Saunders: Immigration bans worsen the problem they’re meant to solve

2025/06/09 1 Comment

Manage, not ban:

…A complete ban of a country’s people, or a closure of legal border crossings to significant populations, does the opposite. It inverts the risk equation by reducing the odds of a legal, controlled application succeeding to zero. And therefore the comparative benefit of sneaking in or simply showing up or overstaying rises infinitely. In other words: bans strongly incentivize illegal immigration.

That should be well known to American leaders by this point. Despite the walling-off of the southern border and closure of most forms of legal entry and asylum at its crossings under Mr. Trump in his first term and continuing under Joe Biden, the proportion of irregular entries and dangerous smuggled crossings rose. They were reduced to negligible levels in 2024, mainly through judicious use of limited legal pathways. 

The Safe Third Country Agreement has the same effect in Canada: By completely banning entire categories of people from any regular-entry application, however unlikely its success, it creates a powerful incentive structure to make dangerous irregular walks across the border. Therefore, when people seek to flee Mr. Trump’s policies, as they did in his first term, they seek to come through fields, forests and lakes, at great risk.

A restricted, controlled immigration system is good for everyone, including immigrants. But restriction becomes a perverse incentive to illegality, as Mr. Trump keeps failing to learn, if you reduce the target to zero.

Source: Immigration bans worsen the problem they’re meant to solve

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Québec impose finalement une connaissance du français aux travailleurs temporaires

2025/06/09 Leave a comment

A noter:

Un an et demi après l’avoir annoncé, le gouvernement de François Legault a finalement déposé jeudi un règlement pour exiger une connaissance minimale du français chez les travailleurs temporaires — ce qui pourrait « avoir un impact indirect sur la compétitivité des entreprises au Québec », convient-il.

Le 1er novembre 2023, la ministre caquiste Christine Fréchette, alors à l’Immigration, avait soutenu en conférence de presse qu’elle demanderait aux immigrants participant au Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires (PTET) de démontrer au renouvellement de leur permis de travail une maîtrise du français de niveau 4 à l’oral.

À l’époque, la ministre, qui est aujourd’hui responsable du portefeuille de l’Économie, avait décrit ce niveau de connaissance du français comme la capacité à « discuter avec [son] entourage » de « sujets familiers ». Selon les documents officiels du gouvernement, les immigrants qui maîtrisent le niveau 4 à l’oral comprennent « le sens général de conversations brèves liées à des activités ou à des situations courantes ».

Jeudi matin, environ 19 mois plus tard, le projet de règlement du gouvernement Legault a finalement été publié dans la Gazette officielle du Québec. Il impose comme prévu la connaissance du niveau 4 pour les participants au PTET, le programme de travailleurs temporaires géré par Québec.

Une exception est toutefois accordée aux employés du secteur de l’« agriculture primaire ».

Une mesure appliquée à compter de 2028

Même si le règlement doit entrer en vigueur cet automne, l’exigence ne sera toutefois imposée qu’à partir de 2028. Le projet de règlement prévoit des mesures transitoires qui feront en sorte de reporter de trois ans les premières évaluations de la compétence en français. L’actuel ministre de l’Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, s’est inspiré de la durée maximale d’un permis de travail, qui est de 36 mois, pour offrir ce coussin aux travailleurs.

Dans son projet de règlement, le ministre de la Coalition avenir Québec convient que ces « modifications […] pourraient avoir un impact indirect sur la compétitivité des entreprises au Québec ». « Comme les autres provinces canadiennes n’imposent pas d’exigence linguistique aux travailleurs étrangers temporaires, ceux qui voudront, après un séjour de trois ans, occuper des emplois dans les entreprises québécoises auront une exigence de plus à satisfaire », a-t-il indiqué.

« En revanche, une meilleure connaissance du français favoriserait l’intégration en milieu de travail et de vie des travailleurs, contribuant ainsi à pourvoir durablement les postes vacants tout en soutenant l’activité économique au Québec », a ajouté l’élu.

Le gouvernement québécois exige déjà une certaine connaissance du français de la part des immigrants économiques permanents….

Source: Québec impose finalement une connaissance du français aux travailleurs temporaires

A year and a half after announcing it, François Legault’s government finally filed a regulation on Thursday to require a minimum knowledge of French among temporary workers – which could “have an indirect impact on the competitiveness of companies in Quebec,” he agrees.

On November 1, 2023, the Caquist Minister Christine Fréchette, then at Immigration, argued at a press conference that she would ask immigrants participating in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (PTET) to demonstrate a mastery of oral level 4 French at the renewal of their work permit.

At the time, the minister, who is now responsible for the Economy portfolio, described this level of knowledge of French as the ability to “discuss with [her] entourage” “familiar subjects”. According to official government documents, immigrants who master level 4 orally understand “the general meaning of brief conversations related to routine activities or situations”.

Thursday morning, about 19 months later, the Legault government’s draft regulation was finally published in the Official Gazette of Quebec. As expected, it requires knowledge of level 4 for participants in the PTET, the temporary worker program managed by Québec.

