Barutciski: A loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement could cause Canada big problems 

2024/12/17 Leave a comment

Despite or because of the political turmoil, expect that this provision will be negotiated away:

…The big picture for policymakers is that Canada under the Trudeau Liberals has become an outlier among Western democracies. With its lax visa policy, incomparably high refugee-status recognition rates and reluctance to remove failed claimants, Canada now serves as a global magnet for masses of people seeking better conditions. The number of monthly asylum claims in our geographically isolated country rivals Germany, the largest EU host country. It is exceeding the other leading EU host countries, namely France, Spain and Italy. Even if adjudication procedures could be streamlined and additional funding could magically appear to address the massive backlog, the current intake is simply unsustainable.

To correct this distorted approach to asylum, which used to be a historic concept focused on protecting victims of individualized persecution, future Canadian policy needs to emphasize co-operation and harmonization with our Western partners. This more realistic approach has to develop alongside our closest ally, which shares our long, undefended border, as well as the same continental security concerns. Eliminating the 14-day rule is a logical place to start.

Source: A loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement could cause Canada big problems 


Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

The GOP stoked fears of noncitizens voting. Cases in Ohio show how rhetoric and reality diverge

2024/12/17 Leave a comment

No surprise:

Before the November presidential election, Ohio’s secretary of state and attorney general announced investigations into potential voter fraud that included people suspected of casting ballots even though they were not U.S. citizens.

It coincided with a national Republican messaging strategy warning that potentially thousands of ineligible voters would be voting.

“The right to vote is sacred,” Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, said in a statement at the time. “If you’re not a U.S. citizen, it’s illegal to vote -– whether you thought you were allowed to or not. You will be held accountable.”

In the end, their efforts led to just a handful of cases. Of the 621 criminal referrals for voter fraud that Secretary of State Frank LaRose sent to the attorney general, prosecutors have secured indictments against nine people for voting as noncitizens over the span of 10 years — and one was later found to have died. That total is a tiny fraction of Ohio’s 8 million registered voters and the tens of millions of ballots cast during that period.

The outcome and the stories of some of those now facing charges illustrate the gap — both in Ohio and across the United States — between the rhetoric about noncitizen voting and the reality: It’s rare, is caught and prosecuted when it does happen and does not occur as part of a coordinated scheme to throw elections.

Source: The GOP stoked fears of noncitizens voting. Cases in Ohio show how rhetoric and reality diverge

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Kerr: Moving into uncharted waters: How Canada could benefit from a clearly defined population policy 

2024/12/17 Leave a comment

Seeing more articles advocating for a population policy, which of course would become the base for immigration levels, permanent and temporary. Of course, the experience of most countries that have tried to increase birth rates has been mixed at best, with few successful efforts:

…How quickly should Canada be growing?

Historically, annual immigration targets were set by cabinet based largely on a political judgment. After consulting with others, including the provinces, this was meant to be a sort of prudential assessment of what Canada can accommodate and what Canadians might accept. Up until recently, this assessment appears to have performed reasonably well. Yet in light of recent events, it might be prudent to return to my basic point—that the Canadian government should set out to establish a well-defined population policy—and perhaps in so doing, be somewhat more formulaic in its approach to immigration.

The first order of business would be to decide upon how quickly we want our population to grow, or whether or not we need an upper and lower limit. In reviewing our historical experience, it would be reasonable to propose a relatively wide range, of say, 0.5 to 1 percent annually. For comparative purposes, the average population growth rate across the current 38 members of the OECD in 2023 was 0.5 percent, whereas across G7 nations (excluding Canada) the corresponding average was 0.3 percent. An upper limit of 1 percent might seem somewhat high to some, but such a target is not far from the rate at which our population has grown over the last half-century. Over the extended period 1971-2015, Canada’s population grew at an average rate of about 1 percent annually.

The basic idea here is that our society works with a predictable rate of population growth, from year to year, that avoids all of the disruptions that could be associated with very rapid growth or for that matter, stagnation or population decline. In doing so, our economy and social institutions would have an easier time accommodating our rate of population growth—avoiding the disastrous situation observed over the last couple of years.

Success in reducing the NPR population translates into higher immigration targets

In setting future targets on permanent immigration, our success in reducing the number of NPRs, put simply, should be considered key in setting future targets on permanent immigration. The basic idea here is that to the extent that we reduce the number of NPRs, we can correspondingly increase the number of landed immigrants without having an impact on population size. In promoting permanent immigration, we can restore best practices in terms of carefully selecting immigrants based on economic immigration, family reunification, and humanitarian considerations. This involves returning to the Canadian tradition whereby newcomers are given the promise in settling in this country that they could eventually obtain the rights of full citizenship.

