Century Initiative “Pulling Back” report

The latest report by CI, still overly focussed on nominal rather than per capita GDP and aiming at different stakeholders to justify their overall call for increased immigration.

My expectation is that the government is unlikely to make major changes to current and planned cuts and restrictions despite calls from CI and others. Also noteworthy is of course the Conservatives highlighting of immigration, most recently Temporary Foreign Workers, as a line of attack.

List of CI issues and approach below (sorry for the poor quality):

Source: CI2100 Pulling Back report 2025

Coletto: Is the Temporary Foreign Worker Program Canada’s Next Big Political Wedge?

Well, the Conservatives certainly intend it to be, even if their approach is overly simplistic:

…What does this mean politically?

  1. A potent wedge issue: The TFWP is shaping up as a powerful wedge for Conservatives: it stirs young economic anxiety and the populist thread of “Canadian jobs for Canadians.” It’s a clarion call that resonates with those feeling sidelined or squeezed.
  2. A potentially perilous balancing act for Liberals: With their own supporters deeply split, Carney’s Liberals must navigate between addressing economic vulnerabilities and maintaining labour market stability. Any move risks alienating one half of their fractured base.
  3. A broader narrative of precarity: Beyond the TFWP, Canadians are demanding security on jobs, housing, crime, and employment. Immigration is now at the centre of that conversation, reflecting a country where precarity shapes nearly every political debate.

At its core, the TFWP debate isn’t a technical economic tweak, it may become a battle for the narrative of Canada’s economic future. Those who support for scrapping it demand immediate protection; those who defend it warn of cascading supply shocks. 

Source: Is the Temporary Foreign Worker Program Canada’s Next Big Political Wedge?

Federal agencies fumble privacy safeguards on asylum system revamp, risking refugee data

Sigh….:

Three government agencies that partnered on a $68-million project to revamp Canada’s asylum system failed to complete mandatory privacy safeguard tests for years while the project was being implemented, CBC News has learned. 

The lack of privacy protections raises “red flags,” lawyers say, and may have put refugee claimants’ data and applications at risk.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) worked together on the “asylum interoperability project,” which would transform the asylum system into a more efficient digital one and address the ever-growing backlog of pending asylum applications, which currently sits at more than 290,000.

Earlier this year, CBC reported that the project, which launched in 2019, had been prematurely shut down in 2024 in what CBSA called an “unexpected” move.

Now, documents obtained through access-to-information legislation show there were “outstanding” privacy impact assessments (PIA) for the project, which was quietly scrapped when it was only 64 per cent complete.

According to a government digital privacy playbook, a PIA is a “policy process to identify, assess, and mitigate potential privacy risks before they happen.”

“All these steps need to be completed before the launch of the initiative,” that guide says.

Even though the interoperability project has now been scrapped, it implemented changes to how data is collected digitally and used — meaning that the completion of PIAs remains an essential part of that risk identification process, said  Andrew Koltun, an immigration and refugee lawyer who also practices privacy law.

The departments told CBC over email, however, that the privacy assessments are still incomplete. IRCC said it’s currently drafting its portion of the PIA and expects it to be done by the end of 2025.

The fact they still aren’t finished, Koltun said,  raises “a lot of red flags.”

Source: Federal agencies fumble privacy safeguards on asylum system revamp, risking refugee data

Genocide resolution reveals conflicts between scholars over Israel’s war in Gaza

Of interest:

There was the allure of certainty in the headline: that an international association of genocide scholars had resolved that Israel was carrying out a genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

More precisely, “that Israel’s policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide” set out in the United Nations’ 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

That is the verdict adopted by the International Association of Genocide Scholars, a non-partisan group of about 500 academics, educators, activists, psychologists, lawyers and artists dedicated to research and teaching about genocide and genocide prevention.

The association’s Aug. 31 resolution was adopted overwhelmingly by those who voted, with 109 for the resolution and 20 against, said Onur Uraz, the chair of the association’s resolution committee and an assistant professor of law at Turkey’s Hacettepe University. About 30 per cent of the association’s membership cast a ballot, he said.