However, an exception is granted to employees in the “primary agriculture” sector.

A measure applied from 2028

Even if the by-law is due to come into force this fall, the requirement will not be imposed until 2028. The draft regulation provides for transitional measures that will ensure that the first assessments of French proficiency are postponed by three years. The current Minister of Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, was inspired by the maximum duration of a work permit, which is 36 months, to offer this cushion to workers.

In his draft by-law, the Minister of the Coalition avenir Québec agrees that these “changes […] could have an indirect impact on the competitiveness of companies in Quebec”. “As other Canadian provinces do not impose a language requirement on temporary foreign workers, those who want, after a three-year stay, to occupy jobs in Quebec companies will have one more requirement to meet,” he said.

“On the other hand, a better knowledge of French would promote the integration of workers in the workplace and life, thus helping to permanently fill vacancies while supporting economic activity in Quebec,” added the elected official.

The Quebec government already requires some knowledge of French from permanent economic immigrants….

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Canada Introduces New Citizenship Reform With Bill C-3, Opening Doors For Global Travel And Family Connections

2025/06/07 Leave a comment

The reality check on Bill C-3, how the unlimited time period to claim Canadian citizenship by the second generation and beyond without the same five-year period as Permanent Residents is being perceived by organizations and potential beneficiaries:

Canada has introduced Bill C-3, a groundbreaking piece of legislation that seeks to overhaul the country’s citizenship laws, making it easier for global families to claim Canadian citizenship and access travel benefits. This new law expands citizenship by descent beyond the first generation, allowing individuals born abroad to Canadian citizens to inherit citizenship, provided their Canadian parent has maintained a strong connection to the country. The reform comes in response to the outdated 2009 rule that limited citizenship for second-generation Canadians born outside Canada, ensuring a more inclusive approach for families with Canadian roots worldwide. By offering a broader definition of Canadian identity, Bill C-3 aims to enhance both the nation’s diversity and global connectivity, providing more opportunities for travel and connection with Canada.

Canada is set to make a profound change to its citizenship laws through the introduction of Bill C-3, a new piece of legislation designed to significantly expand citizenship by descent. This bill aims to extend Canadian citizenship eligibility to individuals born abroad, beyond the first generation, allowing more people with Canadian heritage to reclaim their citizenship.

A New Path to Reconnect with Canadian Roots

Are you looking to reconnect with your Canadian heritage? Thanks to recent legislative advancements, Bill C-3 offers a golden opportunity for families across the globe to reconnect with their Canadian roots. This bill holds the potential to redefine what it means to be Canadian, making citizenship more accessible for individuals worldwide, especially those born to Canadian parents outside the country.

A Major Shift in Citizenship Rules

Bill C-3 marks a monumental shift in Canadian citizenship policy. The federal government’s new legislation aims to overhaul the existing rules, which have long been criticized for limiting citizenship by descent to only the first generation born abroad. Introduced in 2009, the previous policy prevented many Canadians who were born overseas from passing their citizenship to their children if those children were also born outside of Canada. This limited approach excluded many individuals with strong Canadian ties, an issue that the new bill seeks to address by broadening the scope of who can claim Canadian citizenship.

The Need for Change: Why Now?

For years, Canada has maintained strict limitations on citizenship by descent. Under the 2009 legislation, children born abroad to Canadian citizens were only eligible for citizenship if their parent was born in Canada or if the parent was a first-generation Canadian citizen. This limitation meant that second-generation Canadians born outside the country were excluded from claiming Canadian citizenship, even though they had deep familial ties to the nation.

The outdated policy was seen as unjust, leaving many individuals—who identify strongly with Canada and its values—unable to claim citizenship. Acknowledging the flaws of this system, the Canadian government has decided to make citizenship by descent more inclusive and accessible, opening the door to a new generation of Canadians.

What is Citizenship by Descent?

Citizenship by descent refers to the practice of granting nationality to children born outside the country if one of their parents is a citizen. In Canada, this system has traditionally been limited to the first generation born abroad. The law excluded second-generation Canadians unless they were born or adopted within Canada’s borders. As a result, many children of Canadian citizens born overseas found themselves without Canadian citizenship, despite their parent’s national ties.

The Key Changes Introduced by Bill C-3

If passed, Bill C-3 would fundamentally alter the citizenship landscape by expanding eligibility. The key provisions of the bill include:

  1. Restoration of Citizenship: Individuals who would have been Canadian citizens had it not been for the first-generation limit will automatically regain their citizenship under the new rules.
  2. Expanded Citizenship by Descent: The new legislation would permit the children of Canadian parents—born abroad to be eligible for citizenship, as long as their Canadian parent has lived in Canada for at least 1,095 cumulative days (approximately three years) prior to the child’s birth or adoption. This change reflects the importance of maintaining a strong connection to Canada while also acknowledging the global nature of Canadian families.

These changes offer an inclusive and practical approach to citizenship, ensuring that the bond between Canadians and their descendants is not lost due to arbitrary geographic boundaries.

Who Will Benefit from Bill C-3?

