Chris Alexander: I am a former immigration minister. Unsustainable population increases won’t solve Canada’s underlying issues

Late to the various debates and discussions given his recent focus on Russia and Ukraine. More descriptive than prescriptive, with few concrete suggestions or recommendations:

In March, the Globe and Mail reported that Canada’s population had grown by 1.3 million in 2023—the largest annual increase on record.

This surge was driven by higher numbers of immigrants, international students, temporary foreign workers, and asylum claimants.

Given that the 2021 census showed that 8.3 million Canadians, or 23 percent of our population, had an immigrant background, this latest increase means that, in a Canada of over 40 million people, one in four of us is a temporary or permanent resident, or was born abroad. This proportion of newcomers is the highest since Confederation, beating the previous record of 22.3 percent set in 1921. By comparison, the immigrant share of the U.S. population is today about 14 percent.

So what is driving these trends? Given that in recent decades immigration has been virtually the sole driver of Canada’s population growth, what overarching federal and provincial policy goals and real-world pressures are behind this recent surge?

Every year Canada’s minister of immigration, refugees, and citizenship tables what is called a “levels plan” in the House of Commons. This is a set of targets for how many permanent residents and refugees should be admitted to Canada in a given year, with projections for the two following years.

Under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), as adopted in 2001 and amended and updated regularly by successive governments ever since, the federal government must consult with its provincial counterparts on three issues: the number of permanent residents to be admitted in a given year; their “distribution in Canada taking into account regional economic and demographic requirements”; and what we call settlement issues, namely “the measures to be undertaken to facilitate their integration into Canadian society.”

In concrete terms, this means federal and provincial officials are in touch constantly, with the minister meeting his or her provincial and territorial counterparts regularly, as well as many other groups with an abiding interest in immigration.

The minister also has the option to consult provinces on policies and programmes. For instance, how do we get more digital artists, welders, hairdressers, workers for fish or meat-packing plants, or harvesters in the autumn when Canadians do not fill the jobs? Quebec implements its own immigration programmes, which have become more restrictive in recent years, but consults the federal government on its own levels’ plan: every Quebec immigrant still receives a Canadian visa. All other provinces also have their own programmes—including the Provincial Nominee Programme and Atlantic Immigration Programme—accounting for 40 percent of economic immigrants this year, or one-quarter of our total permanent intake in 2024.

Canadian context

So far, so good. But how have these levels evolved in recent years? For the first fifteen years of this century, Canada’s annual immigration intake ranged from 220,000 to 260,000, though in 2010 we had 281,000, and in 2015, 272,000. From 2016 to 2019, between 286,000 and 341,000 newcomers arrived yearly. With the pandemic in 2020, this number fell to 184,000. From 2021 to 2024, it rose to between 405,000 and 485,000. In 2025 and 2026, our goal will be 500,000 new immigrants per year.

In other words, the number of immigrants coming to Canada in a given year is now double what it was, on average, between 2000 and 2015. 

To put this in context, we now have the highest annual immigration levelssince we admitted 400,900 newcomers in 1913 under Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden. While today’s annual immigration represents more than 1 percent of Canada’s population, in 1913 it was over 5 percent.

But what else has been happening? In just three years, the number of non-permanent residents in Canada has quietly doubled. In the third quarter of 2021, there were about 1.3 million non-permanent residents in Canada: about 560,000 workers, half a million international students, and 166,000 asylum claimants. By the first quarter of 2024, there were 2.7 million non-permanent residents—with all three categories (temporary workers, international students, and asylum seekers) each more or less doubling in only three years.  

By March of this year, there were 329,000 asylum claimants in Canada, with 187,000 refugee protection claims pending before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). (By way of comparison, in late 2015, at the end of my time as minister of citizenship and immigration, this backlog of pending claims was under 10,000.)

This bottleneck means ordinary refugee claims, which are supposed to be heard by law within 60 days, now take up to three years. As a result, the government has recently brought in new rules and additional resources for the IRB that are meant to speed decisions and processing of cases.

Global context

So what is driving upward trends in permanent immigration, temporary workers, international students, and asylum claims?

Let’s start with refugees and asylum seekers. In 2009, just over 40 million people had been forcibly displaced. In my time as minister, this number was rising fast due to genocide in Syria, civil breakdown in Venezuela, and other conflicts.

By June of 2023, serious wars in Ukraine, Sudan, and elsewhere in Africa, meant that over 110 million people were, as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees puts it, “forcibly displaced from their homes due to persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations and events seriously disturbing public order.” In only fifteen years, the number of displaced people worldwide has almost tripled.

Since President Biden entered office, the number of migrants apprehended by patrols at the U.S.-Mexico border has oscillated between 100,000 and 250,000 per month, with 2.5 million encountered by U.S. border patrols in 2023.

