is neither the most important nor even the most interesting thing about the dialect. Beyond its awesome grammatical structures, it is fascinating that such a dialect primarily confined to Black usage just 50 years ago now decorates the speech of countless Americans who are not Black at all. And that is because how Black people talk has become an integral part of how America talks.

In Black English, “I’m going to” can be rendered as the marvelously terse “Ima,” as in, “Ima go downstairs.” Thirty years ago, I overheard a white undergraduate woman use this phrase with Black male friends. Then, white people using it were generally ones especially identified with and situated within Black culture — i.e., with a substantially Black friend group. Today I hear white and Asian young people use “Ima” all the time; it is no longer interesting. A student of South Asian heritage wrote a paper for me recently chronicling how his texting with friends, most of whom are not Black, was couched considerably in Black English, as a default medium with no performance or ridicule entailed.

And dismissing this as cultural appropriation won’t do. It’d be like Jewish people complaining that non-Jewish people say “klutz,” “schmooze” and “shtick.” Black English’s transformation of mainstream English has likewise been inevitable, harmless and cool. It’s something great that has happened since the 1960s.

A true and healthy history of Black America should also cover, with the same ardor that it does the L.A. riots of 1992, the efflorescence of Black film starting in the 1980s and continuing into the 2000s. After the Blaxploitation film flame burned out rather quickly in the 1970s, Black movies came out here and there. But starting with the electrically odd, goofy, plangent and true “She’s Gotta Have It” by Spike Lee in 1986, and Lee’s titanic oeuvre of films in its wake, it started to get hard to see every Black film that was released. (I had to give up around 1999.)

The comedies were often of a kind that both taught and amused (“Barbershop”); the romances gave Black women especially equivalents to movies like “When Harry Met Sally” (“Love Jones”); the dramas gave us our forms of movies like “Terms of Endearment” (“Soul Food”); and the gangster pictures finally gave us our James Cagneys and Lee Marvins (“New Jack City”).

A line one often used to hear in response to the idea of progress in Black film was that there existed no Black producer who could greenlight a movie alone. But that’s no longer true, now that Tyler Perry rules his own filmic empire. Some think Perry does not really count because most of his films appeal more to the gut than to the intellect. But then the vast majority of films always have, and I for one have never seen a film of Perry’s without at least one immortal performance of some kind, including, frequently, his own. And they are indeed often damnably funny.

That Black movies are now ordinary is something our historiography should chart and celebrate, much as it should a two-term Black president. The prospect of a film like “Black Panther” even getting made on such a lavish budget, much less being an international sensation, would have sounded like science fiction as recently as the 1990s. The prospect of a high-budget sequel with a mostly Black cast being made even after the star of the original had died? It beggars imagination.

One last example: From the Florida A.P. draft, one might suppose that the thing most interesting about hip-hop is its usage as protest music, given that in the draft music is so dominatingly associated with social and political purposes, advocacy and empowerment. Certainly, protest is part of what the music is; its confrontational cadence is fundamental to the genre. But as to the idea of a hip-hop revolution whereby the music was always supposedly about to unite Black America into some kind of radical political consciousness: How has that panned out?

Hip-hop has been a glorious revolution, indeed — in music, period. Be it party music, protest music, political music, obscene music or Dr. Octagon, a genre that started as street fun in the Bronx has transformed the musical fabric and sensibility of America — as well as that of the whole world. (I once watched a teen rap in Indonesian in New Guinea.) No one denies this, of course. But it is this basic triumph that should center its coverage in a course and be offered as a topic of engagement to curious young people.

I suspect that the idea that a Black historiography would not just wave at but stare at positive developments will rub some the wrong way. But the idea that our history must elevate protest as the most interesting thing about us is peculiar.

It’s worth noting that not that very long ago, Black American movers and shakers were of a similar mind in celebrating the victories more than the — very real — obstacles. In 1901, an issue of the Black newspaper The Indianapolis Recorder listed all of the city’s businesses owned by Black people and crowed, “If after reading the facts and figures as succinctly presented an inspiration comes to any who may be considering embarking in some business enterprise or renews hope in those who are now struggling to attain success we shall feel gratified.”

