Canada to extend citizenship to children born abroad, restoring rights of ‘lost Canadians’

As largely expected following the Court decision and the government’s decision not to appeal, the residency requirement has emerged as the least objectionable and easiest connection test to manage among the available options. However, it is strange that Bill C-71 isn’t fully consistent with the standard physical residency requirement for new Canadians: “must have been physically in Canada for at least 1,095 days (3 years) during the 5 years before the date you sign your application.” This means a weaker connection test than warranted IMO and curious to see how the government justifies this difference and assesses the impact on the number of people affected.

At least the government is following the normal legislative process in making the change rather than the backdoor shortcut of S-245, to allow for proper committee consideration and debate. It remains to be seen how the Conservatives react on the substance given their legitimate opposition to the S-245 approach.

The number of persons potentially affected is large. Out of the estimated 4 million Canadian expatriates, about half are by descent (i.e., born abroad). Two-thirds of expatriates are living in the USA, with another 15 percent in UK, Australia France and Italy (2017). The number living in other countries has increased from 14 percent in 1990 to 20 percent in 2017.

As we have seen in previous efforts to respond to “Lost Canadians,” the actual number of those who request citizenship proofs is relatively small: an average of 1,500 per year, 2009-22. So while the impact is potentially large, the actual numbers are likely smaller given that for second and subsequent generation expatriates in the USA and EU, largely integrated into their country of residence, Canadian citizenship may not be a priority. On the other hand, it is likely a higher priority for those in other countries with less secure conditions, with Hong Kong being a prime example, and where we see growth in expatriates.

Of course, all of these expatriates will have voting rights, another reversal by this government of the previous government’s five year cut-off. However, despite the talk about the right to vote, actual interest in voting in Canadian elections is minimal among expatriates.

It will be interesting to see what analysis, if any, IRCC provides on the potential impact on its citizenship operations.

Having become a grandparent to a child born abroad, I look at how our the change affects our grandson. Under the current first-generation cut-off, he would not be able to transmit his Canadian citizenship to any future child. Under C-71, he would have to 1,095 cumulative days of physical presence in Canada. So the obvious and easiest strategy for him would be to attend university in Canada and thus start the clock again. Personally, the first generation cut-off did not concern us as we accept that family trajectories and trees evolve and change.

It would be helpful for the government and CIMM to look at my and other scenarios to understand the potential impact of the lack of a timeframe for the physical residency requirement, particularly for temporary workers (TFWP and IMP) which are less straightforward that the situation of my grandson.

Following a court order, the federal government has introduced new legislation to restore the citizenship rights of “lost Canadians” born outside Canada and ensure it doesn’t happen to others in the future.

This legislation would automatically confer Canadian citizenship to persons born abroad to a Canadian parent who is also born abroad beyond the first generation if the parents can pass a “substantial connection test.”

“It will be the first time that the Citizenship Act is actually charter compliant,” said Don Chapman, a staunched advocate for lost Canadians, after Bill C-71 was tabled in Parliament on Thursday. It’s monumental. And it has huge ramifications.”

As a result of the first-generation limit, Canadian citizens who were born outside Canada cannot pass on citizenship to their child born outside Canada; neither can they apply for a direct grant of citizenship for a child born outside Canada and adopted, creating generations of so-called “lost Canadians.”

“We want our citizenship to be fair, accessible, with clear and transparent rules. Not everyone is entitled to it, but for those who are, it needs to be fair,” Immigration Minister Marc Miller told reporters.

“We wanted to take this opportunity to continue to minimize differential outcomes as much as possible for children born abroad…compared to children born to Canadians (in Canada).”

According to the proposed amendment to the citizenship law, parents born abroad who have or adopt children also born outside Canada will need to have spent at least 1,095 cumulative days of physical presence in Canada prior to the birth or adoption of their child to pass on citizenship.

Lost Canadians and their families launched a constitutional challenge in court last year of the two-generation citizenship cutoff rules. Click here to post your thoughts

In December, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that it’s unconstitutional for Canada to deny automatic citizenship to children born abroad because their parents also happened to be born abroad. It gave the federal government six months, until June 19, to repeal what’s known as the “second-generation cut-off” rule and amend the Citizenship Act.

With the looming court-stipulated June 19 deadline to roll out the new scheme, Miller said the government is unlikely to receive royal assent to the bill in time and will have to go before the judge to ask for an extension, which will cause further delays for affected children and grandchildren of Canadians to acquire citizenship and join families in Canada.