But interviews with several association members involved in the vote reveal a more cautious and conflicted approach to condemning Israel, a state that was founded after the genocide that killed six million European Jews during the Second World War.

“So many of us got our beginning in Holocaust studies and are very sensitive to the massive scope of that world historical event and its impact,” said Andrew Woolford, a sociology and criminology professor at the University of Manitoba and a former president of the association.

“I don’t think it’s a resolution that anyone goes too easily into and I trust my colleagues reflected on it very seriously.”

‘Anti-Israel agenda’

The passing of the resolution — which cited United Nations estimates (that are based on Palestinian Health Ministry statistics) of the killing of more than 59,000 adults and children, the forced displacement of more than two million Gazans, and the vast destruction of housing, schools, hospitals, archives and agricultural fields and food warehouses — has prompted fierce condemnation.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry called the genocide finding “disgraceful” and “an embarrassment to the legal profession and to any academic standard.”

“For the first time, ‘genocide scholars’ accuse the very victim of genocide, despite Hamas’s attempted genocide against the Jewish people” the ministry wrote on X.

Israeli opposition leader Benny Gantz, a former defence minister and military chief of staff, said Israel’s attempts to avoid civilian casualties, deliver humanitarian aid and create humanitarian zones in Gaza serve as a powerful defence against the charge of genocide.

A military that takes such steps “might be the most ‘incompetent’ perpetrators of genocide in history,” he wrote on X.

“The cheapening and weaponization of the term ‘genocide’ to suit a shameless anti-Israel agenda must stop.”

To denigrate and ridicule the association, one social media user signed himself up as a member using as a photo the image of a muscular man flexing in a skimpy pink bikini.

Someone took out a membership in the name of the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler — the most prominent practitioner of genocide in modern history — with the accompanying image of a masked Hamas militant.

Public opinion war

The intensity of the reaction points to the resolution’s impact in the public-relations battle pitting defenders of Israel against those voicing their support and concern for the plight of Palestinians.

The draft resolution was circulated among association members several weeks before the vote. But the results were announced shortly after a report by a coalition of aid groups confirming the existence of famine conditions in Gaza.

At the United Nations General Assembly meetings next week, Canada, France, Britain and several other countries are expected to formally recognize Palestinian statehood in a diplomatic push to resolve the conflict through a two-state solution.

And while the declaration of 129 scholars may seem small in comparison, some see it as an important step in the campaign to condemn and isolate Israel’s government over its handling of the war.

“Global public opinion is certainly influenced by something like this,” said William Schabas, a Canadian professor of international law at London’s Middlesex University.

A past president of the scholarly association, but no longer a member, Schabas said the resolution will also help broaden the debate over the war in Gaza, allowing discussion of positions that had been taboo and potentially career-ending not so long ago.

“A year and a half ago, it was not a simple thing to talk about genocide being committed by Israel, and there were academics who lost their job for doing that. We were regularly accused of antisemitism,” he said.

“It’s pretty hard to claim that someone’s an antisemite because they criticized Israel when an organization like the International Association of Genocide Scholars — by a very large majority, apparently — voted in favour of this resolution.”

‘Historians don’t act quickly’

Woolford, of the University of Manitoba, voted in favour of the resolution, but his thinking on the matter has evolved over the course of the two-year war.

Just eight days after the attack by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023 that killed 1,200 people in southern Israel and sparked the war, Woolford signed an open letter in which nearly 900 academics and legal scholars warned of “the possibility of the crime of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”

In December 2023, he backed another statement by concerned academics saying that “the starvation, mass killing and forced displacement of Palestinian civilians in Gaza is ongoing, raising the question of genocide, especially in view of the intentions expressed by Israeli leaders.”

As a sociologist, he said that his professional approach to genocide is different than that of an expert in international humanitarian law, but his belief that Israel was in fact engaged in a genocidal campaign against Palestinians was shaped by arguments presented before the International Court of Justice, where South Africa has alleged that Israel is in breach of the 1948 genocide convention.

The ICJ, which is the principal legal forum for the United Nations, has not yet ruled on the allegations.