The passage of Bill C-3 is expected to benefit a large group of individuals, particularly those who:

  • Were born abroad to Canadian citizens who themselves were born outside of Canada.
  • Were adopted outside of Canada by Canadian parents.
  • Were affected by previous provisions of the Citizenship Act, such as section 8, which stripped citizenship from some individuals once they reached the age of 28.
  • Are part of the “Lost Canadians,” individuals who were denied citizenship due to outdated legal frameworks.

Since the 2009 and 2015 reforms, approximately 20,000 individuals have regained or gained Canadian citizenship. Bill C-3 seeks to build on this progress by restoring citizenship to those affected by the previous law, extending a helping hand to even more people with Canadian roots.

A Court Ruling Accelerates the Reform Process

The call for change was given a significant boost following a ruling by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in December 2023. The court determined that the first-generation rule was unconstitutional, as it unfairly discriminated against children born abroad to Canadian citizens. The ruling underscored the need for legislative reform, and instead of appealing the decision, the Canadian government acknowledged its flaws and pledged to address them through the introduction of Bill C-3.

This ruling confirmed the government’s commitment to upholding fairness and ensuring that Canadian citizenship is available to those who are entitled to it, regardless of where they were born.

What Happens Next?

Bill C-3 must now undergo the legislative process before it becomes law. The bill must be passed by both Houses of Parliament and receive Royal Assent before it can be enacted. If the bill is approved, the Canadian government has pledged to swiftly implement the changes and provide clear guidelines on eligibility through the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) website.

This means that eligible individuals could soon be able to reconnect with their Canadian identity, allowing them to enjoy the rights, privileges, and opportunities that come with Canadian citizenship.

Final Thoughts: A More Inclusive Canada

Bill C-3 represents an important step forward in making Canadian citizenship more accessible and inclusive. By extending citizenship by descent to second-generation Canadians born abroad, Canada is acknowledging the increasingly global nature of families and communities. It emphasizes that Canadian identity is not confined to geography, but is shaped by shared values of diversity, inclusivity, and belonging.

Canada introduces Bill C-3 to extend citizenship by descent beyond the first generation, enabling more global families to claim Canadian nationality. This reform reflects Canada’s commitment to inclusivity and recognizes the growing international ties of Canadian families.

As this legislation progresses through Parliament, it holds the potential to strengthen the connection between Canada and its global diaspora, ensuring that more individuals with Canadian heritage are able to claim their rightful place in the country’s future. Whether for personal or professional reasons, this legislation could be a game-changer for many seeking to establish or reconnect with their Canadian roots.

Source: Canada Introduces New Citizenship Reform With Bill C-3, Opening Doors For Global Travel And Family Connections

Also, Canada’s new bill to grant citizenship to thousands of people 

A proposed bill in Canada could open the path to citizenship for thousands, potentially impacting Indian-origin residents and skilled workers. Immigration Minister Lena Diab tabled legislation Thursday to restore citizenship to the “lost Canadians” after a court found the existing law unconstitutional.

The term refers to people who were born outside of the country to Canadian parents who were also born in another country. In 2009, the federal Conservative government of the day changed the law so that Canadians who were born abroad could not pass down their citizenship if their child was born outside of Canada.

That law was deemed unconstitutional by the Ontario Superior Court in December 2023 and the Liberal government did not challenge the ruling. The government received its fourth deadline extension to pass legislation to address the issue in April.

It applied for a one-year extension, but Justice Jasmine Akbarali set a Nov. 20 deadline, saying that should be enough time for the government to implement “remedial legislation” if it makes it a “priority.”

Akbarali has criticized the government’s handling of the legislation in her decisions to grant extensions, citing the harm that could follow if the Stephen Harper-era law were to be declared invalid without replacement legislation.

Children born in Canada automatically receive Canadian citizenship at birth, regardless of the nationality of their parents, subject to some exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats. 

Children of second-generation Canadian citizens who meet the substantial connection to Canada test need not wait for the legislation to pass; they can already apply for discretionary grants of Canadian citizenship under the existing interim measures.

Filed under C-3, Citizenship Tagged with

Immigration minister defends sweeping new powers in border bill

2025/06/07 Leave a comment

Early tests for Minister Diab:

Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab is defending controversial new measures in the Strong Borders Act, such as giving her office the power to cancel immigration documents en masse and placing time limits for asylum seekers to make their applications.

“There’s a lot of applications in the system. We need to act fairly, and treat people appropriately who really do need to claim asylum and who really do need to be protected to stay in Canada,” Diab told CBC News.

“We need to be more efficient in doing that. At the same time, Canadians demand that we have a system that works for everyone.”

Introduced in the House of Commons on Tuesday, Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, is meant to protect Canadian sovereignty, strengthen the border and keep Canadians safe, according to the federal government.

The bill would make dozens of amendments to existing laws. Its proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would force asylum seekers entering the country, including students and temporary residents, to make claims within a year.

The new law would also require irregular border crossers, people who enter Canada between official ports of entry, to make an asylum claim within 14 days of arriving in Canada.