By contrast, in 2013 U.S. Customs and Border Protection apprehended only421,000 “illegal aliens”; in 2019, they apprehended 860,000. 

In the febrile landscape of U.S. politics, this human drama on the Rio Grande makes for sensational headlines and salacious conspiracy theories. There is even hard evidence that state actors such as Russia are, via large-scale information warfare and other forms of influence, fanning the flames of this crisis in order to aid the Trump campaign and generally make U.S. politics even more grid-locked and chaotic.

This should come as no surprise since Russia, with the support of allies of convenience such as Turkey, actively “weaponised” Europe’s Syria-related migration crisis over 2014-16 in order to marginalize moderate voices and create fertile ground for xenophobic groups, though European politics have polarized less dramatically than other parts of the world, including the U.S.

Quite apart from conflicts and interference now triggering unprecedented forced displacement, including now from North Africa as well, Canada’s peer democracies have seen recent immigration figures jump. Australia saw a net inflow in 2022-23 of 518,000 people; over the same period, the U.K. had a net gain of 672,000, with 1.2 million newcomers arriving over 2022-23. Many attribute this recent spike to pent-up demand following the pandemic, when travel was restricted or postponed.

Indeed, all English- and French-speaking countries, as well as increasingly the European Union as a whole, are competing to attract more international students. Canada’s unique combination of strong institutions of higher education, work permits, and pathways to permanent residency have lifted our international student population from 330,000 in 2014 to over one million today. 

The challenge with such large net inflows of immigrants, students, workers, and asylum seekers has not been to find them work or places to study. The main pressure points are increasingly over infrastructure needs—housing, transport, health care, and other basic services—as well as affordability. How can so many newcomers find an affordable place to live in Canada without inflating rents or house prices, or creating hardships for the population at large?

While the impacts of these larger flows on the housing market are complex, it is fairly clear that large numbers of international students have driven rents upward in many cities, while new construction of single-family, multi-family, or student rental units has not nearly kept pace with demand due to the pandemic-related slowdowns, higher interest rates, and prohibitive zoning in many municipalities. 

At the same time, a growing student presence has brought enormous benefits to Canada, shaping a younger, larger, more dynamic, and innovative population, which on current trends (according to Statistics Canada) may reach 47 million by 2041.

Canada’s economic issues

In my view, the greatest overriding challenge Canada now faces—also a major disincentive for immigrants—is that for ten years incomes have stagnated. At the end of 2014, Canada’s inflation-adjusted per capita GDPwas $58,162; by the third quarter of 2023, it was $58,111—a loss of $51 over nine years.

In comparative terms, Canada’s poor performance is even more striking: for two years (2011 and 2012), Canada’s per capita nominal GDP was higher than the U.S.: according to IMF figures, in 2012 a Canadian earned USD $52,745 per year, while an American earned USD $51,737 per year.

Now fast forward to this year, when the IMF projects our nominal per capita GDP to be USD $54,866 compared to $85,373 for the U.S.—meaning that after twelve years the average American earns 56 percent more, while Canadian incomes have stood still.

The greatest overriding challenge Canada now faces is that for ten years incomes have stagnated.”

To add insult to injury, other advanced, high-income OECD economies where per capita GDP was lower than in Canada in 2012—such as Belgium, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Israel, and the Netherlands—now have higher per capita GDP.

What has created this growing discrepancy? This is a much longer story. The short answer is that business investment, productivity and the scale and value of our exports have, to put it mildly, not kept pace with the U.S. or many other peer economies over the past decade.

In a very short time, we have gone from being a country that was praised for low debt levels, a competitive tax system, innovative firms, prosperous cities, an educated workforce, and leadership on issues from energy to immigration to one that is considered to be heavily indebted, less affluent, less attractive to investors and falling behind—to the point where a leading Financial Times columnist has branded us the leading “breakdown nation.”

Immigration cannot solve these problems. Indeed, if such trends continue, the most qualified immigrants are unlikely to choose Canada. Moreover, the combination of record newcomer arrivals and stagnant incomes is souring Canadians themselves: after supporting immigration for many years by two to one, recent polls show disaffection growing, with Canadians now closer to evenly divided.

Immigration and the future of Canada

The bottom line is that immigrants, students, and workers chose Canada over centuries because we sustained high levels of growth and high standards of living. Canada’s declining affluence over the past decade undermines this pull factor—and is thus a major threat to our future ability to welcome newcomers.

By introducing caps both for international students and temporary residents as a whole—for the first time ever in Canada—our current government appears to agree that runaway inflows are unsustainable, particularly amid the slow expansion of our housing stock and lacklustre economic performance generally.

The most obvious areas for focused attention are asylum seekers, where the current backlog needs to be drastically reduced to ensure hearings are once again held within 60 days. This will allow Canada to sustain higher levels of refugee resettlement, which under our latest levels’ plan is now slated to decline slightly in 2025 and 2026.