If a Black man could write that in the era of Plessy v. Ferguson, surely today our curriculums on Black history can recognize more clearly what Black people have accomplished, continue to accomplish and accomplish more with each passing decade. Just because time moves more slowly than we wish it did doesn’t mean we should not recognize its motion. Relaxing the impulse to hold the spotlight on what white people are doing — or not doing, or should have done — can be, among other things, a way to recognize what Black people have accomplished in a nation that brought them across an ocean as slaves.

The protest-focused perspective is rooted, it seems to me, in a take on being Black that was memorably articulated by the writer Ellis Cose in the 1990s in “The Rage of a Privileged Class,” his widely discussed book about middle-class Black people’s sense of alienation: “Hurtful and seemingly trivial encounters of daily existence are in the end what most of life is,” Cose attested, in what he described as the story of what it’s like to be Black in modern America.

Cose’s Weltanschauung is one especially prevalent among academics, artists and journalists. But most people — and most Black people — are none of those three things. I have lost count of how many Black people told me back in the day that they did not share Cose’s take on what we now call “microaggressions” as the very fabric of our existence. Many do share it, to be sure, but their positions share space with those of the other millions of Black Americans who feel closer to the way I do.

The story of Black people in America is much more than the story of what’s wrong with white people. To pretend that this isn’t true, to downplay or ignore decades of progress and accomplishment and to portray political activism — however important and necessary, and it is both — as Black Americans’ main form of accomplishment, is to suggest that white people have already won.

Source: Why Racial Discussions Should Also Focus on Progress

U.S. border app has host of issues, including recognizing Black skin tones, migrants say

USA also having problems with apps and automation:

When the U.S. government rolled out the CBP One app in January, it was touted as a way to stem the flow of migrants at the country’s southern border while still giving them the opportunity to make refugee claims.

Instead of showing up at a border crossing – or crossing illegally and waiting to be arrested – asylum seekers file their information through the app and receive an appointment with Customs and Border Protection.

But Haitian migrants at the border and their advocates are reporting a host of problems with the app. Many say it is full of glitches and frequently crashes, denying them the ability to submit their information. Others say it has tried to split up families, offering appointments to cross the border to parents but not their children or vice-versa.

It also frequently rejects the photographs it requires asylum seekers to submit: CBP One appears to have particular trouble recognizing Black skin tones, they say, making it harder for Haitians to use.

“It’s a long wait to get an appointment, and that’s if you’re lucky,” said Ricot Picot, 42, as he stood in the courtyard of a migrant shelter in Reynosa, Mexico, watching his seven-year-old daughter and one-year-old son play nearby.

Mr. Picot said he was assigned a time slot last month to make his claim. When he got to the appointment, he learned that only he would be allowed across, while his wife and children would have to wait. So he turned back, opting to wait until all four of them could get an appointment together.

Felicia Rangel-Samponaro, who runs the Sidewalk School, a group that provides classes for migrant children waiting at the Mexican border, recounted many similar situations. In some cases, children and their parents had opted to take the separate appointments, she said. Once in the U.S., it could be a lengthy process for parents to find their children in the system and reunite with them.

She said it was common for CBP One to fail to recognize photos of Black asylum seekers, meaning many could not even complete the application. In addition, the app was originally available only in English and Spanish before a recent update translated it into Haitian Creole.

“If you’re a Black asylum seeker, CBP One was not meant for you. There are constantly errors,” said Ms. Rangel-Samponaro. “If you’re Haitian, you’ve probably been out here since October. If you’re Latino, you’ve been here since December. If you’re white, you’ve been waiting two weeks.”

A lack of reliable internet and low-quality phones in the encampments where many migrants live are also problems. Some U.S. lawyers, meanwhile, are trying to charge up to US$7,000 for help using the app, she said. It has all meant that asylum seekers with more resources have a leg up in filing claims.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not reply to The Globe and Mail’s questions about the problems with its app.

“You have to choose whether to eat today or spend the day doing the application,” said Alexis Wilson, 38, laying out the stark calculus facing migrants relying on pay-as-you-go data plans to access CBP One. He was standing amid several dozen tents pitched on a concrete pad at the edge of the city centre.