“We are still looking at a number of options. We don’t want an extension ad nauseum because there are people that are being prejudiced by this,” Miller explained.

“I have a very uncomfortable role in the interim at applying a test that really should be legislative. But it’s something that will have to speak to the court about. Again, we hope that this can be passed at all stages.”

In 2009, the then-Conservative government changed the citizenship law and imposed the second-generation cut-off on Canadians born abroad, after Ottawa had faced a massive effort to evacuate 15,000 Lebanese Canadians stranded in Beirut during Israel’s month-long war in Lebanon in 2006.

The $85-million price tag of the evacuation effort sparked a debate over “Canadians of convenience” — referring to individuals with Canadian citizenship who live permanently outside of Canada without “substantive ties” to Canada, but who were nonetheless part of the government’s liability.

As a result, the government abolished the then existing “substantial connection” regime and adopted a blanket rule that denies the first generation born abroad the right to pass on citizenship by descent outside Canada to the second generation born abroad.

In January, Ottawa decided not to challenge the court decision, but instead would repeal the existing law and put forward a new bill that’s compliant with the Canadian constitution.

Source: Canada to extend citizenship to children born abroad, restoring rights of ‘lost Canadians’

The press backgrounder:

Bill C-71: An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2024)

From: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada

The Citizenship Act contains a first-generation limit to citizenship by descent, which means that a Canadian citizen parent can pass on citizenship to a child born outside Canada if the parent was either born in Canada or naturalized before the birth of the child. Canadians born or naturalized in Canada before adopting a child born abroad can apply for a direct grant of citizenship for the adopted child.

As a result of the first-generation limit, Canadian citizens who were born outside Canada cannot pass on citizenship to their child born outside Canada, and cannot apply for a direct grant of citizenship for a child born outside Canada and adopted.

On December 19, 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declared that the first-generation limit for those born abroad is unconstitutional. The Government of Canada did not appeal the ruling because we agree that the law has unacceptable consequences for Canadians whose children were born outside the country.

The government is introducing legislation to make the citizenship process as fair and transparent as possible. Bill C-71 would

  • automatically remedy the status of any person already born who would have been a citizen were it not for the first-generation limit
  • establish a new framework for citizenship by descent going forward that would allow for access to citizenship beyond the first generation based on a substantial connection to Canada

Substantial connection test

Bill C-71 would allow a Canadian parent born abroad who has a substantial connection to Canada to pass on citizenship to their child born abroad beyond the first generation. It would also provide them with access to the direct grant of citizenship for their child born abroad and adopted beyond the first generation.

To demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada, a Canadian parent who was born abroad would need to have a cumulative 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada before the birth or adoption of the child.

Lost Canadians

The term “Lost Canadians” has generally been used to describe those who lost or never acquired citizenship due to certain outdated provisions of former citizenship legislation.

Most cases were remedied by changes to the law in 2009 and 2015. These changes allowed people to gain Canadian citizenship or get back the citizenship they lost. Despite this, additional amendments are needed to include other categories of Lost Canadians and their  descendants who did not benefit from the 2009 and 2015 changes.

Bill C-71 will restore citizenship to any remaining “Lost Canadians,” their descendants and anyone who was born abroad to a Canadian parent in the second or subsequent generations before the legislation comes into force. This includes people who lost their citizenship as a result of requirements under the former section 8 of the Citizenship Act.

Globe editorial: Sorry, Ottawa, but magical thinking won’t fix the economy [on immigration]

Of note:

…Ottawa has made the choice to select lower-scoring immigrants who fit into specialized niches in the economy rather than those who, according to Canada’s own immigration system, have a better chance of long-term success.

… But it would be a serious policy blunder to carve out even more exceptions and further squeeze the general pool of permanent resident spots. Such an action would cement the trend toward a low-wage economy largely populated by immigrants.

A better, if tougher, approach would be to allow temporary migrants to compete for a spot in the general pool. Some will undoubtedly qualify, and will help to build Canada in the coming decades. Others won’t and will have to leave.

The Liberals need to keep in mind two imperatives in sorting out economic migration policy: the needs of Canadians come first – and magical thinking won’t get the country’s economy back on track.

Source: Sorry, Ottawa, but magical thinking won’t fix the economy

Paul: What Does Hollywood Owe Its Jewish Founders?

