Thompson: The name can change, but the work must not: why Canada still needs DEI

Useful long read given current debates. Trump administration’s executive order combined with his many unqualified cabinet and other appointments is perhaps one of the strongest arguments that DEI is compatible with merit considerations:

…At least some of the challenges to DEI at the organizational level can be attributed to leaders (and a fair number of consultants) not doing this work well in the first place. In their 2022 book, Getting to Diversity, sociologists Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev analyze decades of American data to demonstrate which kinds of DEI programs work, and which don’t, under which specific circumstances. For example, mandatory trainings about diversity and sexual harassment that focus on legal compliance can backfire, generating defensiveness on the part of those who need to do better. Cultural inclusion training that seeks to improve collaboration and communication across groups and harassment training that focuses on bystander intervention, however, can be very effective. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to pro-active diversity management, though in nearly all situations, we in Canada require better and more disaggregated and systematically collected data.

The current backlash against DEI is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Corporate commitments that were made because of changing public opinion were always going to be window dressing. For others, the work continues. “Organizations that have sincerely committed to advancing DEI are still committed,” said Nicole Piggott, the president and co-founder of Synclusiv, which guides its clients to create more inclusive workplaces. “The data are clear; the data have not changed. Diverse workplaces perform better in every metric.” However, effective DEI practices must be deliberate, strategic and embedded in the core values of an organization from top to bottom – not relegated to a neglected portfolio in an overworked human resources department….

Source: The name can change, but the work must not: why Canada still needs DEI

UK to reject ‘dangerous journey’ refugees citizenship

Not sure how that will withstand legal challenges but we shall see:

The government has toughened up rules making it almost impossible for a refugee who arrives in the UK on a small boat to become a British citizen.

New guidance states that anyone who enters the UK illegally having made a dangerous journey, which could be via boat, but also by means such as hiding in a vehicle, will normally be refused citizenship, regardless of the time that has passed.

In a statement, the Home Office said the strengthened measures made it clear that anyone who entered the UK illegally would face having a British citizenship application refused.

But, the change has been condemned by the Refugee Council and some Labour MPs – including Stella Creasy who said the change “meant refugees would forever remain second class citizens”.

Changes, first disclosed by the Free Movement blog, were introduced to guidance for visa and immigration staff on Monday.

The changes mean that anyone deemed to have entered the country illegally – including those already here – will not be able to apply for citizenship.

Described as a “clarification” to case worker guidance when assessing if a claimant is of “good character’, it says: “Any person applying for citizenship from 10 February 2025, who previously entered the UK illegally will normally be refused, regardless of the time that has passed since the illegal entry took place.”

Another new entry to the same guidance says: “A person who applies for citizenship from 10 February 2025 who has previously arrived without a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation, having made a dangerous journey will normally be refused citizenship.

“A dangerous journey includes, but is not limited to, travelling by small boat or concealed in a vehicle or other conveyance.”

Previously, refugees who had arrived by irregular routes would need to wait ten years before being considered.

Under international law, people are allowed to seek asylum, but the government’s move to strengthen its border control and laws on entry, will prevent some people from doing so.

It comes after Labour’s new border security bill, which scraps the Conservatives’ Rwanda plan and boosts police powers against people smugglers, cleared its first vote in the House of Commons on Monday.

The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill sets out Labour’s plan to treat people smugglers like terrorists, and creates a new crime of endangering another person during an illegal crossing in the Channel.

The Home Office also published footage of enforcement teams raiding 828 premises, including nail bars, car washes, and restaurants, as part of a UK-wide crackdown on illegal working earlier this week.

The Refugee Council estimates the guidance will prevent at least 71,000 refugees from obtaining British citizenship.

Enver Solomon, CEO of the charity, said the government’s move “flies in the face of reason”.

“The British public want refugees who have been given safety in our country to integrate into and contribute to their new communities, so it makes no sense for the government to erect more barriers.

“We know that men women and children who are refugees want to feel part of the country that has given them a home, and support to rebuild their lives.