Marileidi Bazil, 16, said her family was turned back by U.S. border guards on the bridge from Reynosa to Hidalgo, Tex. Born in the Dominican Republic to Haitian parents, her family went first to Brazil when she was 11 before leaving there last year after work opportunities dried up.

“I’ll just keep trying with that stupid app. It’s worse every time I use it,” Ms. Bazil said as she sat in 34-degree sunshine, the Weeknd’s Blinding Lights playing on her phone. “But I’ll be patient.”

David Xavier, 53, has the added problem of suffering from cataracts. All of his possessions were stolen in Colombia and he’s had run-ins with organized crime in Mexico. “The app doesn’t work. I can’t upload photos and I have problems writing because of my eyesight,” he said. “I just want to get out of here.”

Pastor Hector Silva, who runs two migrant shelters, said that when the app started in January, it took about three weeks for migrants to get appointments. Now, waiting times are stretching to three months. The app also assigns appointments at any border crossing, so some migrants who file in Reynosa are told to travel 2,400 kilometres to Tijuana to make their claim.

“They want everyone registered on CBP One, but it’s been very hard for people. It’s not letting them in,” he said.

For Mr. Picot, there isn’t much choice but to keep pressing forward.

By the time he left Haiti, he said, it was impossible to go downtown in Port-au-Prince without risking getting robbed or shot. Children couldn’t attend school. Kidnappings for ransom were becoming so pervasive that parishioners were getting snatched out of church pews during Sunday services.

Mr. Picot, a teacher by profession, initially tried to settle in Brazil, where he took a job in a slaughterhouse. His income wasn’t steady enough to support his family, so they left last September.

The hardest part of the journey came while trying to ford a raging river in the Darien jungle between Columbia and Panama, he recounted. The water was so swift that other migrants were swept to their deaths. First, Mr. Picot swam across alone to gauge the difficulty. Then he came back and, one by one, guided across his wife and two children.

Wherever they go from here, he insists, no one is getting left behind.

“I follow the rules,” he said. “I pray for the chance that I can cross and bring my family.”

Source: U.S. border app has host of issues, including recognizing Black skin tones, migrants say

Ottawa utilise l’intersectionnalité comme «arme» contre le Québec, dit Blanchet

Hard to imagine this becoming an issue. While I dislike the jargon, the substance of intersectionality provides insights into the differences within and between groups:

Aux yeux du chef du Bloc québécois, Yves-François Blanchet, le féminisme intersectionnel n’est ni plus ni moins qu’une « arme » brandie par le Canada contre le Québec.

C’est ce qu’il a évoqué samedi, dans un discours devant les partisans péquistes au congrès ordinaire du parti, à Sherbrooke. Cette vision du féminisme avait récemment fait les manchettes à l’Assemblée nationale, en marge de la Journée internationale des droits des femmes.

« Les mêmes qui ont le courage de dénoncer qu’on fasse des mots “racisme systémique” une arme contre le Québec doivent se dresser, a lancé M. Blanchet lors de son allocution. Les mêmes qui ont le courage de dénoncer qu’on pervertisse l’idée – peut-être valable scientifiquement, quelque part – d’intersectionnalité pour en faire une arme contre le Québec doivent se dresser. »

Le leader bloquiste reproche au gouvernement fédéral de Justin Trudeau d’imposer une idéologie « woke » aux Québécois et de « pervertir la science » au détriment des valeurs du Québec. « Le Canada essaie d’effacer le Québec de la scène mondiale », a-t-il dit samedi.

À la fin du mois de février, le gouvernement de la Coalition avenir Québec s’est opposé à une motion de Québec solidaire — cosignée par le Parti libéral du Québec et le Parti québécois — qui encourageait « l’analyse différenciée selon les sexes dans une perspective intersectionnelle ».

Né dans les années 1980, le concept d’« intersectionnalité » vise à reconnaître que les différents types de discriminations — basées sur le sexe, la couleur de la peau, le statut socioéconomique — peuvent s’entrecroiser.