The earlier projection showed future growth with little change in the number of NPRs, remaining indefinitely at 5 percent of the population total from 2027 onward. In the projection, landed immigrant targets were set to gradually climb from about 365,000 to a figure approaching 400,000 over the next decade or so. Yet if the target on NPRs were reduced further, down for example to about 3.5 percent, this could allow for hundreds of thousands of additional landed immigrants without having an impact on our rate of population growth. Of course, many of the NPRs currently living in Canada will not be leaving the country, but alternatively could be selected for landed immigrant status through our normal immigration streams.

On this front, in planning future immigration targets, it makes sense to further reduce the NPR share of Canada’s population well below the 2027 target of 5 percent. Considerable caution would be advised as to how to achieve this target, with the difficult balance here in meeting shorter-term labour force needs, promoting the best in our international student programs while continuing with our long history of meeting humanitarian commitments with asylum seekers.

Flexibility in our targeted growth

It is very difficult to come up with a simple formula for setting immigration targets—such that a well-informed population policy would continue to closely monitor the impact of population growth and the successful integration of newcomers. A targeted range of 0.5 to 1 percent annual population growth is meant to allow for some flexibility in responding to many of the pressing economic and social challenges that we currently face. In recently announcing its revised immigration plan, the federal government indicated that its new plan would allow for “[c]ontinued GDP growth, enable GDP per capita growth to accelerate throughout 2025 to 2027, as well as improve housing affordability and lower the unemployment rate.” As GDP per capita has been stagnant for several years now, this might be considered a tall order. On this front, there are obviously many factors beyond demography that will impact their relative success. Yet this announcement is consistent with the idea that if our unemployment rate rises or if Canada fails with its current housing plan, it is reasonable to reduce immigration targets accordingly.

In light of the many problems in Canada that were aggravated by the most recent surge in population (six years of growth in two), from housing affordability to access to health care, it would seem justifiable to set a population growth rate closer to the lower part of this range. And in light of the projections shared previously, this would imply lower immigration targets than in the current Liberal plan—unless the federal government has more success than expected in reducing the number of NPRs.

Time for a broader population policy

One of the most widely misunderstood impressions with regard to immigration is that it serves as a panacea to population aging. Yet one of the lessons that we can gain from this most recent surge in immigration is that Canada’s population will continue to age for some time regardless of immigration targets. In July of 2020, the median age in Canada was 40.8. By July of 2024, this median had fallen slightly to 40.3. This is after a population surge of over 3.3 million in merely four years. While international migrants are younger than the average Canadian, an unsustainable number would be required over the longer term to meaningfully slow and reverse this aging trend. Canada’s population will inevitably age over the next several decades, and a well-thought-out population policy should certainly prepare for this basic fact.

Although our population is younger today than it would be without international migration, the primary factor responsible for population aging has been the continued decline in our birth rate. Statistics Canada has in fact projected the impact of a continued decline, such that we could experience a negative natural increase within only a few years. With this in mind, the instinct to further reduce immigration over the longer term without a rebounding of our birth rate might be somewhat shortsighted. Canada seems set to become even more reliant on international migration in maintaining population and labour force levels, such that we will eventually need to raise immigration targets substantially even to meet a lower limit of 0.5 percent annual growth.

A broader population policy could shift our attention to our birth rate, rather than merely a reflex action to increase immigration. The basic fact that birth outcomes in Canada continue to be lower than birth intentions, is in itself worthy of policy intervention. Without a rebounding in our birth rate, population aging in Canada will accelerate. Canada will become even more reliant on immigration in maintaining population and labour force—unless, of course, Canadians decide that slow growth and/or population decline is preferable. Yet while rapid population growth has its challenges, so too does a shrinking population. One merely needs to turn to the Japanese example to fully appreciate this fact. A well-informed population policy could attempt to avoid both scenarios.

Source: DeepDive: Moving into uncharted waters: How Canada could benefit from a clearly defined population policy

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

How diverse is your neighbourhood? A new website shows how immigration to Canada has transformed our cities

2024/12/17 Leave a comment

Good coverage of the super diversity website and the work by Dan Hiebert and Steven Vertovec:

Have you ever wondered how your local community stacks up when it comes to diversity in ethnicities, income levels, language spoken or education attainments?

Residents of Canada’s six largest metropolitan areas can now check that out through a website launched on Monday that tracks the transformation of the country by immigration down to the neighbourhood level.

Coined “Superdiversity,” the project crunches immigration and census data into interactive graphics and maps that showcase Canada’s changing landscapes and how socioeconomic indicators such as wealth, income, employment status and education play out across ethnic groups, generations of newcomers and neighbourhoods.