Canada could easily have resettled 100,000 Syrian refugees since 2014 and 100,000 Afghans since 2021. After all, these are conflicts where people put their lives on the line for democracy, free speech, the rule of law, and women’s rights, often with Canadian support, but now face persecution in its most horrendous forms. Instead, we have so far resettled only 43,000 Afghans and 44,620 Syrians. This is a far cry from what Canada did for 120,000 Vietnamese refugees, otherwise adrift in small boats, when we welcomed them en masse starting in 1979.

Canada’s citizenship, immigration, study, and refugee programmes give our country a vital lifeline and a crucial advantage. But we cannot afford to be complacent. To meet the expectations of a next generation of newcomers, we need to become once again a leading destination for business investment and commercial success—a country where new firms, innovative products, and emerging sectors take root, find growing markets, and drive a new era of prosperity.

Chris Alexander was Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2013-15) and MP for Ajax-Pickering (2011-15). He is a distinguished fellow of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and the Canadian international Council.

Source: Chris Alexander: I am a former immigration minister. Unsustainable population increases won’t solve Canada’s underlying issues

Yakabuski: Instead of importing millionaires, Canada needs to produce more of them

Good comments on citizenship-by-investment programs:

…If it is the latter, then Canadians might have reason to be concerned. Mr. Hunt’s budget move aside, countries around the world have been bending over backward to attract high-net-worth immigrants from China, India and other emerging countries (and high-tax developed ones) by fast-tracking their citizenship or providing lucrative tax breaks.

Canada used to do that, too. In 2014, the Conservative government of Stephen Harper scrapped the 28-year-old federal Immigrant Investor Program, after concluding that “most immigrant investors [were] not making a long-term positive contribution to Canada.”…

Perhaps the lesson here is that, instead of importing millionaires, maybe Canada needs to do a better job at producing them. Raising the capital-gains tax inclusion rate, as Ottawa’s latest budget proposes, will not help do that. If the critics are right, it could even prompt some of our existing millionaires to leave.

Source: Instead of importing millionaires, Canada needs to produce more of them

Public service notebook: BCAS applauds government’s commitment to update the Employment Equity Act

The question remains whether there is adequate time for the current government to present and pass legislation prior to the election. Unlikely that a likely Conservative government would be so inclined:

Nicholas Marcus Thompson, chief executive officer of the Black Class Action Secretariat, said he was “very pleased” with the federal government’s commitment to “modernize” the Employment Equity Act, including by expanding designated equity groups, as outlined in Budget 2024.

The government first announced it would be updating the act to create new groups for Black and 2SLGBTQI+ people in December, alongside the release of the Employment Equity Act Review Task Force’s final report, which included that recommendation. The four current groups include women, people with disabilities, Indigenous people and members of visible minorities.

In April, the government reiterated its plans, announcing in the budget its “intention to propose legislative amendments” to the act.

“It will certainly go a long way in terms of addressing specifically anti-Black racism and discrimination,” said Thompson, who noted it “would have been nice” to see more measures around delayed mental health supports for Black employees, first announced in Budget 2022, as well as funding for the United Nations International Decade for People of African Descent included in the budget. “Black folks will not be excluded, hidden in the visible minorities category as it stands.”

In an interview, Anand said there was no funding for Black public servants included in the latest budget as funds remained from previous years.

“It’s not the case that we are forgetting that we want programming to support them, not at all,” said Anand, who in February announced the first initiatives of the government’s “action plan” for Black public servants.

BCAS filed a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Employment Equity Act in 2020, arguing that it violated the Charter of Rights by discriminating against and excluding Black employees.

Source: Public service notebook: Mediation and measures to prevent hearing injuries

War-displaced Ukrainians call on Ottawa for a simplified pathway to permanent residency

Hard not to see this coming given the ongoing situation in Ukraine:

Ukrainians living in Canada who fled from war are urging the federal government to create a streamlined pathway to permanent residency, saying that they do not qualify for many of the existing programs.

Those programs include ones tied to jobs and education, humanitarian considerations and the presence of family in Canada – but all have caveats that make it a difficult fit for many.

In March, 2022, Canada put into place the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel program (CUAET), which allowed Ukrainians to temporarily come to Canada. Over the course of two years, 286,000 people arrived through the program, but it officially ended on March 31, leaving Ukrainians who fled the war, and whose homes have been destroyed, with no way of staying…

Source: War-displaced Ukrainians call on Ottawa for a simplified pathway to permanent residency

Immigrant workers say future in limbo as government ranking system scores soar

Consequences of a failed immigration system that encouraged such hopes and education institutions that catered to international students seeking pathways to permanent residency through often lower skilled business programs. Another disconnect.

And in general, a rise in the express entry cut-off is a sign that the program is working to select more qualified immigrants under the “general” category:

Kanika Maheshwari moved to Brampton from India in 2020 to study business management. Her dream, she says, was to open a jewelry business one day.