« Ce n’est pas notre vision du féminisme », avait affirmé le gouvernement de François Legault lorsqu’appelé à s’expliquer sur son rejet de la motion solidaire. Le Parti québécois, qui avait pourtant donné son aval à la motion, se dit, lui, pour un féminisme « universaliste », pas « intersectionnel ».

Interrogé samedi sur ses propos vis-à-vis de l’intersectionnalité, Yves-François Blanchet a affirmé que l’intersectionnalité, comme concept américain, avait été transposée de manière « assez incertaine » au Québec. « Je ne dis pas que la notion même n’est pas pertinente. Je dis que son instrumentalisation pour s’en prendre ultimement à des valeurs québécoises […] n’est pas acceptable », a-t-il dit.

Source: Ottawa utilise l’intersectionnalité comme «arme» contre le Québec, dit Blanchet

Nelson: Gaining Canadian citizenship is more than just about ticking the box

From rural Alberta, another voice opposing the change. Too much anti-Trudeau vitriol but fundamentals on oath administration sound:

The greatest gift any country can confer is citizenship.

So why is it any surprise, given the ongoing ineptitude involving virtually every branch of our federal administration, that Canada is considering turning such a remarkable moment into something akin to tying your laces?

In fact, if a proposal by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is accepted, becoming a citizen will take even less time than needed to actually fasten your shoes. All it would entail is ticking an online box on a federal website.

No longer would you swear a solemn oath before a judge alongside other assembled proud recent immigrants from across the globe. Nope, you can get it done during a commercial break while watching a hockey game on TV. Won’t that feel oh-so special?

Maybe that’s how our current government sees this country. After all, Justin Trudeau’s administration has spent years apologizing for all sorts of perceived wrongs committed by Canada over the past century. It might therefore reckon becoming an actual citizen of such a dubious land shouldn’t be cause for public celebration.

Well, they’re wrong. So wrong they should hang their collective heads in shame.

Becoming a Canadian citizen, 38 years ago, remains a major highlight in my life: the poignancy of that day in Edmonton, following the required three years as a landed immigrant, remains a proud memory. It’s doubtful I’m alone in that sentiment.

Of course, given the recent track record of our federal government, this sad ‘tick-the-box-and-become-a-Canuck’ plan arises from yet another virtue-signalling boondoggle – one guaranteed to end in confusion and disarray once exposed to the light of day.

OK, according to the latest government figures, there are 358,000 citizenship applications outstanding, with some of those folk waiting more than two years for a ceremony.

Why such a backlog? Well, in his usual preening manner, our prime minister announced immigration levels to Canada would be boosted to such an extent that by 2025 we’ll accept 500,000 newcomers a year.

No doubt Trudeau gets some figurative gold star from the UN for this: yet the fact we can’t process such huge numbers remains an unmentionable and inconvenient truth.

Therefore, is it any wonder fewer and fewer immigrants even bother becoming citizens at all? According to Statistics Canada: in 2021, about 45 per cent of permanent residents in Canada for less than 10 years hadn’t taken citizenship. In 2001, it stood at a much lower 25 per cent.

So, why are more newcomers unwilling to commit to Canada? After all, they picked up sticks and came here in the first place – a huge, life-altering choice to make.

Is Canada becoming simply a country of expediency? Or are those continuing assaults upon our good name and once-stellar reputation, from those supposedly representing us, eroding our national brand?

Add in the organizational chaos facing enthusiastic would-be Canadians resulting in years of delay and it becomes a toxic mix of disengagement.

The official response is promoting a ‘tick-the-online box’ solution.

Such crass make-do is shameful. This is the best country on the planet, populated by a diverse bunch of Homo sapiens, somehow finding joy under sunny skies, even if it’s -20 C outside.

This remains, as always, next year country: the horizon beckons and the past is exactly that: the past. Leave it at the entrance door.

It’s time the federal government realized becoming a Canadian citizen isn’t akin to finding some loose change down the sofa. It’s a remarkable gift to bestow and one that should be suitably celebrated.

Source: COLUMN: Gaining Canadian citizenship is more than just about ticking the box

On important economic metrics, Canada is getting Ds and Fs – we can do better

The Coalition is interesting to watch as it focusses more on productivity and GDP per capita while the Century Initiative, while noting these issues, is less focused on this long standing challenge.