“We’re hoping to just help anyone come to a better understanding of the society that surrounds them that they’re part of,” said University of British Columbia professor emeritus Daniel Hiebert, a co-founder of the project.

“This is really about social change and the ability to show it based on data.”

Since Ottawa changed its immigration rules in the 1960s that favoured immigrants from the U.K., continental Europe and the U.S., Canada’s population has become increasingly diverse. The proportion of newcomers from the “traditional” source countries has dwindled to about 15 per cent from nearly 90 per cent.

The Superdiversity website shows how the annual admissions of permanent residents — broken down into economic, family and humanitarian classes — evolved from under 150,000 in 1980 to over 450,000 in 2023, as well as how the nationalities of each subgroup of newcomers changed over time to now being dominated by those from India, China and the Philippines.

It also documents how the annual inflow of temporary residents — divided into asylum seekers, international students and different types of work permit holders — skyrocketed in just a few years from under 200,000 to more than 1.6 million today, and how the source countries shifted under each category.

“When you see people who came from a particular country with a particular migration stream, with a particular age group and with a different gender pattern, you can see how these fit together to produce certain social outcomes,” said project co-founder Steven Vertovec, director of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity in Germany.

“By treating groups only as ethnic communities, we didn’t see the complexities and diversity within groups. You just treated all Indians as the same, all Italians and all Asians as the same.”…

Source: How diverse is your neighbourhood? A new website shows how immigration to Canada has transformed our cities

Link: https://superdiv.mmg.mpg.de/#vancouver-intro?bubble;filter:Total%20population?map;variables:0,0;mode:traditional?tree;year:2012;category:Humanitarian?sankey;year:1991?dashboard;filters:99,99,99,99,99

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Legal Pathways and Enforcement: What the U.S. Safe Mobility Strategy Can Teach Europe about Migration Management

2024/12/17 Leave a comment

Usual solid analysis from MPI, with approach and results undercover by media and not discussed by Harris campaign:

As the Biden administration comes to an end on January 20, so does one of the most ambitious migration management policy agendas in recent memory. Over the last four years, the administration initiated an innovative strategy mixing increased regional cooperation on immigration enforcement and a more orderly system for border arrivals with a significant expansion of lawful pathways and efforts to push humanitarian protection decisions away from the border. Based on the notion of “safe mobility,” this strategy eventually saw irregular migration to the U.S.-Mexico border drop to its lowest level in almost five years after a period of record arrivals. But it took a long time to implement the various elements—a period during which the U.S. public became increasingly restive over perceived chaos at the border and large numbers of irregular arrivals. Even as some key aspects of the strategy have yet to be fully implemented, the incoming Trump administration will assert its own, differing vision for migration management at U.S. borders and relations with neighboring countries.

Still, the Biden-era innovations have been watched with interest across the Atlantic, where many European governments are struggling to find an effective answer to similar mixed movements of asylum seekers and irregular migrants. While some of the U.S. measures were more developed than others, together they provide the seeds of an approach that ensures greater border control while advancing pathways for humanitarian protection.

The Biden experience makes clear, though, that sequencing matters. Many of the elements promoting protection pathways preceded the efforts for greater regional enforcement and heightened U.S. requirements to seek asylum at borders. It was not until June 2024 that many enforcement measures, including greater cooperation with the Mexican and Panamanian governments and narrowing of asylum eligibility at borders, were fully implemented, with irregular arrivals then dropping precipitously. As a result, the administration will likely be remembered more for the several million migrants who were allowed across the U.S.-Mexico border, rather than the combination of measures that finally brought irregular migration under control.

The incoming Trump administration will undoubtedly pursue a strategy based primarily on enforcement, not lawful pathways, and further reduce access to humanitarian protection. That does not mean, however, that a balanced approach that includes robust enforcement and lawful pathways is dead. Instead, for countries that want to pursue this, it points to the need for a more pragmatic approach that achieves early reductions in arrivals while also preserving pathways for protection, not delaying the enforcement-focused elements of the strategy….

Finally, the Biden administration initiatives offer a crucial lesson about managing public trust and messaging. First, it has become almost gospel that the orderliness of migration (in a planned, legal way) matters almost as much or more than the absolute numbers arriving. The CHNV and SMO programs would seem to have fulfilled this criteria—migrants arrived with authorization at airports and with a sponsor or local agency ready to receive them and support their initial reception costs. Yet there was little messaging to U.S. publics by the government about either program, leaving the door open for critics to exploit the narrative, accusing the administration of paying to fly in future voters. It also seems that numbers may, in fact, matter after all. While more than 860,000 migrants came in through CBP One appointments and another 800,000-plus through the CHNV process and similar parole processes for Ukrainians and Afghans, nearly 4.2 million other migrants were allowed in after crossing a border without authorization, in addition to others who managed to cross the border undetected. For many local communities and service providers, who received minimal support from the federal government for the costs incurred in addressing the needs of these new arrivals, the pace of change and demands placed upon them were great….