And it would speed up voluntary departures by making removal orders effective the same day an asylum claim is withdrawn.

Groups such as the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers are raising concerns about these measures. 

“There are a few categories of people who may end up making a claim after they’ve been in Canada for more than one year for fully legitimate reasons,” said Adam Sadinsky, the group’s advocacy co-chair. 

He cited examples such as changes in government in someone’s country of origin, the breakout of conflict or their human rights advocacy in Canada placing a target on them. 

“They may now be in danger returning back home in a way that they weren’t when they first arrived,” he said. 

Federal government data shows some 39,445 asylum claimants processed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency between January and April.

Sadinsky said if the government’s motivations are about clearing backlogs, it may be creating another problem. 

Asylum seekers who find their application rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada can file appeals to the Refugee Appeal Division. However, shutting them out of the asylum route after a year could make them turn to the Federal Court of Canada for recourse instead, a body that has been public about its own courtrooms facing severe delays with immigration cases.

“It’s a lot more work for the court,” Sadinsky said, “when people start getting removal dates from Canada and they have to ask the court for motions for stays of removal from Canada.” 

Sadinsky suggested the government could have reduced backlogs by issuing blanket approvals for would-be asylum seekers from countries where Canada recognizes there is an imminent danger to sending them back, such as Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree said Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, will ‘keep our borders secure, combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl and crack down on money laundering,’ as well as ‘enhance the integrity and fairness of our immigration system.’ 

Speaking to journalists on Wednesday, Justice Minister Sean Fraser said the government needed to act, though he recognized courts are facing efficiency problems.

“We need to be able to do two things at once,” he said about changing the asylum system and reducing court backlogs.

Reached for comment, the office of the chief justice of the Federal Court said in a statement it would “simply hope that any potential impact on the court’s workload would be taken into account,” citing a previous amendment to immigration law under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in 2010 that included four new court positions.

Mass cancellation powers

The Migrant Rights Network, an advocacy group, said it is alarmed about the government giving itself the ability to cancel previously issued immigration documents in large groups. 

“What this is, is setting up of a mass deportation machine,” said its spokesperson Syed Hussan. “Just go out and say we’re walking away from the Geneva Convention.” 

Diab said any mass cancellation decisions would be taken by the whole cabinet, not just her office, and they would not be done lightly.

“These are in exceptional circumstances, when you’re talking about mass cancellation or suspension,” she said. 

“For example, when COVID happened, we literally had applications coming in, and the system had no authority to suspend or cancel those applications … we could have health risks again. We could have security risks.” 

Bill C-2 is now moving through Parliament. The legislation would normally be studied by parliamentary committee next, though neither Diab nor Gary Anandasangaree, the public safety minister, could say which committee would pick it up.

Committees have not been named yet for this sitting and it is unclear if they will before Parliament wraps up for the summer at the end of June.

The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers said it intends to write a letter outlining its concerns to the federal government, and would hope to present at committee when the moment arrives.

Source: Immigration minister defends sweeping new powers in border bill

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , , , ,

Critic calls out border bill’s proposed new cabinet powers on immigration

2025/06/07 1 Comment

As expected. Suspect that the over-reach of the Bill with respect to civil liberties will over shadow concerns of immigration and refugee advocates:

An NDP critic says a provision in the federal government’s border security bill that would give cabinet the power to cancel immigration documents looks like an attempt to “mimic” measures deployed by the Trump administration in the U.S.

“It seems to me … this piece of legislation is Canada’s attempt to mimic some of those measures that the United States is adopting. I actually never thought that this day would come where Canada would go down that road,” B.C. NDP MP Jenny Kwan told The Canadian Press.

“However, it is here, and meanwhile the government is saying, ‘Don’t worry, trust us.’”

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree said that the immigration minister would only be able to exercise the power to cancel, suspend or alter immigration documents in an “emergency” and after being granted the authority through an order-in-council.

“The tools are in place to ensure the minister of immigration has additional tools to ensure that in a modern era, for example, whether it’s a pandemic or issues around cybersecurity, she will have the tools to make those decisions,” Anandasangaree said during debate on the bill Thursday.

Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel Garner said the legislation contains several “poison pills” that threaten people’s civil liberties. 

This includes the ability for Canadian Security Intelligence Service and police to access customer information from online service providers in certain circumstances.

“The government has not shown Canadians any specific situation, any specific evidence or circumstance in granular detail about why we should be giving up our civil liberties to a government that unlawfully used the Emergencies Act,” Rempel Garner said during Thursday’s debate.

This is in reference to to a 2024 Federal Court ruling that found the government’s use of the Emergencies Act was unreasonable to breakup the 2022 “Freedom Convoy” protests against COVID-19 public health measures.

The government has appealed this ruling. 

Bloc Québécois MP Claude DeBellefeuille said that her party plans to support the bill at second reading so it can be studied by the public safety committee.

Speaking in French, she said the bill needs to be examined closely because it looks to give new powers to government ministers, law enforcement and even Canada Post.