Since graduating, she has been working with a logistics company as a sales executive. The 29-year-old has built a life in Canada with her husband, who works as a trader — both are saving to open her jewelry store.

But Maheshwari says her dream is now at risk because her Canadian work permit expires in August, and she hasn’t heard back about her permanent residency (PR) application since she applied last year, due to Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) draws which have been consistently way higher than her score.

One immigration consultant says that is because a record number of people are applying for a PR with higher scores, having collected more points through lengthy and costly application processes that come with no guarantee of success.

Canada accepted a record high of 430,000 PR applications in 2022.

“It feels like I’m going straight and there will be a well where I will fall down,” Maheshwari says.

CRS is a ranking system used by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to score immigrants applying for a permanent residency, using factors like age, level of education, English proficiency and work experience. Every two weeks, IRCC draws a CRS rank and applicants with that score or higher are invited to submit documents to receive a PR card.

All the draws since January this year for the general category have averaged over 540, according to IRCC’s website.

“That’s terribly high. It’s impossible to meet, and it’s really rare,” says Manan Gupta, a Brampton immigration consultant.

Most people with a post-graduate work permit (PGWP) — lasting a maximum of three years — don’t meet the current threshold, Gupta says.

That high score comes at a time when Immigration Minister Marc Miller says permits expiring after 2023 will not be extended, as the ministry decided to end the temporary extension program introduced during the pandemic in 2020 to retain students as workers. Miller made the announcement in December.

Gupta says he’s worried that will lead to hundreds of thousands of workers exiting the country.

“If these temporary foreign workers suddenly exit the labour market, we don’t have people to fill in the same job,” he says.

Canada had 286,000 PGWP holders in 2022 — a similar number of those work permits have been issued annually since 2019 — with over half of them intending to work in Ontario, according to IRCC data.

Few categories prioritized

There have been a slew of changes to immigration policy since Miller’s appointment in July last year. One of them was to maintain the target number of new permanent residents in the country at nearly 500,000 until 2026.

However, there are six priority categories to fill labour shortages: workers in STEM, agriculture, health care, transportation, trade and French speakers.

But Canada’s recruitment of international students was not aligned with its labour shortages, as it welcomed nearly 800,000 students in business programs, compared with 113,000 students in health care and 36,000 students in trades between 2018 and 2023, according to a CBC News analysis of federal data.

“For someone who has given five to six years of their prime youth to Canada, now they are being told you have to go back home and start fresh. Canada is closing doors on them,” Gupta says.

“You don’t know what future lies there. It is choosing between a rock and a hard place.”

‘Band-Aid approach’ needs to stop: consultant

Maheshwari, who lost her mother two years ago, says she provides financial support for her family back home. Her husband is on a spousal permit, which means if she leaves, he also has to return to India.

“Because of the anxiety I can’t sleep the whole night. It’s a huge lot of hell,” she says.

With only three months before her visa expires, learning French or switching professions is not an option, she says.

The couple is working overtime to make ends meet and pay some $30,000 for a lawyer who can advise them through their next possible options.

Gupta says he’s seeing an increasing number of people spending tens of thousands of dollars to bump their score, by hiring immigration consultants or lawyers, to become eligible for different PR streams like Provincial Nomination Program or by completing a Labour Market Impact Assessment.

New data obtained by CBC News show that Canada’s recruitment of international students failed to match the job market. Colleges and universities brought in far more foreign students to business programs than in-demand fields like healthcare or the trades. CBC’s senior reporter at Queen’s Park Mike Crawley has the story.

“If I have to go back; what I have done in four years — made my career, spent a lot of money — will just be a waste, all lost. Not just for me, but for an entire family whom I’m supporting,” Maheshwari says.

While she supports IRCC’s adjustments to immigration programs, she says the country is doing little to retain working immigrants.

Gupta says if the government wants to have skilled workers, it needs to focus on shutting down programs which continue to attract students but do not fill the acute labour shortages.

“The trust is kind of up in the air right now, because every other week there is a new policy being announced. Every other week there is a Band-Aid approach by the government. That approach needs to come to a full stop,” he says.

Source: Immigrant workers say future in limbo as government ranking system scores soar

‘I Am Canadian’ – Or Not: Essay Collection

Latest publication by ACS focussing on citizenship issues, based upon a conference last year. Good range of perspectives and I encourage you to check it out.

My contribution below where I continue to reinforce themes of concern to me:

Time to take citizenship seriously

The Census 2021 revelation that the naturalization rate of recent immigrants (five to nine
years) in Canada had plummeted to 45.7 percent in the 2011-15 census period compared 60.4
percent for the equivalent period from the 2016 Census provided a needed shock for the
government to take citizenship more seriously. An earlier Statistics Canada study noted a longer-
term trend of declining naturalization which reinforced that need. The analysis indicated that the
main factors influencing naturalization were family income, knowledge of official languages,
and educational attainment.