“We urge ministers to urgently reconsider.”

Meanwhile, immigration barrister Colin Yeo claimed on social media that it is a “clear breach of the refugee convention”.

Although the Conservatives have yet to respond to the government’s decision, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch told the BBC last week that she believes the right to citizenship and permanent residency “should only go to those who have demonstrated a real commitment to the UK”.

Badenoch spoke about her proposals to toughen up citizenship rules by making it more difficult for new immigrants to be able to permanently settle in the UK.

Citizenship applications will continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis, it is understood.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “There are already rules that can prevent those arriving illegally from gaining citizenship.

“This guidance further strengthens measures to make it clear that anyone who enters the UK illegally, including small boat arrivals, faces having a British citizenship application refused.”

Source: UK to reject ‘dangerous journey’ refugees citizenship

Geoff Russ: Quebec’s cultural integration bill is a model for the rest of Canada

Contrary view to much of the commentary on Bill 24. Russ is correct in stating that multiculturalism was always about integration, allowing space for cultures and religions, with reasonable accommodations where warranted, and within limits:

…Nothing in Bill 84 suggests an intention to erase diverse identities or arbitrarily impose a dominant monoculture upon Quebec’s population. What it does attempt is to make a shared national identity possible in this era of digital globalization and mass immigration, both of which challenge our long-held assumptions about integration.

Civic identity is an issue that grows more pressing by the year. By the 2026 census, about one-third of Canadians will likely have been born abroad. They will more than likely be dual citizens and people who remain connected to their mother countries like never before, due to the spread of social media platforms such as X and TikTok, as well as streaming services.

The unspoken agreement to forget the conflicts and prejudices of the old world, which once helped newcomers integrate into Canadian society, is under threat of extinction. Since October 7, 2023, and even before that, we have seen the consequences play out in the streets of our cities and in our foreign policy.

Anti-Israel mobs have roamed freely, causing civil disorder and committing violence against the Jewish community. Khalistani protests outside Hindu temples have turned violent, and the separatist group’s presence in Canada has become so strong that it has damaged diplomatic relations with India. This is a new phenomenon: older generations of immigrants, such as Albanians, Croats and Serbs, did not bring the Yugoslav wars to Canada.

It’s also a global phenomenon, as synagogues are being outright burned down in Australia. With United States President Donald Trump’s recent pledge to take over the Gaza Strip and “resettle” the Palestinians elsewhere, do not expect this wave to end anytime soon.

However, finding Trump’s plan for Gaza unacceptable does not legitimize further violence and intimidation in Canada. No matter what happens thousands of miles away, it never gives anyone licence to break Canadian law.

Welcoming different cultures into this country is not the problem. We all have friends whose parents or grandparents were born abroad and who have retained their ancestral cultures and religions.

The problem today is the inability of many of our governing politicians to articulate the need for integration — and their fear of even broaching the idea. Multiculturalism was not intended to enable the balkanization of our communities into ethnic blocs that command more loyalty than that owed to pan-Canadian society.

Canadian multiculturalism was meant to be a process by which cultural traditions of all kinds could be retained alongside a shared Canadian identity, but that identity has been deeply eroded in 2025.

Even the current surge of patriotism felt across the country, triggered by Trump’s threat to wage economic warfare on us, should be treated as a dead-cat bounce. The moment external pressure from the White House begins to subside, Canada will revert to its previous state — an ever-fragmenting society coming apart at the seams. It cannot truly be recovered without a push for integration.

Many people shudder at the word “assimilation,” both in Quebec and the rest of Canada. There is no pride to be had in the forced assimilation of Indigenous peoples over the past few centuries, nor in the softer attempts to erase Francophone culture. Still, despite the darker parts of Canadian history, governments today have a responsibility to build unity and prevent cultural division and destruction. Bill 84 is Quebec’s most recent attempt to see to this duty.