Source: Legal Pathways and Enforcement: What the U.S. Safe Mobility Strategy Can Teach Europe about Migration Management


Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Canadian, and then Some: Landmark Study Maps the Multicultural Reality of Canadian Identity. 84% of Canadians are comfortable expressing their cultural identity while still feeling Canadian.

2024/12/16 Leave a comment

Of interest, more from a general and multicultural marketing perspective:

What it means to be ‘Canadian’ isn’t what it used to be; it’s so much more, according to a new study commissioned by AV Communications (AVC) and Ipsos. The research reveals a seismic shift in the demographic makeup and cultural complexities of Canada, in which previous conceptions about dominant ethnicities no longer control the narrative. For the majority of Canadians (84 per cent), their Canadian identity coexists alongside their cultural identity – it’s not about one or the other.

The findings show that cultural connections and diversity now run deep across multiple generations of Canadians, demanding a fundamental rethinking of how communities and organizations engage with audiences in the years ahead.

“Today’s multicultural Canada is about so much more than ethnicity or ‘newcomer’ narratives – it is about a population that is comfortable moving between layers of cultural norms and identities while remaining steadfastly Canadian,” said Joycelyn David, Owner and CEO of AV Communications. “Success in today’s market requires navigating these layered perspectives and fostering a multicultural mindset.”

A New Kind of Canada

Younger and first generations are setting the cultural tone and agenda as they move into adulthood and establish themselves. Fifty-four per cent of Gen Z (18–27-year-olds) and 67 per cent of first-generation Canadians are predominantly not White, compared to 78 per cent of boomers and 83 per cent of third generation Canadians, signaling a massive shift in the country’s demographic landscape – and future.

This transformation runs deeper than demographics alone; in fact, what the data tells us is that being more than Canadian is what makes us Canadian. The study reveals 77 per cent of Canadians view cultural diversity as core to national identity, with distinct patterns of cultural engagement emerging:

  • Cultural Fluidity: 83% of Canadians feel comfortable expressing their cultural identity while feeling part of Canadian society. They see themselves as Canadian, and then some.
  • Multi-Generational Impact: Second-generation Canadians (46%) show the highest rates of cross-cultural relationships, emerging as crucial bridges and connectors between cultural communities.
  • Language Layer: While 97% of third+ generation Canadians speak English and/or French only at home, 51% of first-generation Canadians and 35% of Gen-Z maintain multilingual households, signaling ease in moving between worldviews through linguistic/cultural norms.
  • Content Consumption: 86% of Gen Z actively engage with international content, signaling a new era of global connectivity and cross-cultural appreciation.

“This groundbreaking study marks a significant departure from traditional siloed approaches to cultural research in Canada,” said Grace Tong, Vice President, Ipsos Canada. “Instead of studying ethnic groups in isolation, we’ve uncovered the complex web of cultural connections that span generations. The data reveals that viewing multicultural consumers as a niche market fundamentally misses how cultural diversity has become embedded in the mainstream Canadian experience.”

Source: Canadian, and then Some: Landmark Study Maps the Multicultural Reality of Canadian Identity. 84% of Canadians are comfortable expressing their cultural identity while still feeling Canadian.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Lang: Deconstructing Canada’s ballooning $67-billion federal bureaucracy

2024/12/16 Leave a comment

Good column by Lang (our paths crossed when I worked in PCO and he in PMO):

Forty-three per cent.

That is how much Canada’s “core” federal public administration — the civil service — has grown since Justin Trudeau’s government took office in 2015. The raw numbers are even more striking. There are 110,738 more federal public servants employed today than a decade ago.

Not surprisingly, this rate of bureaucratic growth has faced some scrutiny.

Some have claimed that the increase was necessary to keep pace with population growth, yet Canada’s population only expanded by about 17 per cent over this period.

The COVID pandemic, and the programs and initiatives that were created to deal with it, is also cited as a factor. To be sure, the federal bureaucracy increased by about 35,000 during the three COVID years. But that means the rest of the personnel growth — more than two-thirds of it — happened before and after the pandemic.

If service to Canadians during this time had improved meaningfully, that might justify the rise, but there is little evidence of that. For example, complaints to the federal Office of the Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson about excessive wait times with Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) call centres were up 45 per cent in 2023. And stories of long wait times at passport offices are legion.

Such scenarios support the conviction that the federal government is bloated and in need of radical surgery. At the very least, some of this swelling of public service ranks should be examined and questioned.