Some factors are outside the Canadian government’s purview. Whether or not an immigrant
source country permits or prohibits dual citizenship, and the extent to which it enforces a
prohibition, affects naturalization. However, recent analysis by the Institute for Canadian
Citizenship indicates the net effect on naturalization is small despite the fact that a larger number
of immigrants come from countries that do not permit dual citizenship.


The relative economic and other benefits of Canadian citizenship have changed for some
developing countries, resulting in some immigrants returning to their country of origin or
keeping their options open. However, there are a number of measures that the government could
take to strengthen the efficiency, oversight and meaningfulness of citizenship.
Operational efficiency, oversight and accountability


Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the federal department responsible for these
issues, has made progress in moving to online applications and updates to manage increased
numbers and improve applicant service. Investment in AI and automation for routine
applications is a logical next step, particularly given that citizenship is straightforward compared
to the multitude of immigration pathways, and should result in faster processing. A pilot program
integrating citizenship and passport applications is a welcome initiative.


IRCC needs to publish more citizenship statistics on the Open Government Portal, as currently
the portal only has monthly statistics on countries of birth with no data on citizenship
applications (unlike for permanent and temporary residents along with international students).
Backlog (inventory) statistics need to be integrated into the portal. Moreover, regular publishing
of citizenship proofs (citizenship certificates), broken down by those submitted from within
Canada and those submitted from outside Canada, should resume given these provide a reality
check on the number of “lost Canadians” from earlier parliamentary testimony.


While broader than citizenship as it will allow for deeper analysis of health and immigration
linkages, IRCC, Statistics Canada and the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI)
should provide more precise information on birth tourism (women travelling to Canada on visitor
visas to obtain Canadian citizenship for their child) by separating out women international
students and temporary foreign workers from the overall numbers of “non-resident” births.
Moreover, MPs need to challenge those advocating the easing of citizenship requirements and
policies given the disparities between claims of the numbers of people affected and actual
numbers and the risks that additional complexity brings to citizen service.


While the number of “Lost Canadians” claimed was around 200,000, the actual number was
about 20,000. Restrictions on voting rights for Canadian expatriates were lifted in 2019 but out
of the estimated 3.6 million adult expatriates, fewer than 30,000 voted in the 2021 election, a
tripling compared to the 2015 election but still a minuscule number. Similarly, while the number
of persons subject to the first generation citizenship transmission cut-off will grow, it is likely
that the numbers of those who have a meaningful connection to Canada will be relatively small
and advocates for change have relied more on anecdotes and country comparisons.


More systemically, all MPs need to recognize that not every situation requires a specific
legislative solution, which only further complicates overall service delivery, as some are best
handled through a discretionary grant in section 5(4) of the Citizenship Act or the permanent
resident application route.


Meaningfulness
The government needs to issue a revision to Discover Canada, the citizenship study guide, first
announced in 2016 four IRCC ministers ago, and reportedly ready for ministerial sign-off for
some time. The current guide, while a significant improvement from its predecessor, is dated in
terms of approach, emphasis and examples, and is not aligned with the government’s inclusion
emphasis.


The government also needs to decide whether it intends to implement, in whole or in part, its
election platform’s commitment in 2019 and 2021 to eliminate citizenship fees, currently around
$1,400 for a family of four. The high fees contribute to lower citizenship take-up among
disadvantaged immigrants. Given that citizenship provides both private benefits such as security
and passports and public benefits such as greater inclusion and political participation, halving the
current fees would balance private and public benefits.


The government needs to abandon its proposed self-administration of the citizenship oath and
revert to in-person citizenship ceremonies for the majority of ceremonies. Moving to “citizenship
on a click” combined with virtual ceremonies largely removes the recognition of the immigration
journey and its celebration by family and friends. The government’s justifications for the
proposed change focusses on saving three months and unspecified savings given that
“participation in ceremonies would be lower than it is currently, and there would likely be fewer
ceremonies overall”. However, it is silent on the more substantive impact that being in a room
together with other new (and already) Canadians brings in terms of belonging and inclusion.


Efficiency should focus on application processing, not the ceremonial and celebratory moment.
Treating citizenship as transactional, much as a driver’s licence, undermines the fundamental
objective of reinforcing integration, a fundamental objective of the Citizenship Act since 1947.
Public commentary has been highly negative, as have the majority responses to the Gazette
notice, and a parliamentary petition was launched to oppose the change. The government should
shift the relatively small needed funds from the integration program (about one billion dollars
outside Quebec) to maintain the in-person citizenship oath and ceremonies.