For too long, it has been assumed that cultural integration was inevitable and would happen by itself. However, that’s a misguided assumption: when communities remain separated and many of their most politically active members mobilize for foreign causes, Canada will fracture.

Government action in this delicate area cannot simply consist of words anymore, and Bill 84 recognizes that.

Far from scorn, Quebec’s proposed model for integration is something to emulate on both sides of the political spectrum. On the left, integration should be recognized as the only way to preserve a peaceful, diverse society that will not collapse under the weight of its own imported tensions. For those of us on the right, strengthening national unity is a pillar of conservatism.

The late English philosopher Roger Scruton wrote that conservatism is the simple preservation of what a society knows and loves. What Canadians and Quebecers recognize and cherish in their communities is part of what continues to attract newcomers, and this should be actively protected.

Integration has never meant abandoning one’s culture. When realized, it is the creation of shared civic and cultural bonds that allow all groups to co-exist peacefully. While those bonds steadily erode in English Canada due to its generally negligent, hands-off approach, Quebec is taking action to stop the same from happening.

Many may be asking why Quebec’s government is doing this. The real question is: why isn’t the rest of Canada doing the same?

Source: Geoff Russ: Quebec’s cultural integration bill is a model for the rest of Canada

Skuterud: The Growing Data Gap on Canada’s Temporary Resident Workforce

Useful recommendations:

Statistics Canada’s Labour Force Survey (LFS) underestimates the rapidly growing non-permanent resident (NPR) population. This undercount potentially distorts important economic indicators, such as nominal wage growth and unemployment rates, because NPRs disproportionately influence these measures as a growing share of new labour market entrants.

To address this data gap, this E-Brief recommends revising the LFS to better identify NPRs by including specific questions about study or work permits and exploring the possibility of linking survey data to immigration records for improved accuracy.

Introduction

Canada has experienced a dramatic increase in its non-permanent resident (NPR) population in recent years. Before 2020, NPRs never comprised more than 3 percent of Canada’s population. As of October 2024, they comprised 7.4 percent of the population. While initial concerns over runaway NPR population growth were focused on overheating housing markets, by mid-2024, worries turned to the contribution of NPRs – particularly international students – to rising youth unemployment rates.

Evaluating the labour market impacts of Canada’s growing NPR population requires timely, high-quality data on Canada’s labour force. It is well known that Statistics Canada struggles to sample NPRs, in part due to challenges related to how Statistics Canada’s Labour Force Survey (LFS) sampling frame is constructed. The LFS samples dwellings, not individuals, and gathers data on all persons usually living at the sampled address, including NPRs. There may be ambiguity about whether the address where NPRs are sampled is their usual residence, resulting in their exclusion from the survey.1 Skuterud (2023) highlighted a significant and widening discrepancy between the share of NPRs in Canada’s labour force estimated using the LFS and administrative data from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).2 With continued growth in the NPR population since 2023, there is reason to believe this discrepancy has grown.

Why does this matter? The accuracy of the LFS’s estimates of nominal wage growth and unemployment rates are critical in informing the Bank of Canada’s monetary policy decisions and collective bargaining negotiations across the country. As IRCC introduces policies to rein in NPR entries, understanding whether international students are, in fact, crowding out and suppressing the wages of existing residents is essential.

This E-Brief examines the impact of Canada’s surging NPR population on the quality of the LFS data by comparing the LFS’s population estimates with official population estimates from Statistics Canada’s Centre for Demography. The results reveal a substantial and growing divergence in official and LFS population estimates starting in 2021. While it is unclear to what extent this is affecting estimates of wage growth and unemployment, the growing discrepancies suggest there is reason for concern…

Source: The Growing Data Gap on Canada’s Temporary Resident Workforce

Immigrants’ Sense of Belonging to Canada: The Role of Source-Country Gender Inequality

Interesting findings:

“A growing body of literature uses country-level indicators to examine the impact of immigrants’ source-country conditions on the home and work lives of immigrants after arrival. One measure that has attracted increased attention is gender inequality in immigrants’ countries of origin. However, little is known about the degree to which the transition from high to low gender inequality countries affects the development of connections with the receiving country and whether immigrant women and men are impacted differently. This article examines the association between source-country gender inequality and immigrants’ sense of belonging to Canada. Our regression analysis of data from the 2013 and 2020 General Social Surveys suggests a higher level of source-country gender inequality is associated with a stronger sense of belonging to Canada for both immigrant men and women. Despite concerns from some conservative critics that gender inequality in source countries hinders immigrant integration, the results show that immigrants from cultures different from Canada develop a strong sense of belonging to Canada. Our findings suggest that cultural distance does not necessarily have a negative impact on immigrant men’s and women’s self-perceived integration into their host country.”

Source: Immigrants’ Sense of Belonging to Canada: The Role of Source-Country Gender Inequality

Lorinc | Donald Trump has created a golden opportunity for Canada

Good suggestion, talent focussed:

….This time around, Trump’s MAGA warriors have perversely turned their sights on scientists and graduate students living inside the U.S., particularly those working in health, public health and bio-medical research by halting federal research grants.

We ought to take full advantage of the fall-out from Trump’s post-fact/anti-science crusade. The Canadian government, provincial higher education ministries and individual universities should be racing to find ways to attract American scientists whose research funding has suddenly dried up in the face of political attacks.

As happened in 2017 with the U.S. travel ban, Canadian research teams have already been caught up in the disruption because the collaborative and multi-disciplinary nature of science means that NIH-funded projects include principal investigators outside the U.S. They’re all witnessing the impact of these freezes in real time, with tangible implications for their research programs.

Of course, established scientists working in well-resourced institutions can’t just pull up stakes, re-direct their mail and move. But we know that some are pondering their own futures, and the future of their work, so anything that Canada can do to entice those individuals to re-locate will be well worth the effort. After all, we can offer proximity, shared languages and reasonably robust public institutions.

Such a move needs to be situated within a wider policy pivot necessitated by the Trump shocks. In recent weeks, there’s been a lot of talk about diversifying our export base, bringing down interprovincial trade barriers and potentially providing Canadians displaced by tariffs with some kind of emergency assistance. The Conservatives also want to cut corporate taxes.

To this list, I’d add, as have many others, that Canada needs to confront its stubbornly low productivity. One important way to do that is to build a policy environment that encourages investment all along the productivity food chain, from R&D to the commercialization of emerging Canadian technologies to proactive measures that incentivize companies and governments to invest in these tools.

Welcoming American researchers and post-docs to relocate to Canada is one piece of that puzzle. The others include: improved funding for university-based technology transfer offices, which help commercialize basic and applied R&D; targeted policies that encourage early-stage investors to back and grow Canadian start-ups; and tax and procurement tools designed to encourage Canadian corporations and governments to invest in those technologies….

Source: Opinion | Donald Trump has created a golden opportunity for Canada

Canada’s cuts to international student permits lead to fear of a brain drain

Surprising that none of the experts mentioned note that the majority of students, particularly attending business programs in colleges, are not among the talent Canada seeks:

…Banerjee notes that immigrants and non-permanent residents are often younger and come in as international students, who are more likely to participate in the labour market. Their reduced numbers further accelerate the decline in much-needed labour supply amid a rapidly aging population.

Scotiabank economist Rebekah Young agrees that the drastic cuts to both permanent and temporary immigration are going to have an impact on the economy.

Thousands of international students and workers on post-graduate work permits, once planning to stay, are now taking their talent elsewhere due to uncertainty surrounding immigration and the high cost of living.

“When you look at international students and those who have come into rigorous, recognized programs and disciplines in high demand and sectors of high productivity, there’s a real opportunity cost that Canada loses out on,” Young said.

Banerjee said the rising cost of living further discourages foreign students from investing their lives in Canada as they often face barriers in the job markets and earn significantly less than their Canadian peers upon graduation as they struggle to find jobs that match their qualifications.