Growth is concentrated in the Big Six

Where has most of the surge occurred?

More than half of the increase – 60,000 positions – has taken place in just six out of some 115 federal departments and agencies. Let’s call these the Big Six.

The largest increase – by 19,000 employees – has occurred at the CRA, a 48-per-cent expansion of its total staff.

That’s impressive, but in percentage terms it pales in comparison to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, which more than doubled in size with 105 per cent growth during that decade, equal to 6,700 additional employees.

Also noteworthy is Employment and Social Development Canada, which grew by some 18,000 personnel, or 86 per cent.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans increased by 4,800 or 49 per cent, while Public Services and Procurement Canada is bigger by 6,900 people or 57 per cent.

Rounding out the Big Six is the Department of National Defence, whose civilian workforce expanded by about 6,100. Ironically this occurred at the same time the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) have been hemorrhaging military personnel and are now more than 15,000 people short of the enlistment target set in the government’s 2017 defence policy. The CAF — which is facing major demands on its services at home and abroad — is probably now at its lowest military head count since the end of the Second World War.

Some of the hiring binges appear to be indicators of the government’s priorities and modus operandi. 

The big hike at Citizenship, Immigration and Refugees, for example, is related to the Trudeau government’s aggressive (if not reckless) immigration policy, which in 2023 alone saw 469,000 new permanent residents admitted and over one million foreign student visas approved.

The staffing boom at Employment and Social Development Canada likely reflects the establishment of new social programs such as the Canada Child Benefit, Canada Dental Care Plan and various housing benefits.

For the CRA we can safely say that at least some of the expansion is owing to government efforts to track the underground economy and collect more tax revenue to pay for its agenda.

The increase at Public Services and Procurement Canada may have been caused by the urgent need during the pandemic to acquire mass quantities of everything from masks to vaccines. The rationale for the spike at Fisheries and Oceans is less obvious.

The peculiar case of the PCO 

Looking beyond the Big Six, however, it is worth pointing out that the Privy Council Office (PCO) – the prime minister’s department – has ballooned by three quarters since Trudeau came to office, from 727 employees in 2015 to nearly 1,300 today.

Historically the PCO – which runs no programs and delivers no public services to Canadians – has been a secretariat of a few hundred people. Today it is 27 per cent larger than the Department of Finance, which is arguably Canada’s most important ministry, responsible for developing the government’s budget, tax and fiscal policies, among other things.

This nearly doubling of the PCO in just a decade is more evidence of the pernicious trend toward prime ministerial government, where collective Cabinet decision-making is replaced by prime ministerial fiat on most issues.

If Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre becomes the next prime minister, as is widely expected, and is serious about reducing the $40-billion federal deficit, trimming the public service payroll – which now runs to $67 billion per year, a staggering 68 per cent increase since 2016 – will have to be in his sights.

While Poilievre should definitely take aim at the Big Six, he also needs to lead by example and cut his own department in half. No Canadian beyond the shadow of the Parliament buildings would notice.

Source: Deconstructing Canada’s ballooning $67-billion federal bureaucracy

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

Bouchard: Laïcité, méfions-nous du va-t-en-guerre

2024/12/16 Leave a comment

Always interesting to read Bouchard, with his sensible analysis and recommendations:

Je suis fermement opposé aux pratiques qui viennent d’être exposées dans nos écoles. Elles sont nettement contraires aux valeurs de notre société et il faut y mettre fin. Mais de quelle façon ?

Parti en guerre contre l’islamisme (« On va se battre ») comme si une vague déferlait sur le Québec, M. Legault veut immédiatement sortir l’artillerie lourde : durcir la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État, l’enchâsser dans une constitution, utiliser la disposition de dérogation, « sortir » la religion des écoles et des lieux publics. Il y a certes un problème, mais une intervention précipitée, mal calibrée, pourrait l’aggraver plutôt que de le régler. Nous connaissons mal la situation, des enquêtes viennent tout juste de commencer. Voici quelques questions à considérer.

1) Quelle est l’ampleur du problème ? Gardons-nous de généraliser hâtivement. Nous savons actuellement que moins de vingt écoles sont concernées. Est-ce la pointe de l’iceberg ? Ou l’iceberg lui-même ? Qu’en est-il des 2757 établissements primaires et secondaires recensés au Québec ? Et qu’en est-il des universités et des cégeps ? Nous l’ignorons.

En passant, ce que nous savons des dérapages provient du travail des médias. Sinon, quand le public en aurait-il été informé ?