Immigration Minister Lena Diab said Wednesday the legislation is designed to address “one-off” situations like a pandemic or some other “exceptional circumstance.”

“I think people, Canadians should feel safe that we are putting in all these safeguards, but again, as I said, it’s all part of protecting our country and protecting our system that we value and protecting people that come here because we want to ensure that they are successful as well,” Diab said.

Bill C-2 also proposes giving the immigration minister the power to pause the acceptance of new immigration applications and cancel or pause processing of the current inventory of applications in the event of an emergency.

Julia Sande, a human rights lawyer with Amnesty International Canada, said immigration applicants could lose a lot of money because the legislation doesn’t oblige the government to refund affected people.

“People give up their entire lives, in some cases, their life savings or their family’s life savings. People go into debt just to be able to come here,” she said. “And so to have the government be able to pull the rug out from under wide groups of people is concerning.”

Kwan said the proposed new powers are problematic because cabinet decisions are made in secret and there’s no firm definition of an “emergency” in the legislation.

“I don’t accept that the Liberals say, ‘Don’t worry, we’re the good guys, so trust us.’ I’m sorry, that is just not acceptable,” she said, adding there’s no way to know what a future government might do with this power.

The text of the legislation says that if the minister “is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so,” they may trigger the power to cancel, suspend or alter immigration documents through a cabinet order.

“They’re saying in an emergency, but that’s not what’s written. They said if they’re in the opinion that it’s in the public interest … that could really be anything,” Sande said.

“In the fall, we saw migrants and refugees being scapegoated for the housing crisis. And so, you know, what’s in the public interest?”

Last year, then-immigration minister Marc Miller said plans to reduce the number of permanent and temporary visas issued would help stabilize the housing market.

U.S. President Donald Trump has used national security as justification for a host of immigration measures that involve detaining and deporting people, including university students who have condemned the war in Gaza.

Sande said the proposed bill “attacks” the right to seek asylum by making it harder for migrants to make a claim if they are entering Canada from the U.S., or have been in the country for more than a year.

“They’re talking about fentanyl, they’re talking about guns and then all of a sudden they’re attacking the right to asylum,” Sande said.

“They are completely different things and it’s difficult for civil society, for experts to respond when there’s so many things going on.”

Source: Critic calls out border bill’s proposed new cabinet powers on immigration

Filed under C-3, Citizenship Tagged with , , , , ,

Urback: Is the U.S. still a ‘safe’ country for refugees? 

2025/06/07 Leave a comment

Valid question:

…Canada is now trying to make the process a little bit harder. This week, the Liberals tabled an omnibus bill that, among many other things, would render ineligible for asylum those who have been in Canada for more than a year (which addresses the spike in applications from international students who filed refugee claims after the government changed student visa rules in 2024), and would prohibit those who entered Canada via an irregular border crossing to file for refugee protection after 14 days. These are necessary changes that may help to bring Canada’s current four-year-backlog for refugee hearings down to manageable levels. But some people will still try….

But now, those without legal status in the U.S. are being picked up off the streets, thrown into detention centres and, in many cases, deported to third countries without a hearing. The Trump administration is doing that in defiance of court orders, as in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and resisting even the U.S. Supreme Court, which said that the government must “facilitate” the return of those deported in error. 

This matters for Canada because of the principle of non-refoulement under international law, which holds that refugees should not forcibly be returned to countries where they are likely to face cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. 

It used to be hard to argue that migrants sent back under the STCA would face that, but the case seems much easier to make now. Canada should prepare for another challenge to the STCA – and possibly, a different result. 

Source: Is the U.S. still a ‘safe’ country for refugees?

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with ,

Québec songe à réduire les services donnés aux demandeurs d’asile

2025/06/07 Leave a comment

Ongoing positioning, not without legitimate concerns:

Québec menace de réduire graduellement les services offerts aux demandeurs d’asile si leur nombre n’est pas radicalement abaissé par Ottawa.

Le ministre de l’Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, qui déposait jeudi ses scénarios potentiels d’accueil des nouveaux arrivants pour la période 2026-2029, a révélé en conférence de presse qu’il n’excluait pas cette possibilité. « Si on est obligés de faire ces choix difficiles, nous les ferons », a-t-il dit, avant de convenir qu’il n’en était « pas là aujourd’hui ». « On ne veut pas se rendre là. »

Il y avait toujours plus de 180 000 demandeurs d’asile en territoire québécois au 1er janvier 2025, selon Statistique Canada. Et le gouvernement Legault commence à s’impatienter devant l’incapacité du fédéral à réduire ce nombre de moitié, comme il le demande depuis belle lurette.

« Je ne peux pas exclure que, éventuellement, si Ottawa ne fait pas le travail, bien, on soit obligés de revoir le panier de services », a-t-il soulevé. « Le statu quo n’est pas tenable, ni pour les services publics ni pour les finances publiques. »


Selon M. Roberge, « la balle est dans la cour d’Ottawa ».

Une « stratégie de négociation » ?