For example, in 2023 international students with a bachelor’s degree earned a median annual income of $52,000, 20 per cent lower than Canadian graduates who earned $65,200, according to new research from Statistics Canada. This is partly because these students are over three times more likely than Canadian graduates to work in sales and service jobs that tend to pay less….

Source: Canada’s cuts to international student permits lead to fear of a brain drain

Former Shopify executives denounce platform for hosting Kanye West’s store selling swastika T-shirts

Would be nice to see some current ones doing so as well….. And surely promoting Hitler symbols should be an easy determination. UPDATE: Shopify removes Kanye West store selling swastika T-shirts, says violated ‘authentic’ commerce practices:

…In 2017, when challenged for hosting the store for the far-right news website Breitbart, Mr. Lütke wrote a blog post explaining the company’s position “as a platform without restriction,” saying the company frequently faced pressure to censor merchants operating its platform.

“When we kick off a merchant, we’re asserting our own moral code as the superior one,” Mr. Lütke wrote. “But who gets to define that moral code? Where would it begin and end?”

In the blog post, he asserted the company’s support of free speech and said it followed the practices of the American Civil Liberties Union, which itself states it has defended the freedom speech rights of unpopular groups such as Nazis in the past.

The Canadian e-commerce business has come under fire for hosting other controversial content. Last year, Shopify was criticized by advocacy groups the Anti-Defamation League and Stop Antisemitism for hosting a store associated with the brand “TheOfficial1984″ that touted content praising Adolf Hitler.

Incidents of antisemitism have been on the rise in Canada since the Hamas attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and Israel’s retaliatory military campaign in Gaza….

Source: Former Shopify executives denounce platform for hosting Kanye West’s store selling swastika T-shirts

Dundas, Ryerson and Macdonald schools to be renamed in Toronto: TDSB

Silly move, dumbing down history:

…Sean Carleton, a historian and Indigenous studies scholar at the University of Manitoba, argues that the purpose of history is to learn from the past, and not simply lionize those from our history.

“In this moment, what people are doing (is), with new information reevaluating the symbols that we choose in society to, convey our values,” said Carleton in an interview. “Many people are saying, ‘Can we not do better than naming a school after someone who advocated for a system of genocidal schooling?’”

If Canadians have these debates, Carleton argued, it could be something we could be proud of.

“The process of having that debate is actually healthy, as long as the people engaged in it are learning from the past and engaging meaningfully in that dialogue, rather than just trying to push the politics of like, you know, ‘Macdonald is a monster,’ or ‘Macdonald is a saint,’” Carleton said.

Renaming, however, has been criticized by some historians.

Margaret MacMillan, an emeritus professor of history at the University of Toronto, has argued that the past cannot be changed by removing names.

“The past is something you can debate about, you can have different opinions about but, if we remove all traces of it, then we’re not even going to have those debates,” MacMillan said, as quoted by the Canadian Institute for Historical Education.

Several other school boards have previously removed names from schools. In 2021, the York Region District School Board voted to change the name of an elementary school in Markham, Ont., that was named after Macdonald. It’s now called Nokiidaa Public School. Nokiidaa is the Ojibwe word meaning “let’s work” or “let’s all work together.”

In addition to Ryerson University changing its name, the legacy of Ryerson was also removed from a Brantford, Ont., elementary school. That school is now named after Edith Monture, the first Indigenous woman to become a nurse in Canada and the first Canadian Indigenous woman to serve in the U.S. military.

In Ottawa, the National Capital Commission, which oversees federal lands in the National Capital Region, renamed the Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway to Kichi Zībī Mīkan, which means “Ottawa River path.”

Multiple other schools around the country — and other public institutions and spaces — have also had their names changed, sometimes with controversy. In Alberta, some schools bearing the name of Jean Vanier, a Catholic philosopher, were renamed after revelations that Vanier was a sexual predator. An LRT station in Edmonton named after Vital-Justin Grandin, another architect of the residential school system, was also changed.