Uraz, the chair of the association’s resolution committee, said that most initiatives are voted on by between 30 and 50 per cent of the membership.

Alyssa Loggie, a communications instructor at Vancouver’s Columbia College, wrote in response to questions that she hoped the resolution would “add to the voices of those already speaking out” about the war in Gaza.

“We did not need the (association) alone to tell us what is so readily apparent, and has already been spoken by many brave people around the world, and, most importantly, from the cries of Palestinians suffering themselves,” she wrote. 

Some scholars don’t participate in resolution votes because they feel they lack the expertise, Uraz said. Others decline due to a lack of interest or a sense of inevitability, thinking that one additional vote for or against will hardly matter.

Ahead of this resolution, though, some members complained to Uraz that the wording and condemnation was “not … strong enough, which could be another reason for some to be absent.”

Hilary Earl, an assistant professor of history at Nipissing University in North Bay, abstained for a different reason.

“Historians don’t act quickly,” she said, while insisting that it was clear in her mind that war crimes and crimes against humanity had been committed by Israel against the Palestinians.

“I’m just not ready to say that it’s a genocide,” she said. “That doesn’t mean it’s not going to be, and it doesn’t mean that it isn’t.”

Earl said that Raphael Lemkin, the Polish law professor and Holocaust survivor who coined the term “genocide” in 1944, cast it not in terms of the impact on a victimized group, but on the intent of the perpetrator.

“What is their intention? Do they want to destroy the group, or is the continuation of the group OK?” Earl said. “It’s an awful, fraught definition, the result of a compromise.”

She said there was no question in her mind about the horrific suffering and impact upon Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip.

“But outcome is not what genocide is about. It’s about intent. If it’s about outcome, then every war is a genocide, right?”

Scholars or activists?

Every conflict is, thankfully, not a genocide. But the association of genocide scholars has weighed in on numerous conflicts in which, in their opinion, warring parties have crossed that horrible line — even if it is sometimes decades after the fact.

It has issued resolutions accusing the Islamic State of genocidal acts against religious minorities in Syria and Iraq; accusing Myanmar of genocide against its Rohingya minority; and accusing Pakistan of committing genocide against its Bengal minority during Bangladesh’s 1971 war of independence.

The association also condemned the threat by former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005 to wipe Israel off the map and for denying the Holocaust. It called the comments an incitement to genocide and said that the Jewish state would be at “imminent” risk of genocide if ever Iran obtains nuclear weapons.

The risky business of taking political positions has been at the heart of the scholarly association, something that sets it apart and which its members seem to appreciate.

“This has been at the core of the organization for a long time: are we a scholarly organization or are we an activist organization?” said Earl, a member since 1996.

“I think we’re both, and I think the organization is well within its rights, and I think we should have these discussions and debates regularly. The world is full of violence against civilians, so I would never want to silence that.”

No nuance

Shortly before his death in December 2024, Israel Charny, an Israeli psychologist who co-founded the association, wrote a rebuttal to a journal article that accused Israel of engaging in genocide in Gaza.

In it, Charny admitted there had been “excessive” bombing in Gaza and that too many Palestinians had been killed. But he defended Israel’s actions as a legitimate response to Hamas aggression.

Israel should stop the war as soon as possible, Charny insisted, but not before its legitimate war aims — particularly the release of the remaining Israeli hostages — had been achieved.

This is the difficult nuance of the Israel-Hamas conflict that, in the opinion of Hily Moodrick-Even Khen, the genocide resolution failed to consider.

“I don’t think that the association should avoid expressing academic views about what’s going on in the world — definitely it’s part of our mission as genocide scholars,” said Khen, a professor of international law and chair of the Center for the Research and Study of Genocide at Ariel University, which is located in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

“The problem is that I think that our case is much more nuanced … and the very fact that Israel is fighting against the terrorist organization must be recognized.”

Khen, who voted against the resolution, said that it failed to fully acknowledge this fact, while also relying on disputed figures about the injured and dead that are supplied by the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza and circulated by the UN.

“It just speaks against any academic integrity, to my mind.”