2) Quelle est la source du problème ? Les situations dénoncées peuvent être imputables à diverses causes : a) les responsables, à tous les niveaux décisionnels, en étaient informés, mais ont choisi de les cacher ; b) les responsables immédiats le savaient et ont fait leur devoir, mais leurs messages se sont « perdus » plus haut ; c) des responsables, à un niveau quelconque, ont jugé que les pratiques concernées ne méritaient pas qu’on s’y attarde ; d) des acteurs, victimes d’intimidation, se sont tus. Encore là, nous ne savons pas.

Il s’agissait peut-être de peu de choses au départ. Le problème a pu s’accentuer à la faveur de l’inaction prolongée des gestionnaires. Dans le cas de l’école Bedford, on sait que les transgressions avaient cours depuis sept ans. Il est troublant que le ministère de l’Éducation n’ait pas été saisi de ces écarts ou que, l’ayant été, il n’ait rien fait.

3) Un problème d’intégration culturelle ? Il paraît clair que des éléments très localisés (jusqu’à preuve du contraire) d’un fondamentalisme islamique s’activent dans les écoles. Fondamentalisme ? J’entends par là le fait de a) reconnaître une priorité absolue à des valeurs religieuses ; b) se fermer à tout assouplissement ; c) s’adonner à l’endoctrinement.

Ce semble être un phénomène neuf ici. Aucune mention n’en a été faite au cours des nombreuses consultations conduites auprès de la communauté scientifique et auprès du grand public par la commission que j’ai coprésidée avec Charles Taylor.

Nous faisons face à un choc culturel. Qu’il soit ou non le fait d’une nouvelle génération, il témoigne d’un rejet de valeurs primordiales promues par notre société. Nous devons mieux connaître les conditions dans lesquelles des catégories de croyants en viennent à se comporter d’une manière inacceptable dans des institutions aussi névralgiques que le système scolaire.

4) Interdire les prières en public ? Qu’entend-on exactement par là ? On parle des attroupements de fidèles accomplissant un rituel religieux sur un trottoir ou une place. Qu’est-ce qu’un attroupement : deux personnes ? Cinq ? Dix ? Visera-t-on aussi le dévot qui, devant l’oratoire Saint-Joseph, s’arrête pour faire une génuflexion et le signe de la croix ? Qu’entend-on par « lieux publics » ? Par « prières » ? Comment démêler le religieux et le spirituel ? Et qu’advient-il des droits fondamentaux ? Enfin, toutes les religions seront-elles visées ? On aura noté que le premier ministre ne parle que des « islamistes ».

Bonne chance aux spécialistes qui rédigeront les nouvelles directives. Et bonne chance à ceux et celles qui devront les appliquer.

5) « Sortir » le religieux des écoles ? Comment procédera-t-on ? Il faudra distinguer l’endoctrinement et l’enseignement des religions, statuer sur les anciens séminaires laïcisés subventionnés par l’État et qui abritent une chapelle encore active. Et si notre premier ministre est cohérent, il devra fermer les écoles religieuses. Osera-t-il le faire ? Sinon, qui le prendra au sérieux ?

Selon un texte de Radio-Canada (avril 2022), notre gouvernement subventionnerait cinquante établissements privés ayant « une vocation religieuse explicite ».

6) Quoi faire ? Comment ? Comment contrer les expressions répréhensibles de convictions profondément enracinées dans le religieux ? Cette tâche appelle de la prudence et du doigté dictés par une approche réfléchie, expérimentée. Possédons-nous les outils psychologiques et sociologiques requis ?

Nous avons un centre de prévention de la radicalisation créé par la Ville de Montréal depuis une dizaine d’années. Il a fait ses preuves, surtout à l’échelle des individus, sauf erreur. Disposons-nous d’une expertise spécifique sur le plan collectif ? Saurons-nous traiter correctement des réalités aussi complexes, potentiellement explosives ?

7) Une déchirure sociétale à la française ? Des interventions à l’emporte-pièce pourraient donner à court terme l’illusion d’un succès, mais elles pourraient aussi activer le feu qu’on voulait éteindre. Évitons, si possible, de reproduire ici la situation de la France : un clivage profond, terreau de violences, devenu ingérable.

Au premier ministre de jouer…

Quel parti va prendre M. Legault ? Cédant à l’émoi du moment et en quête d’un gain électoral facile, va-t-il choisir d’en découdre et risquer de provoquer un durcissement, d’ériger un mur ? Ou optera-t-il pour la prudence afin d’y voir plus clair avant d’agir ?

Ce texte n’est pas une invitation à la complaisance ou à la mollesse. C’est une invitation à donner une chance à la prévention (sensibilisation, mises en garde, négociations, mises au pas, sanctions au besoin) avant de recourir à l’artillerie lourde. C’est une invitation à bien baliser le parcours avant de s’y engager. Et n’excluons pas que le cadre juridique actuel, appliqué rigoureusement, puisse offrir les moyens de ramener les choses à l’ordre. C’est ce que croient plusieurs juristes.