Of note:

The Jews who founded Hollywood — and make no mistake, the big studio heads were overwhelmingly Jewish — shared several things: ambition, creative vision and killer business instincts.

But more than anything else, the men who were the driving forces behind Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Warner Brothers, Universal, Columbia and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer shared a very 20th-century sense of being Jewish in America. They were assimilationists who considered themselves American above all else and who molded Hollywood to reflect and shape their American ideals.

“Above all things, they wanted to be regarded as Americans, not Jews,” Neal Gabler wrote in his definitive 1988 history, “An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood.” Louis B. Mayer, a co-founder of MGM, went so far as to claim that his birth papers had been lost during immigration and to declare his birthday henceforth as the Fourth of July.

It was troubling, then, that when the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures opened in 2021, it neglected to integrate Jews into its portrayal of Hollywood’s early days and later successes despite obvious attentiveness to other ethnic and racial groups. Beyond a few brief mentions, including Billy Wilder fleeing Nazi Germany, a photo of the MGM mogul and academy founder Louis B. Mayer looming over Judy Garland, and a few scoundrels in an exhibit on #MeToo, Jews were absent. Jewish studio heads, business leaders and actors were almost entirely shut out, an oversight that led to much outcry.

“It’s sort of like building a museum dedicated to Renaissance painting and ignoring the Italians,” the Hollywood historian and Brandeis University professor Thomas Doherty told Rolling Stoneat the time.

When I asked the museum’s former director and president Bill Kramer, now the C.E.O. of the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, what he made of the omission, he did not acknowledge the error but said museum officials took the criticism seriously. “It was clear that this was something that certain stakeholders were expecting,” he said. “That in some visitors’ minds this was an omission that needed to be corrected.” Did he think the criticism was valid? “It was how people felt. And those feelings were real and feelings are valid.”

The museum has compensated for its neglect by creating what it calls its first permanent exhibit, “Hollywoodland: Jewish Founders and the Making of a Movie Capital,” which opened on Sunday.

The exhibit has three components. The first provides a panoramic view of how the city of Los Angeles evolved to accommodate an influx of immigrants, including Jews, the development of the film industry and the needs of its diverse population, from the Oglala Lakota people to Chinese immigrants, reflected in archival footage and an interactive table map. The second part tracks the history of the city’s studios, and the third screens an original documentary, “From the Shtetl to the Studio: The Jewish Story of Hollywood.” The space is intimate but expansive in its vision and is well executed.

So how were Jews left out in the first place? Some sources told Rolling Stone after the opening that those who might have applied more pressure earlier, chose to lay low during the museum’s development. Some of this reticence surely emerged from the tenor of the moment, with its focus on racial representation and what Kramer referred to as “pro-social” causes — gay rights, women’s equality, the labor movement — which the museum details in a dedicated section and weaves in throughout.

It may also be attributable to an uneasy tension among Jews around their place in America — eager to be integrated, included and successful, while at the same time wary of possible exclusion or alternately, too much notice, inciting a backlash and reanimating underlying antisemitism. The recent outburst of antisemitism that we’ve witnessed on college campuses and in protests against Israel had long been stewing within academia and across culturalinstitutions.

Throughout the Academy Museum’s development, much of which occurred after the rise of campaigns like #OscarsSoWhite, officials made clear that it would emphasize diversity and inclusivity. The museum highlights nonwhite and other marginalized contributors to the industry to help remedy the industry’s long record of exclusion.

“I don’t think you open a cultural institution at this historical moment and not be reflective of a diversity of histories and perspectives,” Jacqueline Stewart, the museum’s current director and president, told me when I asked about the museum’s focus on representation. She pushed back on the criticism. “There werereferences to Jewish filmmakers from the very beginning,” she said, mentioning a clip of a Steven Spielberg Oscar acceptance speech. “That seems to get lost.”

But in bending over backward to highlight various identity groups at every point, the museum unintentionally leaves out part of what makes the movies such a unifying and essentially popular medium: the ability to transcend those differences. In a pluralistic, immigrant nation, Hollywood helped create a uniquely American culture that speaks to a broad audience. That’s part of what we call the magic of movies.

If nothing else, Hollywood is relentlessly evolving, perhaps now more than ever under the threat of A.I., increased economic pressures and consolidation. The Academy Museum, too, continues to change. Much of what I saw in the museum — which must be said is a marvel and a must-see for any film lover — had been switched out for new material since I first visited in June 2022. Elements in the core exhibit are in constant rotation, in part due to fragility of its artifacts, like costumes; in part to reflect the immensity of its collection; and in other cases, in a then overt effort to hit all the bases among competing interests.