But this does not mean that she and many other Israelis unconditionally support the right-wing coalition government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, or that they agree with every aspect of how the war has been prosecuted.

“I have my own criticisms about what’s going on,” she said. “But using the term ‘genocide,’ and using it in such an inaccurate and unprofessional way, is very destructive.”

Source: Genocide resolution reveals conflicts between scholars over Israel’s war in Gaza

André Pratte: Quebec prayer ban would render freedom of religion meaningless  

Good commentary but the police need to more willing to use the tools to remedy street blockages and enforce bubble zones:

…Yes, some of the demonstrations, tied as they are to the war in Gaza, are provocations. The demonstrators want to shock the public in the hopes of raising awareness to their cause. This is exactly the kind of unpopular behaviour that is protected by freedom of expression, as long as the demonstrators do not break the law, for instance by blocking traffic or intimidating others. If they cross those lines, the police already possess all the tools necessary to remedy the situation. An all-encompassing ban on prayers in public spaces is neither necessary nor reasonable.  

Separatist intellectual Mathieu Bock-Côté, who inspired many of the CAQ’s nationalist policies, wrote in Le Journal de Montréal that Islamic street players are “symbolic aggressions”: “We are talking about a conquering Islam, that is to say, an Islam shaped by Islamism and carried by waves of migration that are transforming the demographic composition of our societies.” However, Islamists are in no position to “transform the demographic composition” of Quebec, where Muslims represent a mere five per cent of the population, compared to 54 per cent for Catholics and 27 per cent for those who have no religion.   

For make no mistake: as with bill 21 banning the wearing of religious symbols by teachers, only one religion, Islam, is being targeted here. Other religious groups, including Catholics, have held ceremonies in public in Quebec for decades without anyone challenging their right to do so.   

The promised legislation will very probably violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. It is not yet known for certain if the Legault government will pre-emptively invoke the charters’ notwithstanding clause, but we do know that they have done so for two previous pieces of legislation, bill 21, already mentioned, and bill 96 strengthening the protection of the French language. This abuse of the notwithstanding clause is extremely serious, for in effect it deprives Quebecers of the right to challenge rights-infringing measures adopted by the state. Citizens are left with no means of defence, as if the charters did not exist. 

And so it is that Quebecers’ fundamental rights are being slowly but surely eroded. Sadly, that worrisome trend is met with an immense collective shrug.  

Source: André Pratte: Quebec prayer ban would render freedom of religion meaningless  

Immigration Raid on Hyundai-LG Plant in Georgia Rattles South Korea

Korea negotiated release of the workers but short and long-term damage to USA as safe country for investment will increase:

The United States has for years pressured South Korea to invest billions of dollars in American industry, a push that has only increased over the last few months.

That made it all the more shocking for South Koreans when they learned that U.S. immigration officials had raided the construction site of a major Hyundai-LG plant in Georgia on Thursday, arresting hundreds of South Korean citizens.

U.S. officials said they had arrested 475 people during the raid, in Ellabell, Ga., because they were in the country illegally or working unlawfully. Most of them were South Korean nationals who had been sent to help finish building an electric-car battery factory, according to industry officials familiar with the project. Most, they said, were subcontractors working for the carmaker Hyundai and the battery maker LG Energy Solution, South Korean companies that share ownership of the plant.

The raid came at a sensitive time ​in trade relations​, unsettling South Korean businesses investing in the United States. Those companies face a unique problem under President Trump. While encouraging them to invest ​in the United States​, his administration has also imposed heavy tariffs and drastically tightened visa allocations, making it more difficult and costly for them to ship components and find technicians to build their factories.

The arrests left officials in Seoul reeling. Just last month, President Lee Jae-myung of South Korea met with Mr. Trump, and the two men reaffirmed their countries’ seven-decade-old alliance. They also agreed to a new broad-stroke trade deal. But officials from both sides remain engaged in tense negotiations over details of the deal, which was first announced in late July.

That uncertainty was reflected in South Korea’s shocked but subdued reaction to the raid.