Au Québec, les demandeurs d’asile ont notamment accès à une série de services de santé, d’accès au logement et d’éducation. Le Programme régional d’accueil et d’intégration des demandeurs d’asile, le PRAIDA, leur permet par exemple d’accéder à des professionnels de santé et d’être suivis régulièrement. Certains d’entre eux touchent également une aide financière de dernier recours. L’an dernier, François Legault avait d’ailleurs exclu de leur couper ces prestations.

En 2024, les gouvernements Legault et Trudeau s’étaient entendus pour que 750 millions de dollars soient transférés dans les coffres du Québec afin d’accueillir les demandeurs d’asile en sol québécois.

Aux yeux du directeur général de la Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes, Stephan Reichhold, le ministre Roberge a adopté une nouvelle « stratégie de négociation » en ouvrant cette porte jeudi. « Ça n’a aucun sens », a-t-il souligné à l’autre bout du fil. « S’ils coupaient l’aide sociale aux demandeurs d’asile, ça veut dire qu’on se retrouve avec des campements sous la Métropolitaine. »

Ça me choque, cette sortie-là. Puis même [que le gouvernement] considère cette possibilité-là », a enchaîné la présidente de l’Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration, Stéphanie Valois, qui craint une « démonisation » des immigrants temporaires. « Ce ne sont pas les demandeurs d’asile qui sont responsables de la pénurie d’enseignants, il faut arrêter de les blâmer pour tout. »

Faible réduction des temporaires sous contrôle québécois

En matinée, le ministre de l’Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, avait soumis à consultation trois scénarios de seuils d’immigration à la baisse : un à 25 000 nouveaux arrivants permanents par année, un à 35 000 et un à 45 000.

Dans son cahier de consultation, le ministre prévoit par ailleurs une réduction graduelle sur quatre ans du nombre d’immigrants temporaires sous le contrôle de Québec. Si ces cibles sont respectées, le nombre d’étudiants étrangers et de participants au Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires passerait de 200 000 en 2024 à environ 175 000 en 2029, une réduction d’environ 13 % qui est bien plus limitée que celle qu’exige le gouvernement Legault du fédéral (50 %).

Jean-François Roberge a tenu à se justifier jeudi : les immigrants temporaires sous contrôle fédéral, comme les demandeurs d’asile, n’ont pas la même valeur pour le Québec que les travailleurs temporaires et les étudiants étrangers qu’il contrôle, a-t-il laissé entendre.

« C’est comme si [quelqu’un] disait : “on doit tous les deux couper quelque chose. Moi, je vais me couper les cheveux, puis vous, coupez-vous un bras. Mais c’est égal : on coupe chacun de notre bord.” C’est un peu ça quand on dit qu’on va comparer des travailleurs étrangers temporaires qui sont ici depuis trois ans, qui gardent une entreprise dans certains cas, puis un demandeur d’asile arrivé il y a quelque temps », a-t-il affirmé.

« Je m’excuse, mais ça n’a rien à voir, et je ne suis pas gêné de dire qu’on a des demandes beaucoup plus exigeantes en termes de réduction pour Ottawa », a indiqué M. Roberge.

Le gouvernement Legault soumettra ses orientations en immigration au test d’une consultation l’automne prochain, afin de décider quel scénario il priorisera d’ici 2029.

Source: Québec songe à réduire les services donnés aux demandeurs d’asile

Quebec threatens to gradually reduce the services offered to asylum seekers if their number is not radically reduced by Ottawa.

The Minister of Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, who on Thursday submitted his potential scenarios for welcoming newcomers for the period 2026-2029, revealed at a press conference that he did not rule out this possibility. “If we are forced to make these difficult choices, we will make them,” he said, before agreeing that he was “not there today”. “We don’t want to go there. ”

There were still more than 180,000 asylum seekers in Quebec territory as of January 1, 2025, according to Statistics Canada. And the Legault government is beginning to get impatient with the federal government’s inability to reduce this number by half, as it has been asking for a long time.

“I cannot rule out that, eventually, if Ottawa does not do the job, well, we will be forced to review the basket of services,” he said. “The status quo is not tenable, neither for public services nor for public finances. ”

According to Mr. Roberge, “the ball is in Ottawa’s courtyard”.

A “negotiation strategy”?

In Quebec, asylum seekers have access to a range of health services, access to housing and education. The Regional Program for the Reception and Integration of Asylum Seekers, PRAIDA, for example, allows them to access health professionals and to be monitored regularly. Some of them also receive financial assistance as a last resort. Last year, François Legault had also ruled out cutting off these services.

In 2024, the Legault and Trudeau governments agreed that $750 million would be transferred to Quebec’s coffers to welcome asylum seekers on Quebec soil.