If this flux is indicative of the Academy Museum’s stated intent to represent the changing priorities of American audiences, then it also holds the potential to move beyond this current moment, with its intentional and unintended divisiveness.

Source: What Does Hollywood Owe Its Jewish Founders?

New report sheds light on housing issues, wage gaps, employment numbers in Black, African Nova Scotian communities

Of note but not terribly surprising with considerable similarities elsewhere in Canada:

A “first-of-its-kind” report released Wednesday is presenting statistical data on Black communities in Nova Scotia.

The report focused on six key areas, including: population, labour, income, education, housing and well-being.

The African Nova Scotian Prosperity and Well-being Index report(opens in a new tab) represents a crucial step towards understanding and addressing economic disparities Black and African Nova Scotian communities face.

Council members with the Road to Economic Prosperity(opens in a new tab) says the data collected reflects the experience of African Nova Scotians, including historical challenges like anti-Black racism.

Housing statistics

According to the report, compared to the overall Nova Scotian population, the Black Nova Scotian community has higher shares of households living in unaffordable housing, inadequate housing that doesn’t fit the number of people living in them, and unsuitable housing, meaning homes that require “major repairs.”

While 7.3 per cent of Nova Scotian households live in core housing need, the share almost doubles to 13.2 per cent for Black Nova Scotians.

The report found that less than half of Black households in Nova Scotia — 45.8 per cent — owned their own homes.

Wage gap statistics

On average, the index report found a Black Nova Scotian will earn only 85 cents in income for every dollar earned by a non-visible minority in the province.

The average Black Nova Scotian with a bachelor’s degree or higher made only 79.2 per cent of the income of the average Nova Scotian with the same education levels in 2020, according to the report’s findings.

Employment statistics

The age-adjusted unemployment rate for Black Nova Scotians remains above the figure for the overall population: 4.7 per cent higher in 2016, and 1.3 per cent higher in 2021, according to the report.

Nova Scotia’s Black population

Census data included in the index also shows that between 2016 and 2021, the Black population in Nova Scotia grew more quickly than Nova Scotia’s population overall, a trend that was led by international migration, primarily from Nigeria.

In all, 28,220 Nova Scotians self-identified as Black, representing three per cent of the provincial population. The fastest-growing groups were Black men and women between the ages of 20 and 44.

The report makes a 14 recommendations, including that the province’s Black community expand its data sources by co-operating with universities, community groups and governments.

Another recommendation calls on all orders of government to recognize descendants of Nova Scotia’s historic 52 Black communities as a “distinct people.”

Although the information gathered in the report may not come as a surprise to members of the Black community, the council says it’s important to share the findings with other community political leaders to help push for change.

“When you review the data, the circumstances for Black Nova Scotians is not ideal. Education, we are showing improvements around education but we are still very much over-represented in core housing needs and over-represented in those needing adequate housing. I would just say it doesn’t paint a pretty picture but it does show the reality,” said Shaekara Grant, co-chair of Road to Economic Prosperity youth council.

The group hopes to continue their research and present data every three years.

“The index is a measuring tool. You know the old adages, ‘What doesn’t get measured, doesn’t get changed.’ So, this is a tool that we are hoping advocacy groups and community groups can use in those areas, which they are working to bring about some positive change,” said Irvine Carvery, co-chair of Road to Economic Prosperity advisory council.

The council says they are working with Statistics Canada to come up with better ways to gather data that reflect the African Nova Scotian experience in their census work.

The Road to Economic Prosperity Plan is a five-year economic development strategy developed and owned by the African Nova Scotian community to address systemic issues and improve economic and quality of life outcomes for African Nova Scotians.

The plan is led by leaders from African Nova Scotian communities and implemented in collaboration with public, private, post-secondary and community partners.

More statistics from the African Nova Scotian Prosperity and Well-being Index report(opens in a new tab) can be found online.

Source: New report sheds light on housing issues, wage gaps, employment numbers in Black, African Nova Scotian communities

Pathways of Black, Latin American and other population groups in bachelor’s degree programs

Of interest and another demonstration of the value of disaggregated data between visible minority groups with of course the “why” questions harder to answer:

This article fills this gap by documenting various aspects of the postsecondary experience of different population groups with regard to bachelor’s degree programs. The findings suggest that different population groups registered very dissimilar experiences.