The country was closely monitoring the case for clues on how the Trump administration’s immigration policy would affect the operations of South Korean industrial giants like Hyundai and LG​. Those companies have been pouring billions ​of dollars into building new factories in the United States​ under the encouragement of both governments, which seek to expand their alliance beyond military cooperation into global supply chains.

​Both Hyundai and LG said little about the raid, except that they had started their own investigations, including into the practices of their subcontractors. But the unease was highlighted when ​South Korea’s Foreign Ministry issued an unusual statement ​on Friday, conveying its “concern and regrets” to Washington.

The ministry did not elaborate, but its language appeared to reflect South Korea’s frustration with the U.S. government’s treatment of South Korean investors.

“The economic activities of our investment companies and the rights and interests of our citizens must not be unjustly violated during U.S. law enforcement proceedings,” it said….

Source: Immigration Raid on Hyundai-LG Plant in Georgia Rattles South Korea

Browne: After 20 years working in Canada’s cultural sector, I can finally speak out without fear

Good long read and reminder of some of the excesses in the cultural (and other) sectors:

…I believe I was a progressive type. I wanted to be inclusive. I wanted to help people who had a difficult time – for one reason or another – get started in the cultural world or be recognized so they felt equal and worthy to others in the community. I tried to reach out to diverse communities not comfortable with traditional institutions, and … a long list of other well-meaning ambitions. Maybe I was a Christian trying to make the world a better place, but I’d never say that. Then I realized I was always going to be wrong, somehow. Remaining silent was safe for me and the organizations where I was employed. And I did even when there were people who were clearly paying for the sins of their ancestors or unintended consequences beyond their control, including having graduated from a prestigious university. I should have spoken up.

While I learned to say nothing out loud, I continued to have transgressive thoughts. In one training session, we began by confiding to the group what our pronouns were. Instead of he and him I wanted to insist on “sir” or “Mr. Browne” as monikers. (This is how my generation used to address older people they respected.) Needless to say, I didn’t blurt this out.

The cultural world is full of enforcers in 2025: art schools, universities, arts associations and, most brutal and rigid, provincial and federal funders. All conspire to instill proper thinking. If you’ve applied for government grants you know that culture money is a not so subtle animator of social policy objectives. If you want government money, you twist your art to fit their agenda. Much of what is produced in this manner alienates and produces cynicism, not just for a mainstream audience but for complicit culture workers.

Maybe the culture world needs an existential crisis to push us from so-called Canada to patriotism. One that moves culture from an exclusionary ideology that needs to keep finding people and ideas to disenfranchise or to be superior to … to what I’m not sure. Unsettling ideas are the raw cultural edge artists used to embrace; few sought the safety of consensus. This volatile, uncensored realm, not managed by academics or bureaucrats, can perhaps once again offer the possibility of revelation. 

Maybe a new generation of curators and administrators will better separate art from advocacy. In my postretirement life, I’m returning to my teenage ambition to be an artist. I have such old-fashioned ideas about art I’m likely not going to provoke anyone, but I’d hope I’m encouraged by whomever runs museums to do just this.

Kelvin Browne is a former vice-president at the Royal Ontario Museum and the former Executive Director and CEO of the Gardiner Museum

Source: After 20 years working in Canada’s cultural sector, I can finally speak out without fear

Cheng: What I Got Wrong About D.E.I.

Good piece and reminder that the importance of the journey:

…Math is famous for its equations, but equations are more subtle than they first appear. A simple equation like 4 + 1 = 1 + 4 shows not just that two values are equal but also that there are two subtly different ways of adding the same numbers to produce the same result. A similar approach applies to more advanced and complicated forms of math, such as the study of shapes or paths through space. We make choices about how to determine equality.

This is relevant to how we evaluate what people have achieved and make predictions about how well they will do. We can get some insight into how we should make these evaluations from a mathematical field called metric spaces.

A metric is a way of measuring the distance between two points but not necessarily physical distance; it could be how much time it takes with traffic as a factor or how much energy will be expended, depending on whether you’re going uphill or downhill. A distance cannot be measured based on the position of a single point. It requires the effort of measuring the distance between two points. This may sound redundant, but it’s an important clarification: Metrics can be measured only by taking into account the starting point and ending point, as well as relevant features of the journey — the whole story.