Ongoing work by the Institute for Canadian Citizenship is focused on understanding the link
between dual citizenship prohibitions and Canadian naturalization, disaggregating average time
between permanent residency and becoming a citizen by gender, immigration category and place
of birth. To further understand the reasons behind declining naturalization, a detailed comparison
between Census 2021 and Census 2016 citizenship data will assess the relative impact of
income, labour force participation and education.


The government also needs to set meaningful performance standards. The current standard is
an 85-per-cent naturalization rate for all immigrants, whether recent or many years ago,
essentially meaning no accountability for the government given that until the 2021 census, it
always met this meaningless standard. A more valid approach, consistent with Statistics Canada
methodology, would be to set the standard for recent immigrants (five to nine years) rather than
all. Recent data suggests a benchmark of 75 per cent of recent immigrants would be appropriate.


Just as the government needs to strike a balance between easing the path to becoming a citizen
and operational efficiency, the government needs to ensure that citizenship reinforces the sense
of belonging and inclusion that citizenship brings. Efficiency improvements in application
processes are needed and welcome but should not be to the detriment to the one moment in
immigration journeys that celebrates and honours this achievement by new Canadians.

Prime ministers, immigration ministers and MPs all treasure these celebratory moments, as do the vast
majority of new Canadians. It is important that this in-person moment not be limited to the few
but provided to all.

Source: ‘I Am Canadian’ – Or Not: Essay Collection

PEN America Is Right to Stay Out of Gaza War Activism

Agree:

In January 2015, Islamic terrorists murdered 12 people at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo for depicting the Prophet Muhammad. When PEN Americahonored the magazine with its Freedom of Expression Courage Award that same year, the organization received backlash from prominent members.

Then-PEN president Andrew Solomon stood by the decision, saying that the controversy was a reminder that the “defense of people murdered for their exercise of free speech is at the heart of what PEN stands for, so is the unfettered articulation of opposing viewpoints.”

Standing up for free speech principles against religious extremism, it turns out, was the right call since it remains a real threat to authors and speakers around the world. At a book talk in August 2022, novelist and former PEN America president Salman Rushdie was stabbed 15 times by an assailant who admired Iran’s theocratic regime that issued a fatwa against Rushdie back in 1989 for the supposed blasphemy of his novel The Satanic Verses.

But now PEN America finds itself embroiled in another controversy about first principles.

The organization felt compelled to cancel its 2024 World Voices Festival after around 30 writers withdrew from the event backing protesters who claimed PEN America’s approach to the war between Israel and Hamas was “tepid.” In other words, PEN America stood by its explicit mission to promote free expression and remain neutral on sharply contested matters of geopolitics and armed conflict.

An open letter from writers and translators nominated for the PEN America Literary Award argued that they “cannot, in good faith, align with an organization that has shown such blatant disregard of our collective values… We refuse to be honored by an organization that acts as a cultural front from American imperialism.”

Never mind that PEN America has provided financial assistance to Palestinian writers, issued many statements condemning the suppression of pro-Palestinian speech on college campuses, spoken out against postponing awards for Palestinian authors, and criticized the cancellation of film screenings for documentaries critical of Israel. The now-canceled World Voices Festival would have also featured several Palestinian writers.

Regardless, the authors of the open letter contend that PEN America’s leadership should be replaced with staff that will make a bold declaration that would firmly align with one side. But this would be a grave mistake.

PEN America’s very purpose is “to protect free expression in the United States and worldwide” and to “champion the freedom to write… unite writers and their allies to celebrate creative expression and defend the liberties that make it possible.” PEN America’s mission is not to advance the political or ideological goals of a specific portion of the diverse range of writers around the globe. To succumb to external and internal pressures to take positions on contentious policy issues threatens to undermine its very purpose and its efforts on other issues.

PEN America has been leading the charge against attempts by red states to ban books and restrict discussions of “divisive concepts,” which frequently means speech treating issues like race and LGBT+ themes in a manner that triggers conservatives. It has also played a crucial role in trying to persuade progressives that the values of free speech and equality are mutually reinforcing—not mutually exclusive—and that abandoning free speech is likely to hurt rather than protect minorities and vulnerable groups.

But if PEN America bends to pressure to take explicit positions on progressive or social justice causes, it will only become more vulnerable to criticism. After all, why should skeptical lawmakers or the general public pay attention to an organization whose advocacy dovetails with progressive politics rather than First Amendment principles?

To understand the danger of an unprincipled defense to free speech—where ideological agendas mean abandoning commitments to free expression when it’s inconvenient—one needn’t look further than Republicans who decry “cancel culture” and censorship.

“If PEN America becomes an explicit progressive social justice organization and abandons its commitment to ideological neutrality and the unbiased application of free speech principles, it will have no leg to stand on when taking on the free speech opportunists of the world.”