In the eyes of the Director General of the Concertation Table of Organizations Serving Refugees and Immigrants, Stephan Reichhold, Minister Roberge adopted a new “negotiation strategy” by opening this door on Thursday. “It doesn’t make any sense,” he stressed on the other end of the line. “If they cut off social assistance to asylum seekers, it means that we end up with camps under the Metropolitan. ”

It shocks me, this exit. Then even [that the government] considers this possibility, “said the president of the Quebec Association of Immigration Lawyers, Stéphanie Valois, who fears a “demonization” of temporary immigrants. “It is not the asylum seekers who are responsible for the shortage of teachers, we must stop blaming them for everything. ”

Low reduction of temporary under Quebec control

In the morning, the Minister of Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, had submitted for consultation three scenarios of downward immigration thresholds: one at 25,000 permanent newcomers per year, one at 35,000 and one at 45,000.

In his consultation book, the Minister also provides for a gradual reduction over four years of the number of temporary immigrants under the control of Quebec. If these targets are met, the number of international students and participants in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program would increase from 200,000 in 2024 to about 175,000 in 2029, a reduction of about 13% that is much more limited than that required by the federal government (50%).

Jean-François Roberge wanted to justify himself on Thursday: temporary immigrants under federal control, such as asylum seekers, do not have the same value for Quebec as the temporary workers and foreign students it controls, he suggested.

“It’s like [someone] is saying, “we both have to cut something. I’m going to cut my hair, then you, cut off your arm. But it doesn’t matter: we cut each of our edge.” It’s a bit like that when we say that we’re going to compare temporary foreign workers who have been here for three years, who keep a company in some cases, then an asylum seeker who arrived some time ago,” he said.

“I’m sorry, but it has nothing to do with it, and I’m not embarrassed to say that we have much more demanding requests in terms of reduction for Ottawa,” said Roberge.

The Legault government will submit its immigration guidelines to the test of a consultation next fall, in order to decide which scenario it will prioritize by 2029.

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with

Bill C-3: An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), same as previous C-71

2025/06/06 Leave a comment

Appears unchanged from the former C-71, with the same failings. See my earlier Bill C-71 opens up a possible never-ending chain of citizenship:

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

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

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

The government is introducing legislation to make the citizenship process as fair and transparent as possible. Bill C-3 would 

  • automatically remedy the status of any person who would be a citizen today were it not for the first-generation limit or certain outdated provisions of former citizenship legislation
  • establish a new framework for citizenship by descent going forward that would allow for access to citizenship beyond the first generation based on a Canadian parent’s substantial connection to Canada

An interim measure will continue to be available for those affected by the first-generation limit while both Houses of Parliament consider amendments to the Citizenship Act. More information about the interim measure is available on IRCC’s web site.

Substantial connection test

Bill C-3 would allow a Canadian parent born abroad who has a substantial connection to Canada to pass on citizenship to their child born abroad beyond the first generation. It would also provide them with access to the direct grant of citizenship for their child adopted abroad beyond the first generation.

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

Lost Canadians

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

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

Bill C-3 will restore citizenship to remaining “Lost Canadians,” their descendants and anyone who was born abroad to a Canadian parent in the second or subsequent generations before the legislation comes into force. This includes people who lost their citizenship as a result of requirements under the former section 8 of the Citizenship Act.

Source: Bill C-3: An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)

Filed under C-3, C-71, Citizenship

More visible minority candidates ran — and won — in Canada’s federal election. The Conservatives boosted the numbers

2025/06/06 2 Comments

Coverage of our study:

More visible minorities ran and were elected in the spring federal election compared to the previous election, an increase that a new report found was driven by representation in parties on the right.

There were 315 visible minorities representing the six major parties, according to the report published by the Institute for Research on Public Policy. The candidates accounted for 20.1 per cent of the 1,568 candidates in the April 28 election. This was an increase from 18.2 per cent in 2021, 16.8 per cent in 2019 and 13.4 per cent in 2015.

While the Liberals, New Democrats and Greens all reported a drop in their visible minority representation from the 2021 race — by 0.9, 3.2 and 1.3 percentage points respectively — Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives and Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada saw their numbers up by 5.9 percentage points and seven points, with the Bloc Québécois up 1.3 points. (The People’s Party failed to win a seat.)

The report refers to “visible minorities” as persons, other than Indigenous people, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour, as defined by Statistics Canada. 

“The Liberals almost seemed to have dropped the ball in terms of candidate recruitment compared to the Conservatives, who obviously were making a fairly concerted effort to recruit a larger number of visible minority candidates,” said Andrew Griffith, who co-authored the report with retired McGill University political science professor Jerome Black.

“They were still building off the Jason Kenney legacy that visible minorities are our natural conservatives,” added Griffith, referring to the former Conservative immigration minister tasked with building bridges with minority communities under the Harper government.

And the deliberate recruitment efforts seemed to yield results, with the proportion of elected visible minority MPs up by 2.4 percentage points, accounting for 17.8 per cent or 61 of the 343 MPs in the new Parliament.

While the number of Liberal MPs who are visible minorities fell by 2.2 percentage points, the Conservatives boosted their visible minority MPs in the House of Commons by 7.5 percentage points. 

The MP breakdown, by ethnicity, was South Asian, 29 seats, Black, 11 seats; Chinese and Arab/West Asian, both seven; Latin American, two; Filipino and Southeast Asian, each with one; and three listed under “other/multiple” backgrounds.