When we evaluate people, we could do the same. Instead of looking at just what they have achieved, we could also look at where they started and be clearer about how we are measuring the metaphorical distance they have come and whether we are taking into account the support they had or the obstructions they faced.

If we are selecting sprinters for a track team, we might look at their best times for the 100-meter dash. But if someone had, for some reason, only ever run races uphill or against the wind, it would make sense to take that into account and not compare that runner’s times to others’ directly. We would be treating those people differently but only because their paths were different; really we’d be evaluating their paths fairly relative to their contexts.

Other forms of achievement are not as straightforward to measure, but the idea is analogous. If someone achieved a certain SAT score after months of tutoring and someone else earned the same score having never seen an SAT before, it would be reasonable to be more impressed with the latter result and think that the second test taker has more potential. We should think of D.E.I. efforts as the best versions of this and aim to design systems that can measure the fuller picture of someone’s professional journey, not just the current result.

It took me a long time to realize that when I began my career, I had probably worked much harder than I might have if I had had a different identity. I had to work against people telling me I would never be able to succeed. When I attended conferences, I dealt with inappropriate behavior from men senior to me. I had to find my way in my career having no mentors who looked at all like me. I am grateful for the support of some senior mathematicians, and I now realize that it wasn’t extra help because I was a woman; it was help in overcoming the extra obstructions I faced as a woman.

It shouldn’t be called sexist to help people overcome sexism, and it shouldn’t be called racist to help people overcome racism, but if we give this help too crudely, then we leave ourselves open to these criticisms. Math teaches us that D.E.I. initiatives should be about carefully defining the metrics we use to measure how far people have come and thus how far they have the potential to go. They should be about uncovering when some people are constantly running uphill or against the wind, which can inform us how to give everyone an equal tailwind and an equal opportunity to succeed.

Dr. Cheng is the scientist in residence at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.

Source: What I Got Wrong About D.E.I.

Rioux | Drôles de prières

When is a prayer a prayer, and when is it more a political event. Other examples would arguably include the Annual March for Life and telling that most Christian religious figures oppose the ban:

…La France a toujours résisté à la tentation de légiférer sur ces prières, consciente que la religion a toute sa place dans les lieux publics pourvu qu’elle ne gêne pas l’ordre public et que sa présence ne relève pas de la provocation. Il n’est pas besoin d’être diplômé en théologie pour savoir que, dans nos pays, la prière n’est pas un banal instrument d’agit-prop. Ce prosélytisme exacerbé est en contradiction avec nos traditions culturelles et le sens même de la prière, celle-ci étant généralement considérée comme un geste intime et personnel qui exige le recueillement et ne saurait donc être confondu avec des slogans militants hurlés par une foule hystérique. Comment s’étonner dès lors que, en s’exhibant ainsi sur la voie publique, ces hommes (car les femmes en sont exclues) provoquent des réactions de rejet ? Et, à plus forte raison, s’ils le font un dimanche devant une église !

Pour peu que l’on daigne sortir de sa bulle, on constatera que ces prières publiques sont aujourd’hui instrumentalisées aussi bien sur Downing Street que devant la porte de Brandebourg. Si l’idée de la laïcité est étrangère à l’islam, se pourrait-il que, comme le voile, ces prières soient une façon pour lui de marquer son territoire ?

L’idée n’est pas nouvelle. On ne compte plus les intellectuels qui, durant tout le XXe siècle, et même avant, ont démontré le caractère conquérant de l’islam. Admirateur de la richesse de la culture musulmane, l’islamologue français Roger Arnaldez fut un ami du grand écrivain égyptien Taha Hussein, l’un des artisans de la renaissance intellectuelle arabe (la Nahda). Il considérait que « la conquête est pour les musulmans un moyen normal, voulu et conduit par Dieu, pour répandre la foi dans les pays des infidèles ». Cette conquête n’est pas toujours le fait des armes, écrivait-il dès 1994, mais « d’une volonté non seulement de convertir des individus, ce qui est normal, mais de prendre pied et position dans la vie sociale et politique des pays de l’ancien Dar al-Harb [où l’islam n’a pas triomphé]. Il n’est plus alors question de djihad armé, moins encore de terrorisme, mais d’un projet de conquête insinueuse qui n’en est pas moins une conquête ».