For example, Chinese students ranked near the top in bachelor’s degree enrolment rates; graduation rates; enrolment in math-intensive science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) programs; and (among students who initially enrolled in STEM) STEMgraduation rates. By contrast, Black students consistently ranked near the bottom and trailed Chinese students by a considerable margin on all of these measures. Latin American students also ranked fairly low in most measures.

Meanwhile, other groups had varied experiences depending on the outcome. While White students ranked low in terms of bachelor’s degree enrolment rates, they ranked high in terms of graduation rates. White students also ranked low in math-intensive STEMenrolment rates, but among students who initially enrolled in STEM, their STEM graduation rates were among the highest. By contrast, Korean students were among the most likely to enrol in a bachelor’s degree program, but once in these programs, their graduation rates and math-intensive STEM enrolment rates were about average.

These results are important as they point to specific stages in the pursuit of higher education where choices and outcomes diverge across population groups, which could contribute to understanding the differences in labour market outcomes that exist across population groups. Understanding why certain population groups are less likely to graduate from a bachelor’s degree program would require information on the reasons for dropping out or switching programs. These may include academic difficulties, financial constraints or even favourable labour market opportunities. …

Source: Pathways of Black, Latin American and other population groups in bachelor’s degree programs

In between belonging: New ICC report sheds light on how newcomers feel about Canadian citizenship

Good informative analysis of those who have participated in Canoo, generating what I consider to be sensible recommendations (disclosure: I continue to work with ICC on citizenship data questions). I would however recommend a greater shift towards in-person ceremonies with specific public reporting on virtual and in-person with a performance target ideally at 80 percent or close to it:

Our analysis combines survey and interview data from newcomers participating in the Canoo Access Pass who shared their perspectives on Canadian citizenship and the various factors that influence their views on whether to naturalize.

To read the full report, click here.

While a majority of the permanent residents (PRs) surveyed express positive views on Canadian citizenship and either intend to apply or have already done so, a significant 21% remain uncertain or reluctant to apply. Through in-depth follow-up interviews with 40 respondents, we found the following factors play a role in shaping newcomers’ views on naturalization:

  • Dual Citizenship Restrictions and Economic Opportunities: For newcomers from countries with robust economies and stringent dual citizenship regulations, the allure of Canadian citizenship may be overshadowed by the advantages of retaining their original nationality. Economic prospects within and beyond Canada play a pivotal role in shaping individuals’ decisions.
  • Unmet Expectations and Integration Challenges: The journey to integration is often fraught with obstacles, from navigating the labour market to grappling with cultural nuances. Mismatches between preconceived notions and the realities of life in Canada can lead to feelings of isolation and hinder newcomers’ sense of belonging.
  • Challenges Accessing Support Services: Many newcomers report feeling adrift amidst the numerous integration services, highlighting a pressing need for specific accessible resources that foster a sense of community and facilitate a smoother transition to life in Canada.

In response to these findings, the ICC proposes the following recommendations to increase newcomer access and improve Canada’s citizenship program overall:

1. Establish Meaningful Naturalization Targets: Set ambitious yet achievable benchmarks for PRs to obtain citizenship within a specified timeframe, fostering a sense of purpose and belonging.

2. Enhance Accessibility of Citizenship Ceremonies: Make citizenship ceremonies more inclusive and publicly accessible, celebrating the diverse tapestry of Canadian identity.

3. Invest in Citizenship Promotion Programs: Allocate resources to initiatives that promote citizenship awareness and engagement, empowering newcomers to embrace their Canadian identity.

4. Prioritize Immigrant Satisfaction and Retention: Uphold immigrant satisfaction as a cornerstone of national policy, nurturing a welcoming environment that encourages long-term residency and civic participation.

Source: In between belonging: New ICC report sheds light on how newcomers feel about Canadian citizenship

Adam Legge and Irfhan Rawji: Our immigration strategy is failing to deliver on its most important promise

Apart from proposing a shift in selection criteria (EE CRS) to provide more points for the trades, not specific recommendations. And arguably, the existing wealth of immigration-related data is adequate to assess overall impact on immigration’s contribution to the Canadian economy along with socioeconomic outcomes of immigrants:

Canada is a nation that has benefited tremendously from immigration. At its core, the promise of immigration is this: that new Canadians can come here from around the world, contribute to our economy and society, and build a great life for themselves, and that when they do, we will all collectively be better off for it.