But the scorecards of present economic indicators with an overall negative view:

Open a news site these days and you’ll feel adrift in a sea of worries: cost of living, health care, climate change. Add geopolitical risk to that list and you might not sleep at night. I’m worried, too.

What is reassuring, though, is that there’s a growing community of Canadians who are pulling together. I sit on the advisory council of the Coalition for a Better Future, which is building a community from many walks of life across Canada. It includes youth, business leaders, Indigenous groups, social policy advocates, environmental groups and some plain-old concerned citizens.

One of the projects the coalition has done is develop a scorecard to track how Canada stacks up on a set of long-term objectives that are ultimately tied to our quality of life. The scorecard reflects what coalition members care about: growing sustainably, living better and winning globally.

So how did we do? Well, I’d say we’ve earned some Ds and even an F or two on some important fronts. GDP per person is still below where we were prepandemic, and its growth rate over the past decade was less than half of what the U.S. achieved. Canada ranked only 15th (among 167 countries) on a reputable prosperity index, down four places in the past decade. Wages, particularly of lower-income workers, have not been keeping up with inflation or productivity growth.

Don’t get me wrong, Canada has a lot going for it. We have a well-educated and talented work force, abundant resources, world-class institutions and some amazing businesses, big and small. And we have a history of pulling together, especially when the going gets tough.

So it’s not surprising that we’ve earned some As and Bs in other areas. The share of Canadians living in poverty has fallen to the lowest level in decades thanks to the support from the federal government during the pandemic. Indigenous people are playing a growing role in the labour market, with their participation rate last year surpassing the non-Indigenous rate. Carbon dioxide emissions are down as a share of GDP.

We’ll need to raise our GPA by building on our country’s strengths given the challenges that Canada, and all other countries, will face.

One core reason for some of the Ds and Fs is slow productivity growth. To see why, you just need to look at our lacklustre business investment in research and development, intellectual property and even machinery and equipment, which has been disappointing for years.

Yes, other countries are struggling with the same problem. Yet Canada is at the back of the class, particularly next to our largest trading partner. If we can’t compete in the United States and in other markets, we’ll be poorer – it’s that simple.

Policies that boost demand did help us in the darkest hours of the pandemic, but they won’t fix this problem. In the current context, they’ll only add to inflation.

The sooner we recognize that we have entered an era of supply-constrained economics, the better. It’s being driven by the aging of the population, climate change, digitalization and the structural trend away from globalization driven by troubling geopolitics. These challenges are only heightened by a sense that our country is ill-prepared to face them.

What we need now are policies that will increase Canada’s capacity to grow sustainably so we have the wherewithal to face these challenges. That means renewed emphasis on capital formation, in all its forms – physical, intellectual property and human. Needed are policies to induce companies to spend on capital, promote the adoption of technology and the commercialization of research, build infrastructure and help train workers. It’s not always about spending more money or reducing taxes. Sometimes governments just need to remove barriers when they’re getting in the way of responsible investment. Sometimes it’s as simple as recognizing professional qualifications when someone arrives from another country or moves to another province.

The discussions about Canada’s challenges can get pretty animated, yet our group, the Coalition for a Better Future, is united in the belief that economic growth that is also sustainable and shared is a necessary first step to a better quality of life.

Canada may not be making the grade today, but it can do better with the right public policies and private sector engagement. The good news for the federal government as it prepares to release its 2023 budget in the coming weeks is that Canadians are paying attention.

Carolyn Wilkins is a senior research scholar at Princeton University’s Griswold Centre for Economic Policy. She was senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada from May, 2014, to December, 2020.

Source: On important economic metrics, Canada is getting Ds and Fs – we can do better

US Visa Hurdles Push More Companies to Relocate Foreign Talent

Note Canadian angle:

US employers are increasingly relocating employees abroad to hold onto key talent in the face of restrictive quotas on high-skilled foreign workers. 

Ninety-three percent of companies that responded to a survey of workplace immigration trends say they expect this year to turn to offshoring or nearshoring talent—transferring employees overseas or to a nearby country—because of a combination of immigration restrictions and labor demands. 