Source: Laïcité, méfions-nous du va-t-en-guerre

I strongly oppose the practices that have just been exposed in our schools. They are clearly contrary to the values of our society and must be put to an end. But in what way?

Gone to war against Islamism (“On va se battre”) as if a wave was sweeping over Quebec, Mr. Legault immediately wants to take out the heavy artillery: toughen the Law on the Secularism of the State, enshrine it in a constitution, use the exemption provision, “take” religion out of schools and public places. There is certainly a problem, but a hasty, poorly calibrated intervention could aggravate it rather than solve it. We do not know much about the situation, investigations have just begun. Here are some questions to consider.

1) What is the extent of the problem? Let us be careful not to generalize hastily. We currently know that less than twenty schools are affected. Is this the tip of the iceberg? Or the iceberg itself? What about the 2757 primary and secondary schools identified in Quebec? And what about universities and CEGEPs? We do not know it.

By the way, what we know about skids comes from the work of the media. Otherwise, when would the public have been informed?

2) What is the source of the problem? The situations denounced can be attributed to various causes: a) those responsible, at all decision-making levels, were informed, but chose to hide them; b) the immediate officials knew it and did their duty, but their messages were “lost” above; c) those responsible, at some level, judged that the practices concerned did not deserve to be dwelling on; d) actors, victims of intimidation, fell silent. Again, we don’t know.

It may have been a few things at the beginning. The problem may have been exacerbated by the prolonged inaction of managers. In the case of the Bedford School, we know that the transgressions had been taking place for seven years. It is disturbing that the Ministry of Education has not been seized of these discrepancies or that, having been, it has done nothing.

3) A problem of cultural integration? It seems clear that very localized elements (until proven otherwise) of Islamic fundamentalism are being activated in schools. Fundamentalism? I mean a) recognizing absolute priority to religious values; b) closing to any relaxation; c) indocting indoctrination.

It seems to be a new phenomenon here. No mention of this was made during the many consultations conducted with the scientific community and with the general public by the commission that I co-chaired with Charles Taylor.

We are facing a cultural shock. Whether or not it is the fact of a new generation, it testifies to a rejection of primordial values promoted by our society. We need to better understand the conditions under which categories of believers come to behave in an unacceptable way in institutions as neuralgic as the school system.

4) Prohibit prayers in public? What exactly do we mean by that? There is talk of crowds of worshippers performing a religious ritual on a sidewalk or square. What is a crowd: two people? Five? Ten? Will we also aim at the devotee who, in front of the Saint-Joseph oratory, stops to make a genuflection and the sign of the cross? What is meant by “public places”? By “prayers”? How to disentangle the religious and the spiritual? And what happens to fundamental rights? Finally, will all religions be targeted? It will have been noted that the Prime Minister only speaks of “Islamists”.

Good luck to the specialists who will write the new guidelines. And good luck to those who will have to apply them.

5) “Take out” the religious from schools? How will we proceed? It will be necessary to distinguish the indoctrination and the teaching of religions, to rule on the old secularized seminars subsidized by the State and which house a chapel that is still active. And if our prime minister is consistent, he will have to close religious schools. Will he dare to do it? Otherwise, who will take it seriously?

According to a text from Radio-Canada (April 2022), our government would subsidize fifty private institutions with “an explicit religious vocation”.

6) What to do? How? How to counter the reprehensible expressions of convictions deeply rooted in the religious? This task calls for prudence and tact dictated by a thoughtful, experienced approach. Do we have the necessary psychological and sociological tools?

We have a radicalization prevention center created by the City of Montreal for about ten years. It has proven itself, especially at the level of individuals, unless I am mistaken. Do we have specific expertise at the collective level? Will we be able to properly deal with such complex, potentially explosive realities?

7) A French societal tear? Cookie-cutter interventions could give the illusion of success in the short term, but they could also activate the fire we wanted to put out. Let’s avoid, if possible, reproducing here the situation of France: a deep cleavage, a breeding ground for violence, which has become unmanageable.

It’s up to the Prime Minister to play…

Which side will Mr. Legault? Giving in to the emotion of the moment and in search of an easy electoral gain, will he choose to fight and risk causing a hardening, erecting a wall? Or will he opt for caution in order to see more clearly before acting?

This text is not an invitation to complacency or softness. It is an invitation to give prevention a chance (awareness, warnings, negotiations, steps, sanctions if necessary) before resorting to heavy artillery. It is an invitation to mark the course before committing to it. And let’s not rule out that the current legal framework, rigorously applied, can offer the means to bring things back to order. This is what many lawyers believe.



Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

Globe editorial: The twin crises of housing and immigration 

2024/12/16 Leave a comment

Indeed:

…In its most recent plan, the government uses five criteria – with the final one being Canada’s capacity to settle, integrate and retain newcomers. That is too faint a nod toward a critical shortage of housing in major urban centres.

The new federal targets aim to reduce immigration levels (from record highs) over the next three years. But those reductions won’t fix chronic, countrywide challenges around housing and health care. Canada needs to ensure that its immigration targets match our ability to provide the fundamentals in communities that are stretched by high numbers of new arrivals.

The federal Conservatives want Canada to set immigration targets based on this country’s capacity to absorb newcomers, based on the availability of housing, jobs and health care. The Tories are on the right track. Capacity – most easily measured by the state of the housing market – should be the yardstick for the federal government’s targets for economic migrants, in addition to its humanitarian commitments.

The reduced targets are overdue. Unchecked growth has soured Canadians’ support for immigration, as gaps in housing supply, access to health care and other social services have grown….

The lesson for the federal Liberals, who will face voters next year, is that immigration and housing are intertwined crises – and should be dealt with as such.

Source: On the Brink: The twin crises of housing and immigration

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

C-71 Senate SOCI Report

2024/12/16 Leave a comment

Of note, as often happens, the narrower interests related to adoption prevail over broader policy considerations (time limit for residency test):

This bill is a response to the December 2023 decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Bjorkquist et al. v. Attorney General of Canada). This decision declared that the existing provisions in the Citizenship Act that limit citizenship by descent to the first generation born abroad, contravene the mobility and equality rights provisions in sections 6 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter). These provisions in the Act are thus unconstitutional and, as such, have no force or effect. The Court suspended its declaration of invalidity until December 19, 2024, to give the Government of Canada time to amend the Citizenship Act.

With consideration to the impending court deadline, on November 28, 2024, the subject matter of Bill C-71 was referred to your committee for a pre-study, with instructions to report its findings to the Senate within two weeks. Your committee therefore received limited witness testimony and did not have enough time to seek additional clarity from stakeholders and government officials on this important piece of legislation. Your committee examined the subject matter of this bill over two meetings, hearing testimony from the Honourable Marc Miller, P.C., M.P., Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and departmental officials, in addition to six stakeholders.

Your committee heard broad support for the substantial connection test proposed by Bill C-71.

Concerns around equity and consideration of rights guaranteed by the Charter dominated much of the other limited testimony that was received. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship stated that, if Bill C-71 is adopted, the Citizenship Act will be in full compliance with the Charter for the first time in its history. While some stakeholders agreed that the bill addresses the exclusions of the current Act, others cautioned that inequities in recognizing citizenship may persist, including violations of Charter rights.

In particular, concerns were raised by some stakeholders about the requirements for recognizing the citizenship of the children of internationally born adoptees. Your committee heard diverging perspectives on this point and, therefore, encourages the Government of Canada to engage with relevant stakeholders to further investigate this issue and consider amendments to the bill, if required.

Your committee also acknowledges the overall complexity of the Citizenship Act and suggests that careful consideration be taken at each step of the legislative and implementation processes relevant to this bill to prevent future lost Canadians and further violation of Charter rights.

During his testimony, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship informed the committee that the Government of Canada is seeking an additional extension to the court deadline.

Source: C-71 Senate SOCI Report

Media coverage focused on extension of court deadline:

An unknown number of people will automatically become Canadian citizens next week if the Ontario Superior Court doesn’t grant the federal government a third extension to fix the issue of “lost Canadians,” Canada argued in court Thursday.

“Lost Canadians” is a term applied to people who were born outside of the country to Canadian parents who were also born in another country. In 2009, the former Conservative government changed the law so people who were born abroad could not pass down their citizenship unless their child was born in Canada.

In late 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that law is unconstitutional.The government has until Dec. 19 to amend the Citizenship Act to respond to that decision. It is now seeking its third extension, after being granted delays in June and August.

In court Thursday the government asked for the Dec. 19 deadline to be delayed three months, until March 19, 2025, to give them more time to pass legislation.

The Liberals introduced the amendments to the Citizenship Act in May but the bill only began real debate in September. It has been sidelined since then, as an ongoing battle between the Conservatives and Liberals delays most work in the House of Commons.

The new legislation stipulates that anyone who meets the criteria would be eligible for citizenship if their parents spent a cumulative three years in Canada before they were born.

Source: Missed ’Lost Canadians’ deadline would make ’unknowable’ number of new citizens: feds

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, C-71, Citizenship Tagged with

← Older posts

Newer posts →