In March 2023, House Republicans on the Higher Education Committee held a hearing on the state of free speech on college campuses. Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT), chair of the House Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee, said, “If those with certain views are allowed to shut down competing views, the battle to sustain freedoms upon which our county was founded—free speech, free thought, and free expression—will be lost.”

This week, that devotion to free speech apparently waned, as Owens joined his fellow Republicans in co-sponsoring and passing the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. If the bill becomes law, it will deem certain viewpoints—including criticism of Israel—as antisemitic based on the broad definition promulgated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). If colleges fail to adopt this definition, they could lose federal funding.

PEN America rightly opposed this bill, arguing that it could “harm academic freedom, free speech, and legitimate political speech.”

In 2019, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law to promote free speech on college campuses and tweeted about how “protecting the right to free speech is critical to the future of our country.” But his belief that censorship is “un-American” hasn’t stopped the governor from banning drag performances, banning books, and issuing an executive order for Texas colleges to enforce the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism.

If PEN America becomes an explicit progressive social justice organization and abandons its commitment to ideological neutrality and the unbiased application of free speech principles, it will have no leg to stand on when taking on the free speech opportunists of the world.

It will instead become the distorted mirror image of the very unprincipled forces it is fighting against.

Source: PEN America Is Right to Stay Out of Gaza War Activism

Le Devoir Éditorial | Une fierté nationale mal placée

More of the proposed Quebec National Museum of History:

On ne peut pas reprocher à François Legault de manquer de persistance en culture. En dépit des quelques revers qu’il a essuyés en ces matières fortes en symbole, son engagement exalte un attachement inusable. Certains diront un attachement téflon tant il n’en fait qu’à sa tête. On en a eu une nouvelle preuve avec l’annonce en grande pompe de la création d’un nouveau musée national — une rareté qui aurait normalement dû lui valoir des hourras.

L’idée de se doter d’un Musée national de l’histoire du Québec n’est pas mauvaise, au contraire. La nation québécoise — irréductible mais fragile fleur francophone posée au creux d’un massif de vivaces anglophones envahissantes — vaut bien cet hommage que nombre de sociétés se sont offert avant nous. Notre fierté nationale pourrait même gagner gros à étendre ses bourgeons sur un tuteur aussi structurant.

Se doter d’un musée national est en effet une excellente façon d’honorer un legs compliqué, à la fois sombre et lumineux, qu’on a fâcheusement tendance à négliger au Québec. Pour cela, le regard que l’on pose sur notre histoire commune doit être capable d’accueil comme d’autocritique, en plus d’être scientifiquement irréprochable, a mis en garde un contingent de spécialistes déconcertés par ce lapin sorti sans consultation du chapeau de M. Legault.

C’est d’abord là que le bât blesse. Le gouvernement a eu beau s’adjoindre les conseils de l’historien Éric Bédard, cela ne l’a pas empêché de multiplier les bourdes en s’improvisant expert dirigiste là où on l’attendait plutôt en pollinisateur inspirant. Invité à préciser sa vision, le premier ministre a commencé par montrer l’étendue de ses oeillères. Notre histoire nationale, a-t-il expliqué, a commencé, rêvé et prospéré par et pour les Canadiens français. Et les autres ? Tous relégués au rôle ingrat de figurants.

Sa façon spécialement cavalière de minimiser l’apport des nations autochtones à la société québécoise est indigne d’une nation qui prétend parler d’égal à égal avec ces peuples. Quiconque replonge dans l’épopée de Champlain — point zéro du récit national caquiste, on le rappelle — sait pourtant qu’il ne pourra le faire sans s’enfarger dans tout ce que ces nations ont pu apporter aux premiers colons, puis plus largement à la société québécoise au fil du temps. Et pas qu’en adversité, mais aussi bien en émulation qu’en imagination.

Son silence radio sur l’apport des autres communautés — on pense aux vagues migratoires, mais aussi aux Anglos — a fait le reste, nourrissant une déferlante de malaises autant chez les spécialistes que chez nombre de Québécois qui ne se sont pas reconnus dans sa vision rétrécie de la nation. Il est vrai que, jusqu’ici, le discours politique n’a pas été à la hauteur des promesses qui viennent avec l’érection d’un musée national moderne, décomplexé et rassembleur.

Bien sûr, l’histoire n’est jamais neutre. Mais un musée digne de ce nom, même national, ne saurait se résumer à une vitrine politique, encore moins à la vitrine d’une seule vision politique. Les Québécois n’ont pas besoin d’un musée de pureté idéologique. Ce qui n’empêche pas le fait qu’il y a du bon dans le projet du gouvernement Legault. Les Espaces bleus n’avaient pas d’avenir : trop chers et sans vision commune. Le Musée national de l’histoire du Québec, érigé à même leurs cendres malheureuses, ne part pas grevé de la sorte.