The problem is, we have not been delivering on that promise.

In recent years, Canada’s immigration system has strayed, and while there are still many positives, it hasn’t been delivering as well for established Canadians and newcomers alike. Perhaps most importantly—and most frankly—is that it’s not making everyone better off, and Canadians are getting poorer.

Right now, Canada’s economy has stagnated. In fact, Canadians are no better off today than they were in 2014. And, with future productivity expectations in the gutter, our economy will not grow at the pace required to deliver opportunities for a growing population. All this has created frustration among Canadians, both long-established and new ones. Less than one-third of Canadians believe that our current approach to immigration is effective, and one-third of immigrants are unsure of their decision to move to Canada.

That’s a bad sign for Canada’s future. Future prosperity requires that the Canadian economy generates more value, not just because there are more of us, but because each one of us is better off. To get there, we need an enhanced approach and a renewed focus on the actual purpose of economic immigration: to generate prosperity for all. 

There are two main ways we need to do this:

  • Attracting and selecting the best candidates for economic immigration
  • Improving outcomes for newcomers themselves

On the selection of the best economic candidates, the statistics around this may surprise many Canadians. Today, about half of the people admitted into Canada in the economic category were not, in fact, selected for their economic contributions. They are the spouses and dependents of a primary economic immigrant. For every 10 newcomers to Canada, about three are personally selected for their economic contribution. While many of these additional people have great contributions to make to our economy as well, when we’re counting five-year-olds as economic immigrants, it’s no wonder we’re not seeing the level of economic boost we might expect.

Also, there are big gaps in how Canada decides which economic immigrants to select. Take as an example a person with a master’s degree in—because we need to pick something—Latin, versus a person with a certification as a heavy-duty mechanic.

All else held equal, the person with the master’s would receive more points than the mechanic, due simply to years of education, despite the fact that the mechanic has vastly higher average earning potential in Canada today. And, with full respect to both professions, Canada also needs far more heavy mechanics right now than we do TAs in Latin.

A clear needle-moving fix is to reform the points system used to better select economic immigrants, prioritizing those with higher earning potential over other measures. We should also make this system dynamic and update it frequently to account for changes in what skills our economy needs in real time.

On the second front, improving newcomer experience and outcomes, the fixes are clear but that doesn’t make them easy. The process needs to be streamlined and simplified. We need to connect newcomers to supports so they can find a home and a job as quickly as possible. More than all else, we need to make it much easier for newcomers to use their skills in the Canadian labour market. We must view it as economically and morally unacceptable to have people delivering Skip the Dishes who are trained as—and would prefer to be working as—physicians and engineers.

Finally, as every business person knows, what gets measured gets done. For our immigration system, we need to enhance it to deliver on its stated goal of making everyone better off. That requires tying our strategy to clear indicators of prosperity such as GDP growth per capita and directing our resources to best increase those metrics.  

There is a mandate for change. In a poll from Abacus, nearly 70 percent of Canadians feel the current immigration targets are too high. We owe it to all Canadians, from those who have been here the longest to the newest, to deliver on the promise of immigration and make everyone better off from it.

Source: Adam Legge and Irfhan Rawji: Our immigration strategy is failing to deliver on its most important promise

Tasha Kheiriddin: Liberals stuck in vicious cycle of rising immigration and housing shortages

Self-imposed and hard to extract even if Minister Miller is making some progress. Kheiriddin and the Post supportive of unions:

…The policy incoherence here is mind-boggling. The Liberals’ high-volume immigration, international student, and foreign worker policies created a massive demand for housing, which they have attempted to fix by bringing in more foreign workers, pushing down wages for domestic labour and thus making life (and housing) more unaffordable for everybody. They need to fix this, starting by respecting union workers and incentivizing Canadians to enter the trades rather than importing cheap labour.

Otherwise, their circle isn’t just vicious — it’s cruel for domestic tradespeople and foreign workers alike, who see that under this government, the Canadian dream increasingly is just a mirage.

Source: Tasha Kheiriddin: Liberals stuck in vicious cycle of rising immigration and housing shortages

Patrice Dutil: Parks Canada chooses identity politics over giving Sir John A. Macdonald his due

Valid critique. Parks Canada used to have a balanced approach in its interpretative displays that invariably provoked controversy from some groups for not totally accepting their narrative from my experience with the Canadian Historical Recognition Program.