Canada is the top destination to relocate foreign workers, with 62% of responding companies sending workers there, according to the survey produced by immigration services firm Envoy Global Inc. It was followed by Mexico and the United Kingdom (48%) and Germany (31%). 

In most cases, the move is the result of challenges securing a work visa. More than eight out of 10 employers lost a foreign employee in the past year because they were unable to secure an H-1B or other employment-based visa. 

“There’s a continued frustration with the finite viability and challenge of securing a visa,” said Envoy Global President and CEO Dick Burke. “They’re pursuing the next best alternative, which is overseas.” 

The online registration period for H-1B specialty occupation visas opened last week, a preliminary step before US Citizenship and Immigration Services holds a lottery for the 85,000 visas available for fiscal year 2024. 

Demand for foreign workers with skills in science, technology, mathematics, and engineering has continued to grow across the economy, far outstripping that annual cap. 

At the same time, many companies are becoming more comfortable with hybrid and remote work to keep top talent. 

“The confluence of those factors”—immigration difficulties and the rise of telework—drove the increase in offshoring plans, Burke said.

O Canada

Recent international graduates with STEM degrees from US colleges and universities can work for up to three years on F-1 student visas under a program called Optional Practical Training. The program allows those graduates to remain and work in the US while trying their hands at getting an H-1B.

When an early-career worker has run out of immigration options after multiple attempts at the H-1B visa lottery, relocating them to Canada has become a top fallback option for employers, said Jennifer Behm, an attorney at Berardi Immigration Law.

Such nearshoring was already a “no brainer” for large, multinational corporations, but it’s drawing increasing interest from smaller and midsize firms as well. 

“When we’ve seen new interest, it has been the medium size firms, not the enormous conglomerates or multinationals,” Behm said. “We’ve successfully made it work for companies who only have US operations.” 

Canada is attractive because of its close proximity and similar time zones. It also offers a more worker-friendly immigration system, including immediate work permits for spouses and a quicker pathway to permanent residency, she said.

Relocation Services Industry

There hasn’t been a massive shift toward relocating workers abroad, but companies that do so are finding it easier, said Davis Bae, co-chair of the immigration practice group at Fisher & Phillips LLP. 

“Are people more interested in it now? Only because there are more resources,” he said. 

Smaller companies without operations abroad have been turning to professional employer organizations (PEOs) for human resource and compliance services when they face losing a skilled foreign worker. The PEO serves as the employer of record in a country like Canada so companies don’t have to establish their own offices outside of the US. 

Under this arrangement, paying to relocate a worker to Toronto or Vancouver costs a fraction of what it would cost to replace them with a new employee, said Marc Pavlopoulos, the founder and CEO of PEO Syndesus Canada Inc.

The company employs about 200 workers for US companies in Canada, roughly 90% of whom relocated after losing out on the H-1B lottery. Pavlopoulos works with smaller US-based tech companies that are seeking to grow, while also working toward a Canadian goal of adding 500,000 immigrants per year by 2025. 

“The Canadian Dream is a good one,” he said. “You get to keep your cool job and you’re on your way to getting a Canadian passport.”

Source: US Visa Hurdles Push More Companies to Relocate Foreign Talent

Un projet pilote pour aider des bureaux de député à régler des dossiers d’Immigration

Believe a majority or significant minority of constituent requests for MP help involve immigration and related issues in most ridings:

Des députés du Bloc québécois lancent un projet pilote inédit pour délester leurs bureaux de circonscription, qui croulent sous les dossiers d’immigration. Portée par le député de Lac-Saint-Jean, Alexis Duceppe-Brunelle, la proposition permettra l’embauche à temps plein d’une personne qui s’occupera des cas plus complexes afin de porter secours à sept bureaux bloquistes qui font face à un afflux accru de demandes d’aide.

« Dans un comté comme le mien, 35 à 45 % des dossiers sont des cas d’immigration, mais ils accaparent 60 à 65 % du temps travaillé », explique M. Duceppe-Brunelle. Autant de temps consacré à des cas d’immigration de plus en plus complexes qui n’est pas utilisé pour aider d’autres citoyens aux prises avec des problèmes moins graves ou qui ne relèvent pas de l’immigration, comme l’assurance-emploi.