Source: Dundas, Ryerson and Macdonald schools to be renamed in Toronto: TDSB

Lalande | To successfully fight Trump, Canada needs one thing: more Canadians

Certainly, not as many as the CI advocates. Competitiveness is real, and depends less on population growth than smart economic and immigration policies. The grave mistake was CI’s early advocacy for a larger population, Barton’s recommendations, and the Liberal government’s not thinking critically about what that would mean for housing, healthcare and infrastructure:

Time discovers truth.

In this case, it’s a brutal one.

The federal government’s decision to cut immigration targets by 21 per cent in 2025 and 24 per cent in 2026 was a grave mistake. Alarmingly, the consequences are rearing their ugly head at the worst possible time.

By reducing immigration levels, Canada is facing the economic fight of our lives with one arm tied behind our back. This is a moment when we should be projecting strength and growth — yet, instead, we have chosen to shrink. And unfortunately for us, this policy shift is occurring at the same time as another major demographic headwind: the retirement of five million Canadians by the end of the decade.

The economic impacts of these reductions are dire. A new Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) report examined the impact of reduced immigration levels and found that by 2027, Canada will see 1.3 billion fewer hours worked and a $37 billion reduction in nominal GDP, on average, over the next three years. These economic impacts will cripple Canada’s tax base, erode our economic resilience and reduce access to public services that Canadians rely upon.

We also haven’t yet factored in the proverbial elephant in the room that is the ongoing threat of tariffs and trade warfare. When we accept the true extent of economic volatility on the horizon, it becomes clear that Canada is in the midst of an economic emergency.

It’s one made considerably worse by the fact we have undermined our own bargaining power. The Conference Board of Canada has warned of a $6.9 billion reduction in real consumer spending in 2025, growing to $10.8 billion in 2026 — a consequence of both fewer workers, fewer people and a contracting market.

Understanding how we got here is critical. The absence of a national strategy for population and economic growth has left us vulnerable. The only way out is through a renewed focus on Canada’s competitiveness.

First, let’s radically improve our business climate so we can meaningfully diversify the Canadian economy and sharpen the tools in our economic toolbox. Trade wars may be a race to the bottom, but we can at least position ourselves as a stronger and more diversified, self-reliant economic competitor.

In 2023, Canada earned $152 billion from oil and gas exports to the United States, dwarfing all other sectors. Auto manufacturing, by comparison, only accounted for $51 billion worth of exports in 2023. We are doing ourselves a disservice by relying disproportionately on oil and gas exports at the expense of other industries, which can also be sources of innovation, investment and prosperity.

We also need to invest in a pro-growth agenda at lightning speed, attracting entrepreneurs and making it easier for large capital projects to set up shop in Canada and seize our early advantage in burgeoning industries such as artificial intelligence. Highly skilled immigrants are a key part of the equation, bringing entrepreneurial ambition and foreign investment capital with them. This pro-growth agenda must focus not only on attracting new businesses but retaining them for the long-term.

Second, let’s focus on talent.

With U.S. immigration tightening, Canada has a golden opportunity to attract workers — but only with a compelling pitch. Instead of vague promises, we must offer a clear vision: strong job prospects, affordability, accessible health care, and inclusive communities. This pitch should target highly skilled American workers facing growing uncertainty about their residency status, but also prioritize workers for industries where we have shortages such as construction, trades, green economy, and health care.

To win the war for talent, Canada must modernize its immigration points system to prioritize high-demand skills. And we must invest in housing, transit, health care and child care to ensure newcomers don’t just arrive, but stay.

These aren’t new solutions — experts have pushed for them for years. But the current threat of tariffs and trade warfare makes action not only more urgent than ever, but possible. This is a rare political moment where everyone’s attention is focused on Canada’s economic future. Whatever happens in the coming months, we should not look away from the threat.

For once, the political necessity to act is matched by the political will to act. So let’s seize this moment.

Source: Opinion | To successfully fight Trump, Canada needs one thing: more Canadians