Just as Canadian Heritage had trouble adjusting to the Harper government, seems like Parks Canada will be due for a reckoning should the Conservatives, as is likely, form the next government:

Parks Canada launched its new characterization of Sir John A. Macdonald over the Victoria Day long weekend when it reopened Bellevue House in Kingston, Ontario after six long years of restoration. The spectacle, steeped in identity politics, has rightly been criticized for portraying our founding prime minister as among Canada’s worst-ever villains. 

For fans of Canadian architecture and home design and for friends of history, this was an important event. Bellevue House is a gem in the Canadian urban landscape. It was built in 1840 for a prosperous Kingston merchant in an improbable Italian Villa style that features a square central tower and two wings deployed on either side. Think of it as a proud Canada goose standing and opening its wings, inviting visitors inside. It is as welcoming today as it was when I first visited it as part of a school field trip in grade 7, well over 50 years ago.

Macdonald rented the place for about a year in 1848-1849. Back in those days, it was located in the suburbs of Kingston and he had picked it as a place of rest for his wife Isabella who had given birth to their first child John Jr. It was a big house—far too big for a small family—and it was expensive. Sadly, it turned out to be the place of terrible tragedy for the young couple, as their son died there before he was barely a year old. 

In Macdonald’s long and impressive life, Bellevue House is nothing but an asterisk. His stay was short, no big decisions were hatched there, he never owned it, and he did not even write about it. Two other places in Canada are far more important: the Macdonald-Mowat House on St. George Street in Toronto, which has been beautifully restored by the University of Toronto, and Earnscliffe, Macdonald’s grand home overlooking the Ottawa River in Ottawa, which has long been owned by the British government (it serves as the private residence of the British High Commissioner). 

Ottawa bought Bellevue House in 1964 in preparation for Canada’s Centennial. It was opened as a historic park three years later. Because of its association with Canada’s first prime minister, a connection between exquisite architecture and politics was cemented. 

The Trudeau government had choices to make when it closed the house for long-overdue repairs in 2017 (it had suffered neglect and its visiting hours had been reduced by the Harper government). It could have sold it for redevelopment. It could have negotiated an arrangement with Kingston so as to offer much-needed museum space to a beautiful city that has done everything to show it no longer wants any association with its most famous resident. 

It could have approached nearby Queen’s University to make the place useful all year round to students (instead it will be mothballed for eight months each year). It could have made it a museum dedicated to Indigenous Peoples or to Canada’s multiculturalism. Why not a museum dedicated to Canada’s workers? Instead, it decided to keep Bellevue House fixated on Macdonald. The website for the national historical site now opens with telling lines. From the second word, the link is made between Macdonald and the First Nations: 

Hello, Shé:kon, Aaniin. At Bellevue House National Historic Site, many voices present the complex legacy of Canada’s first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. Come for the experience, engage with the stories, and join the conversation about Canadian history.

It continues:

Don’t miss this opportunity to experience the history of Sir John A. Macdonald in the 1840’s setting, while engaging in conversations about the complex and lasting legacies of Canada’s first prime minister.

There is no hint of official bilingualism. Nothing about nation-building, about the achievement of institutionalizing Confederation, or about the hardships of politically uniting a difficult country. Not a word about the economic difficulties that marked Macdonald’s time, or about the massive emigration from Canada in those years. Nothing about the hardships of women in the 19th century, or about the children who were lucky to survive past age 10 and who were typically sent to work from that point onwards. 

Instead, the re-opening of the historic Bellevue House provides yet another embarrassing display of national flagellation, triggered by the adoption of the Trudeau government’s Framework for History and Commemoration (2019), a short-signed guideline not designed to enlighten but instead to demonize Canada’s past and those who (mostly volunteered) to preserve it. 

The opening ceremonies were clear: the mission of the reborn national site is not to celebrate Kingston’s most important (by far) citizen, a man who led a national party to six electoral majorities and who was joyously celebrated in his own lifetime even by his adversaries, but to trot out the usual tropes: he was a racist, a drunk, a man who hated Indigenous peoples to the point of starving them or forcing them to go to school. A man who probably did not like women or immigrants either. Couched in terms of a “timely conversation” the Parks Canada staff’s apparently closed-door consultations with local Indigenous groups recrafted the focus to be Macdonald-Bellevue. 

Not surprisingly, there is a display about residential schools. Academic Channon Oyeniran gave introductory remarks at the reopening ceremony and talked about how the event was a “testament” to the “rewriting of this history.” She was being honest. No known historian of Macdonald, Kingston, or Victorian Upper Canada was even invited.