Le député, qui travaille sur sa proposition depuis l’automne avec la collaboration du ministre Sean Fraser, se félicite d’avoir réussi à faire accepter un assouplissement de certaines règles de la Chambre des communes, assouplissement qui permet de revoir la structure des budgets de circonscription afin de financer un tel poste.

« Cette personne-là va s’occuper sur les cas les plus complexes d’immigration dans [certains] bureaux de député et va finir par prendre énormément d’expérience, soutient-il. Ça va désengorger le travail de nos bureaux. »

Les adjoints de circonscription n’ont pas tous l’habitude de traiter un tel volume de dossiers d’immigration et n’ont pas toujours l’expertise nécessaire. « Les gens sont compétents, mais si quelqu’un qui va normalement s’occuper d’un cas de pension de vieillesse doit mettre le double du temps sur un dossier d’immigration… Ça rend son travail plus difficile à faire. »

Hausse du nombre de dossiers

Dans un sondage interne auquel ont répondu une vingtaine de députés bloquistes sur 32, 85 % ont dit avoir vu le volume de dossiers d’immigration augmenter au cours des trois dernières années, souligne M. Duceppe-Brunelle.

Une récente étude de l’Université Laval s’est intéressée au rôle joué par les adjoints de circonscription dans les dossiers d’immigration : la pile, en effet, n’a pas cessé de grossir, surtout pendant la pandémie. Réalisée par l’équipe de Danièle Bélanger, titulaire de la Chaire de recherche du Canada sur les dynamiques migratoires mondiales, l’enquête a révélé que la COVID-19 a entraîné une réorganisation des services. L’augmentation du volume des demandes (64 %) était d’ailleurs la conséquence la plus fréquemment rapportée.

Et, parallèlement, les outils dont disposent les adjoints de circonscription et les députés, soit une ligne téléphonique privilégiée leur permettant de parler directement à des agents d’immigration, ont été réduits ou passablement transformés dans les deux dernières années.

L’équipe du Centre ministériel pour les députés et sénateurs est d’ailleurs devenue squelettique en raison des crises en Afghanistan et en Ukraine. Depuis l’automne, à la suite d’une réorganisation des services, les bureaux de député doivent désormais prendre rendez-vous avec un agent par le biais d’une plateforme en ligne pour tenter d’avoir de l’information et régler des dossiers.

Autrefois, pour certains cas très urgents, le député pouvait lui-même faire l’appel. « Quand il faut sortir quelqu’un de l’avion, il faut agir vite des fois, soutient Alexis Duceppe-Brunelle. Je l’utilisais avec parcimonie, mais quand même, j’étais un de ceux qui l’utilisaient le plus. Et là, on n’a plus accès à cette ligne. »

Le « bateau » IRCC

Disant ne pas vouloir « faire de politique » sur ce dossier, le député bloquiste constate néanmoins un problème structurel à Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté Canada (IRCC), notamment en ce qui concerne les délais de traitement, qui ne cessent de s’allonger.

« Le ministre a mis de l’argent, a engagé plus de monde, et je vais donner la chance au coureur. Si ça fonctionne, je vais être le premier à applaudir, mais pour l’instant, il y a de sérieux écueils, a-t-il dit. Je dirais que ce n’est pas le capitaine, le problème, c’est plus le bateau. »

Par ailleurs, en dehors des outils dont dispose le bureau du député, le centre d’appels d’IRCC demeure le seul point de contact pour le grand public depuis la fermeture de tous les bureaux de services en personne. Au printemps 2019, un rapport du Bureau du vérificateur général du Canada avait noté les graves lacunes de ce centre d’appels, qui, lors des années 2017-2018, n’avait répondu qu’à 22 % des 1,7 million d’appels reçus.

Le Bloc québécois réclame depuis 2020 la création d’un poste d’ombudsman au ministère de l’Immigration, une recommandation qui figure aussi dans un rapport du Comité permanent de la citoyenneté et de l’immigration.

Source: Un projet pilote pour aider des bureaux de député à régler des dossiers d’Immigration