Tout en reconnaissant que ces thèses pouvaient être contestées, l’islamologue membre de l’Académie des sciences morales et politiques de France jugeait que « l’Islam, par beaucoup de ses traits et par son histoire passée, pose des problèmes que ne pose aucune autre des grandes religions. Il en résulte qu’on doit, à son égard, rester très attentif et garder une attitude de grande prudence »….

Source: Chronique | Drôles de prières

CHARLEBOIS: On food security, Liberals have the better Temporary Foreign Worker plan, Ivison: Poilievre takes a risk on scrapping TFWs

Of note:

…The Liberal plan — led by Mark Carney — opts for reform rather than elimination. It introduces a cap to reduce temporary residents (including workers and students) to under 5% of the population by 2027 and tightens eligibility, permit lengths, and program oversight. Crucially, agriculture and food processing are explicitly exempted, ensuring that farms and processors maintain access to the labour they need. This more measured approach reins in misuse of the program while protecting supply, helping to moderate food price pressures.

The implications for prices are stark. If Poilievre’s model is adopted, Canadians can expect sharper and faster increases in both food-service and retail. Restaurants will need to hike wages to compete for domestic workers, leading to menu prices that rise faster than inflation. Grocers will see wholesale costs climb as farm and processing labour tightens. By contrast, the Liberal plan allows for a gradual adjustment while safeguarding agricultural labour, which should help contain inflationary shocks.

So which policy best serves a country grappling with high youth unemployment and a food system dependent on reliable labour? Poilievre’s proposal appeals to those eager to prioritize Canadian youth, but it risks jolting the food sector and undermining affordability. The Liberal reform plan, though far from perfect, offers a more pragmatic balance: Reducing excesses, protecting supply chains, and keeping food as affordable as possible in an already volatile global environment.

In the end, the question is not whether Canadians will pay more for food — it’s how much more. One plan wagers on sweeping labour substitution to revive youth job prospects. The other emphasizes stability and gradual reform to steady the system.

For households already under financial strain, the choice policymakers make could be the difference between manageable increases and another round of sticker shock at the till.

— Sylvain Charlebois is director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University, co-host of The Food Professor Podcast and visiting scholar at McGill University.

Source: CHARLEBOIS: On food security, Liberals have the better Temporary Foreign Worker plan

And from John Ivison:

…But while he has correctly identified the disease, it is less clear he has found the cure.

The Conservative plan would create a standalone program for seasonal agricultural workers and the food processing industry.

But ending the issuance of new permits cold turkey is likely to result in a completely different set of unintended consequences than the ill-advised policy that caused the problem in the first place.

The program should return to its original intent of allowing firms to hire foreign workers when qualified Canadians are not available, gradually reducing the number of temporary foreign workers as a share of the low-skill workforce.

That is what the Liberal reforms are trying to do, although as Poilievre pointed out, it looks like the government won’t hit its target in 2025.

However, a hard stop to the program is likely to give labour markets whiplash.

From a political perspective, it’s not an obvious win for Poilievre, even if the public is sympathetic to the intent.

His critics cite this as another example of him fighting the culture wars. That’s unfair: he was clear he was not demonizing foreign workers or regular immigrants.

But it is undoubtedly a hardening of the party’s position from the 2025 platform, which talked about dramatically reducing the number of temporary foreign workers and international students.

Poilievre seems to be more concerned about his leadership review in January than winning votes from people who didn’t vote for him last time.

This — and other immigration-reform positions to come — are Rempel Garner’s work and it should have been her show. There are many able Conservative MPs who have been reduced to bobbleheads by the leader and that must change.

Scrapping the temporary foreign worker program is a valid, if misguided, response to the crisis in youth unemployment.

But the risk for Poilievre is that he’s shrinking, not expanding, his pool of available voters.

Source: John Ivison: Poilievre takes a risk on scrapping temporary foreign workers