Dan Maracle, the chief of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, was quoted as saying that Bellevue “Now does a better job of encompassing all of Macdonald’s legacy,” urging Canadians “to learn more about the country’s Indigenous Peoples and their culture.” He continued: “If you learn about the history of the country, then that might actually create a desire to do better in the future.” One has to ask: what would Chief Maracle do without Macdonald the villain?

The reality is that Bellevue House is a fake, as it has always been. Its architecture was borrowed from a place far away and its association with John and Isabella Macdonald was tenuous at best. There are no Macdonald artifacts on display (except, maybe, a crib) because the family was house-poor and had little in the way of furniture—Macdonald was 34 years old, barely earning a living as a lawyer, with no money to buy the expensive items that are now on display and presented as totems of privilege. 

To add insult to injury, Bellevue House will now be used to heave all the ills of the Victorian era on Macdonald’s shoulders. Ignoring the fact that he was the product of democracy, today the government of Canada, which he helped create, continues to ransack the history of the country and goes out of its way to ensure Macdonald gets a kicking. 

The debacle at Bellevue House shows just how Prime Minister Trudeau continues to lead the march of the historical boodle brigade. His first step was to jettison Sir Hector Langevin, Macdonald’s favourite minister (a stalwart Quebec federalist who was as loyal and he was hard-working as minister of public works). The prime minister then did nothing to denounce the vandalism of Macdonald statues on his watch. Instead, he continuously disparages the politics and policies of his predecessors (Liberals included). 

Among his final gestures will be this fiasco at Bellevue House. For this government cannot miss an opportunity, however small, to kneecap its first prime minister’s reputation. On the other hand, there will be plenty of opportunities to boycott Bellevue House.

Source: Patrice Dutil: Parks Canada chooses identity politics over giving Sir John A. Macdonald his due

Active presence of immigrants in Canada: Recent trends in tax filing and employment incidence

Interesting and relevant way to measure integration and assess emigration rates. Findings make intuitive sense:

Increased tax-filing rates of immigrants across arrival cohorts

The tax-filing rate in the first full year is a key indicator of immigrant retention, as an earlier study found that over half of immigrants who emigrated did not file income tax in their first year after arrival. This suggests that many immigrants make decisions about leaving shortly after immigration (Aydemir & Robinson, 2008).

Among immigrants aged 20 to 54 at landing, the rate of filing an income tax return in the first full year after landing remained stable from the 1990-to-1994 cohort to the 2000-to-2004 cohort. However, it increased for cohorts that arrived since the mid-2000s (Table 1). About 90% of the 2015-to-2019 and 2020 cohorts filed a tax return in the first full year after immigration, compared with 85% among the 2005-to-2009 cohort. …

The rise in first-year tax-filing rates since the mid-2010s was widespread, spanning both men and women, age groups, educational levels, official language profiles, and most source regions. This increase was also observed across admission programs, except for a slight decline among immigrants in the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) from the 2010-to-2014 cohort to the 2020 cohort. 

The tax-filing rate in the fifth year after immigration increased steadily from the 1990-to-1994 cohort to the 2010-to-2014 cohort. Again, this uptrend was observed across immigrants with diverse sociodemographic backgrounds. However, among PNP immigrants, the filing rate in the fifth year remained relatively stable from the 2000-to-2004 cohort onward, following a decline from the 1995-to-1999 cohort. Additionally, there was a marginal decrease among immigrants from Northern Europe in the 2010-to-2014 cohort.

The tax-filing rate in the 10th year after immigration was higher among immigrants who arrived in the 2000s than among those who arrived in the 1990s. However, there was minimal change between those who arrived in the early 2000s and the late 2000s. These trends remained consistent across immigrants with various sociodemographic characteristics.

Tax-filing rates, specifically in the 5th and 10th years after immigration, were generally lower among immigrants in the Federal Skilled Worker Program and Canadian Experience Class, compared with family class immigrants and refugees. These rates were also relatively lower among immigrants with graduate degrees and those originating from the United States, and Northern and Western Europe. The literature suggests that highly skilled immigrants are more mobile and tend to explore better opportunities in the international labour market or return to their home countries when they cannot fully utilize their skills in the destination country (Aydemir & Robinson, 2008)….

Source: Active presence of immigrants in Canada: Recent trends in tax filing and employment incidence