D’abord, il plantera ses racines dans un écrin magnifique, le pavillon Camille-Roy du Séminaire de Québec, rénové au coût de 92 millions. Ensuite, il arrive sur un terrain encore fertile, celui des musées d’État. S’il est bien fait, son ajout au noyau formé du Musée d’art contemporain de Montréal, du Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec et du Musée de la civilisation (MCQ) permettra de repenser ce qui lie nos musées nationaux entre eux afin d’en faire un réseau exemplaire dont la solidité, si elle s’avère, percolera jusqu’aux musées régionaux.

Le rêve esquissé par François Legault se frottera bientôt à un réel qu’il a, en vérité, mieux balisé que son annonce mal ficelée. Le MCQ, qui aura la tâche de concevoir les contenus et d’aménager les espaces d’exposition de ce nouveau musée national, a en effet les ressources et le savoir nécessaires pour y arriver. Il pourra au surplus compter sur les lumières d’un comité scientifique, de même que sur celle d’un duo d’éclaireurs formé d’Éric Bédard et de Jenny Thibault, qui veilleront sur les destinées historiques et numériques du nouveau musée.

Espérons seulement que le gouvernement Legault aura l’humilité de s’appuyer sur leur vision commune pour la suite du projet. Car le bon récit national, celui qui a le pouvoir d’élever et de rassembler un peuple derrière lui, peut, oui, devenir un formidable legs, pour peu qu’il ne se conjugue pas qu’au « je ». Conjugué aussi au « nous », son engagement en faveur de notre fierté nationale pourrait même constituer un vigoureux — et redoutable ! — cultivar. S’il est planté dans un sol adéquat, bien sûr.

Source: Éditorial | Une fierté nationale mal placée

Some illegal border crossers receive $224 in food and accommodation per day while awaiting processing

Silly comparison between pension income, for those who largely have a home and are settled, and asylum claimants who are not. Legitimate to question the government’s handling of asylum claimants and immigration in general as many do but need to do so intelligently rather than just to stoke outrage. And of course, these are irregular arrivals in legal parlance, not illegal ones:

As the number of Canada’s refugee claimants hits new highs, a Conservative MP has revealed that Ottawa budgets about $224 per day to feed and house some foreigners who claim asylum after illegally entering the country.

Last week, Conservative MP Lianne Rood uploaded documents to social media showing the government’s answer to her question about what “goods and services” are provided to foreigners who have claimed asylum in Canada — but have not yet had their applications reviewed by immigration authorities.

The average accommodation cost is “$140 per night per room,” and the average cost for meals is “$84 per day per claimant” — for a total of $224 per claimant, per day.

And the per diem cost may go even higher once factoring in the other “essential items” provided for free to claimants, including “toiletries, medicines, diapers.”

“Claimants in IRCC operated hotels, regardless of how they entered Canada, are provided with accommodations and meals once they are relocated,” read the official answer to Rood, signed by Paul Chiang, parliamentary secretary to the minister of diversity and inclusion.

“The NDP-Liberal government is giving TEN TIMES the benefits to illegal border jumpers than it is giving to help Canadian seniors! DISGRACEFUL!” wrote Rood in an accompanying caption to a May 7 post on X uploading the document.

As of the most recent figures by the IRCC, there are 156,032 pending asylum claims before the agency — although not all of them are in Canada and living within an IRCC hotel….

Source: Some illegal border crossers receive $224 in food and accommodation per day while awaiting processing

Canadians outraged over Parks Canada’s free admission to “newcomers” policy 

Typical overstating without appreciation of the policy and practical rationale to do so to strengthen integration and sense of belonging. And of course, no numbers on how many:

Many Canadians expressed their discontent with a newly announced Parks Canada policy allowing “newcomers to Canada and new Canadian citizens” free admission to all national parks, historic sites and marine conservation areas as part of a new policy.

According to the Parks Canada website, for the next year “admission to all national parks, national historic sites, and national marine conservation areas operated by Parks Canada.”

“Using the Institute for Canadian Citizenship’s Canoo mobile app, enjoy free admission to all places administered by Parks Canada across the country for one full year,” it reads. 

However, the free admission policy is limited solely to newcomers and new Canadian citizens, if you’re already a tax paying citizen, you’ll be paying full price. 

“Get back to nature and unwind amidst the spectacular scenery in Canada’s national parks and marine conservation areas,” reads the website. “Celebrate your arrival in Canada or your citizenship with great Canadian experiences,” it continued.

“Check out some of the most awesome places in Canada. We look forward to welcoming you!”

The 1998 Parks Canada Agency Act established Parks Canada as a separate Government of Canada Agency, which currently reports to Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault.

While daily admission and service fees and single-location passes are variable depending on the location, camping fees for a family pass begin at $151.25.

The announcement was met with strong disapproval on X, with the overwhelming majority of comments frustrated with the new policy. 

Source: Canadians outraged over Parks Canada’s free admission to “newcomers” policy