University of Toronto professor Emine Fidan Elcioglu said she was not surprised by the shift as the Conservatives rebranded the party under prime minister Stephen Harper to cultivate support from ethnic communities.

“They wanted to seem like the new party of diversity, so they were very intentional in their ethnic outreach,” said the sociologist, who studies migration politics.

“They were (previously) pushing forward policies that alienated immigrant visible minority communities. They were also reframing themselves as pro-good immigrant, anti-bad immigrant.”

Over the years, she said, visible minority groups have also started to embrace that thinking as shown in recent public debates about the impacts of immigration on the housing and affordability crisis.

Poilievre is “very much looking at these groups as a potential part of his base,” Elcioglu noted. “But I think we need to be really careful to not assume that just because there is more visible minority candidates in the party, that is necessarily going to be fundamental in voter motivation.”

Having more racialized candidates doesn’t necessarily translate to more inclusion, she said, and it could just be a cover for more stringent immigration policies, more austerity measures and more gutting of the social security safety net that affect the society’s most marginalized and vulnerable.

“So, great, you recruit people who are not white men, but what are you doing with that?” asked Elcioglu. 

The report also found the number of women running in the April election down from the 2021 election by 2.4 per cent to 553, and Indigenous candidates by 0.9 per cent to 48. In total, 104 women and 12 Indigenous people were elected.

“It seems like there’s almost a glass ceiling of about 30 per cent for women,” said Griffith. “For Indigenous MPs, it’s a bit different just because of how the population is distributed across the country, but that also has stalled.” 

Candidate profiles and assessments in the analysis are based upon candidate photos, names and biographies, general web searches, and ethnic and other media that focused on particular groups.

Source: More visible minority candidates ran — and won — in Canada’s federal election. The Conservatives boosted the numbers

Filed under Aboriginal, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Québec pourrait choisir un seuil d’immigration de 25 000 par année

2025/06/06 Leave a comment

Sharp contrast with the l’Institut du Québec recommendation of 90,000:

Le gouvernement Legault évaluera la possibilité d’accueillir 25 000, 35 000 ou 45 000 nouveaux arrivants par année à partir de l’an prochain. Des seuils d’immigration réduits qui s’accompagneraient d’une baisse du nombre de travailleurs temporaires à Montréal et à Laval.

Ces informations, d’abord rapportées mercredi après-midi par TVA Nouvelles et par Le Journal de Québec, ont été confirmées au Devoir de source sûre. Le gouvernement doit consulter des experts à ce sujet l’automne prochain, dans le cadre de la planification pluriannuelle de l’immigration, un processus prévu dans la loi.

En octobre, le ministre de l’Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, avait déjà laissé présager des scénarios de cibles à la baisse. En 2025, le gouvernement évalue qu’il accueillera autour de 67 000 nouveaux résidents permanents. Québec pourrait donc réduire de plus de moitié ses seuils 2026-2029.

Pendant la campagne électorale de 2022, le premier ministre François Legault, qui cherchait alors à se faire réélire, avait dit qu’il serait « un peu suicidaire » pour le statut du français au Québec d’accueillir annuellement plus de 50 000 immigrants, la cible de son parti à l’époque. Depuis, le Québec a systématiquement dépassé ce nombre. L’an dernier, le ministre Roberge avait justifié ce surnombre en affirmant devoir réduire les listes d’attente en immigration — composées de personnes déjà établies au Québec en attente d’un statut permanent.

Dans un rapport paru mercredi, l’Institut du Québec a pour sa part plaidé pour une augmentation des seuils à 90 000. Cette hausse permettrait, selon le document, à plus d’immigrants temporaires d’obtenir un statut permanent, pour que les seuils soient réduits graduellement ensuite….

Source: Québec pourrait choisir un seuil d’immigration de 25 000 par année

The Legault government will assess the possibility of welcoming 25,000, 35,000 or 45,000 newcomers per year starting next year. Reduced immigration thresholds that would be accompanied by a decrease in the number of temporary workers in Montreal and Laval.

This information, first reported on Wednesday afternoon by TVA Nouvelles and Le Journal de Québec, was confirmed at the Devoir de source sûre. The government is due to consult with experts on this subject next fall, as part of the multi-year immigration planning, a process provided for in the law.

In October, the Minister of Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, had already suggested downward target scenarios. In 2025, the government estimates that it will welcome around 67,000 new permanent residents. Quebec could therefore reduce its 2026-2029 thresholds by more than half.

During the 2022 election campaign, Prime Minister François Legault, who was then seeking re-election, said that it would be “a little suicidal” for the status of the French in Quebec to welcome more than 50,000 immigrants annually, the target of his party at the time. Since then, Quebec has systematically exceeded this number. Last year, Minister Roberge justified this surplus by saying he had to reduce immigration waiting lists — made up of people already established in Quebec waiting for permanent status.

In a report on Wednesday, the Institut du Québec called for an increase in thresholds to 90,000. This increase would allow, according to the document, more temporary immigrants to obtain permanent status, so that the thresholds would then be gradually reduced….

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →