Plus de 142 000 personnes attendent leur résidence permanente au Québec

Of note:

…Est-il déjà arrivé que l’on résorbe ces arriérés ? En 2019, le ministre Simon Jolin-Barrette avait éliminé 18 000 dossiers d’immigration, avant de se faire ordonner par la Cour supérieure d’en reprendre l’examen. Ces dossiers étaient cependant non traités et non pas sélectionnés comme c’est le cas actuellement avec les 142 500 personnes en attente.

Laurence Trempe rappelle aussi que Jason Kenney, ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration entre 2008 et 2013, avait aussi supprimé certains dossiers de grands-parents qui attendaient des parrainages depuis plus de huit ans. Mais la différence encore ici est que ces personnes n’étaient pas installées au Canada, contrairement aux plus gros arriérés actuels en immigration humanitaire.

L’accélération pourrait venir d’un programme d’exception, si Québec décidait par exemple de traiter ces dossiers hors quota, ou alors d’Ottawa, dit Me Lapointe, même s’il en doute. L’ancien ministre de l’Immigration Marc Miller avait d’ailleurs laissé entendre qu’il était prêt à dépasser le seuil de Québec pour le regroupement familial.

L’AQAADI plaide qu’il n’y a rien dans l’Accord Canada-Québec qui l’empêcherait de le faire. « Notre interprétation est que Québec n’a pas la compétence pour limiter dans ces catégories. On doit tout au plus en tenir

Source: Plus de 142 000 personnes attendent leur résidence permanente au Québec

Yakabuski: Montreal Pride finally stands up to the pro-Palestinian bullies 

Of note:

…The statement did not name any banned groups, but Ga’ava and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) revealed that they had been suddenly disinvited from the event. In a Facebook post, Ga’ava said the explanation given by Fierté Montréal for its exclusion was related to Ga’ava’s description of certain groups that had previously demanded the organization’s banishment from the parade. Ga’ava’s and CIJA officials had said the groups were “pro-terror” and “pro-Hamas” in a Jewish newspaper article. Ga’ava president Carlos Godoy denied those terms constituted hate speech.

On Tuesday, Fierté Montréal reversed itself and lifted the ban on Ga’ava and the CIJA. It apologized to the Jewish community, and particularly Jewish members of Quebec’s LGBTQ community, who felt it had sought to exclude them. What exactly transpired remains unclear, but it is a safe bet that government and corporate sponsors – which account for about 80 per cent of Fierté Montréal’s budget – had something to do with the move. The chairman of Fierté Montréal’s board of directors also resigned on Monday. 

Fierté Montréal’s reversal angered the pro-Palestinian groups that had called for Ga’ava’s exclusion. But it was the correct move. There are legitimate grievances to be aired about the Israeli army’s increasingly disgraceful conduct in Gaza. Yet, attacking Ga’ava appears to have more to do with the role such groups play in underscoring Israel’s protection of LGBTQ rights, in contrast to the oppression LGBTQ persons face in most Arab jurisdictions. That is not a contrast pro-Palestinian activists want to emphasize, perhaps because it exposes their own cognitive dissonance, if not hypocrisy.

These pro-Palestinian LGBTQ activists accuse Israel of “pinkwashing,” or playing up gay rights in Israel to distract attention from its treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. But what they are really seeking to do is to silence anyone who suggests otherwise.

Source: Montreal Pride finally stands up to the pro-Palestinian bullies

How do Canadian officials detect plagiarized refugee claims?

Reasonable use of AI IMO:

A failed refugee claimant came to Amandeep Singh in May for help after he was refused because his claim was “nearly word for word” identical to others before the refugee board.

While the Edmonton-based immigration consultant had heard for a long time that some claimants and their counsel have plagiarized claims to game the system, what struck him was what tool the refugee board and immigration officials use to flag these cases, which he says seems to have happened more often.

“I wouldn’t say this (plagiarism) is something new,” said Singh, who did not take on that client because he didn’t believe the man had a case. “It shows to me that officials are actually using artificial intelligence, so it is easier for them to look at multiple cases at the same time to see if the information in a claim matches with other asylum applications.”

While the refugee board denies the use of AI in its claim processing, the Immigration Department and the border agency — bodies that determine if a foreign national is eligible to seek asylum in Canada and which can intervene in refugee hearings — are less clear on how they identify these cases. Generally, officials deem similar claims as a potential indicator of fraud.

In the case that Singh reviewed with personal information redacted, the refugee board adjudicator drew comparisons between the man’s claim and five others.

“I am a follower of the Sikh religion, and my family and I are devout Sikhs … 1became (sic) the member of Khalistan movement (aiming for a peaceful creation of an independent state for Sikh people),” according to the refugee refusal decision, which set out a side-by-side table highlighting each similar paragraph in those claims. The parentheses are from the claim, which includes grammatical errors, as cited in the decision.

“The primary objective for joining movement was to establish a new nation for the Sikh community, providing them the freedom to practice their religious activities and ensuring equal rights for all.”

Apart from the different date noting when the claimant joined the movement, the whole paragraph, including the typo “1,” was the same as the narrative cited by the refugee protection tribunal. The claims also referred to visits by Indian authorities to the family homes to look for the claimant and for alleged links to Pakistan.

The person told the tribunal that he did not know why others’ narratives were similar to his word for word, but did explain that what happened to him could have happened to all Sikhs given the circumstances. The refugee judge, however, concluded that’s not reasonable.

Sean Rehaag, director of Refugee Law Laboratory at Osgoode Hall Law School, said there are anti-plagiarism tools that universities have used for a long time to find similar bits of text, as well as ways for the refugee board to identify similar claims without using high-tech.

For instance, said Rehaag, a decision-maker may encounter two or more similar claims, and refer to the board administration to look into it further, examining other files from the same country by the same representative. Or decision-makers may talk with one another about a particular type of case, or someone triaging cases discovers a pattern and flags it internally.

Rehaag said the information could also come from immigration and border agency officials, who he said probably have program integrity tools that would allow them to identify suspicious patterns. In those circumstances, he said, officials would then intervene in the refugee proceedings based on integrity concerns.

The Immigration and Refugee Board told the Star that it does not use artificial intelligence at any stage of processing or deciding claims.

“While claims from the same country or region may share common elements, credibility or integrity issues could be raised if review of the files identified substantially similar claimants’ narratives about the specific circumstances of their claim,” the board said in an email.

Where similarities are identified in the process, it said claimants are required to provide an explanation. If the claimant is found to have provided false or misleading evidence, it could lead to a rejection….

Source: How do Canadian officials detect plagiarized refugee claims?

Hayden Taylor: What happens if you don’t have Indigenous actors for a play about Indigenous people? It doesn’t get produced

Ironic and sad collateral damage:

…Thus, the conundrum. Obviously it would be pretty nice for my play to be produced. After all, Daddy needs a new pair of shoes … or, in my case, moccasins. In today’s world, hiring a non-native isn’t even considered. So the whole potential production has to suffer, being thrown out with the theatre water.

For me, the play is a loving tip of the hat to our elders, showing their perspective on the world and presenting a vision of the First Nations community that is seldom seen. I consider it a warm and humorous play about elder love in a fish-out-of-water context. This, I believe, explains the interest in the play. The characters are native but they don’t have to be. The story and characters are easily relatable by all people.

Crees in the Caribbean has been produced a few times already, but alas, the reservoir of Indigenous actors is quite low, especially ones who might be interested in doing theatre. The artistic director of the cancelled production told me that she contacted some of the more well-known television actors with little luck, and in one case, an agent actually laughed at her when she pitched her proposal. The budgets of theatre run shallow while television/movie resources run substantially deeper.

My real fear is that this could set a bad precedent. Do not write any First Nation characters older than, for the sake of argument, 55. Unless you know many out-of-work television actors. Or the theatre company has a makeup department skilled in aging people. But nobody wants that. Again, all part of the conundrum. 

The scariest possibility is that, at 63, I may have to start acting to fill this vacancy. And nobody wants that! 

Source: What happens if you don’t have Indigenous actors for a play about Indigenous people? It doesn’t get produced

USA: New Immigration Service Director May Pursue An Anti-Immigration Agenda

Incorrect title – not “may” but “will:”

The new director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will likely focus the agency on the Trump administration’s anti-immigration agenda. On July 15, 2025, Joseph Edlow began as USCIS director following a Senate confirmation vote along party lines. Edlow’s job will be to implement the policies of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. The agenda will include restricting asylum, directing adjudicators to tighten the approval process for immigration benefits applications and ending or controlling the ability of international students to work in the United States after graduating from U.S. universities.

USCIS Will Be An Immigration Enforcement Agency

In an opening statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation, Joseph Edlow said, “USCIS must be an immigration enforcement agency.” That sends a message to adjudicators: Treat applications similarly to those during Donald Trump’s first term, when denials increased and Requests for Evidence skyrocketed at USCIS.

In a question submitted to Edlow, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), the committee’s ranking member, wrote, “The Homeland Security Act does not include language stating that USCIS is an immigration enforcement agency. . . . The statute makes clear that unlike ICE and Customs and Border Protection, USCIS’s primary mission is adjudication and processing of applications, not enforcement. Will you retract your inaccurate statement that ‘USCIS must be an immigration enforcement agency?’” Edlow replied in writing, “No. The statement was not inaccurate as the adjudication of immigration benefits is inherently an act of enforcement of the immigration laws.”

Jon Wasden of Wasden Law said the USCIS transition from a “service” to an “enforcement” agency began under Barack Obama and intensified during Donald Trump’s first term. He notes that even during the Biden administration, USCIS continued to take funds and reallocate them to the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate within USCIS, which he believes violates the Homeland Security Act. Wasden is harsh in his assessment: “Both parties have created an environment where applicants are seen as the enemy, treated as criminals, and officers are above the law. I wish I could lay all this at the feet of Stephen Miller, but his Democrat predecessors share the blame.”

Still, USCIS differed significantly under Joe Biden compared to Trump’s first term. The Biden administration’s final rule on H-1B visas proved to be far more favorable for employers, universities and high-skilled foreign nationals than anything produced during the Trump years. Policy experts viewed the Trump administration’s interim final rule on H-1B visas, which a court blocked for violating the Administrative Procedure Act, as designed to prevent, or at least discourage, employers from using the H-1B category by narrowing eligibility and piling on requirements. A Department of Labor interim final rule would have priced many H-1B visa holders and employment-based immigrants out of the U.S. labor market by inflating the required salaries.

“Positive actions the Biden administration took on high-skilled immigration included taking steps to issue an ‘unprecedented’ number of employment-based green cards, increasing the validity of Employment Authorization Documents for up to five years, providing favorable guidance for O-1A visas and national interest waivers and making it easier for some employment-based green card applicants to stay if they have ‘compelling circumstances,” according to a National Foundation for American Policy analysis. “O-1A visa filings and requests for national interest waivers increased significantly after the new guidance.”

The NFAP analysis noted that the Trump administration carried out what judges found to be unlawful policies on H-1B visas for nearly four years. An H-1B is often the only practical way for a high-skilled foreign national, including an international student, to work long term in the United States. Denial rates for H-1B petitions for initial employment reached 24% in FY 2018 and 21% in FY 2019, compared to 6% in FY 2015. (H-1B petitions for “initial” employment are primarily for new employment, typically a case that would count against the H-1B annual limit.) Only lawsuits, court rulings and a legal settlement ended the policies.

Source: New Immigration Service Director May Pursue An Anti-Immigration Agenda

McLaughlin: This DOGE Won’t Hunt: A Canada-U.S. Comparison

Good analysis and recommendations on how to curb government expenditures:

“DOGE is not for Canada. Here’s why:

  • First, a DOGE-style, top-down process can only exist in presidential forms of government like America’s not parliamentary forms of government like Canada’s. Despite his ‘First Buddy’ status at the time, even the limited cabinet-style meetings Trump held with Elon Musk in the room degenerated into tense public disputes between Musk and cabinet secretaries.⁸ It must have been worse behind the scenes with shoving altercations being reported.⁹ Prime ministers strive to avoid that spectacle at all costs. It is the surest way to lose authority both with the public and within the government and caucus. [How many British prime ministers were there exactly in 2022?] DOGE would be a skin graft that would and should be be rejected by our system of governance. 
  • Second, DOGE was rushed and forced. It did not take into account vital missions or mandates of governing agencies. Witness the subsequent rehires to ensure key health or safety activities continued. It tried to squeeze in too much in too short a timeframe. Chaos resulted.
  • Third, DOGE evaded the law. DOGE-inspired lawsuits have made the process and results anything but orderly or complete. Judges have stayed some decisions requiring complete rehires of staff while others have proceeded. The result is a legal quagmire of confusion.
  • Fourth, it was talent-agnostic. It took little to no account, as far as can be seen, in retaining top-tier talent. It was ‘billboard budgeting’, announcing big across-the-board cuts in both funding and personnel without thinking through expertise or performance. Probationary hires, for example, were the first to go because they were the least protected by civil service rules and could account for early ‘wins’. But real skepticism exists as to whether it actually produced results.¹⁰
  • Fifth, it was run by a big personality and a bunch of tech nerds with no actual government experience and with no realistic, definable goals. At first, Musk said it would cut $2 trillion from the $7 trillion federal budget. Then, it became $1 trillion. Finally, he said DOGE would save $150 billion. In truth, the biggest cuts Elon made were to his own ambitions. Here’s what they say they have saved (as of time of this post). As you can see, the definition of “savings” is an elastic mouthful:

What Should Canada’s Approach Be Instead?

Here’s my list:

  1. Don’t try to do it all at once. Do it over time. A judicious application of time-limited hiring freezes for some public service classifications and employee attrition will get the headcount down. 
  2. Apply across-the-board cuts to get some results early, show seriousness, and secure political buy-in internally and externally that this is fair and not aimed at any one constituency. But don’t rely on these alone.
  3. Get out of actual program areas by making real choices about what is the role of the federal government in certain areas. Shrink government’s cost by shrinking government’s footprint.
  4. Resist starting up new boutique initiatives for headlines and stakeholders. They cost money and require more public servants.
  5. Combine public service reductions with deliberate productivity enhancements through AI and digital technologies.
  6. Conduct a root-and-branch customer service delivery assessment of programs to find efficiencies now. Ask these two questions: 1. What is the unit cost of delivering a particular service? 2. How many people, across how many departments, touch a service delivery or operational decision by the government?
  7. Bear in mind that new, different skill sets are needed in the public service and some hiring must still occur to enhance its overall performance.
  8. Set measurable goals for success that are both financial (balancing the operational budget, a stated government priority), and non-financial (better citizen service delivery results, improved labour productivity, etc).
  9. Create a process to do this that can be sustained between and over budget cycles, so it leads to a permanent reduction in the public service headcount. 
  10. Finally, hold ministers and deputy ministers accountable – politically for the former and financially for the latter – for results. That should get their attention!

Here endeth the lesson!

Source: This DOGE Won’t Hunt: A Canada-U.S. Comparison

Khan: We shouldn’t turn a blind eye to assaults on Muslim women 

Agree:

…The scourge of hate is corrosive. It cannot be effectively addressed in a siloed fashion, where each affected group stands alone. Here’s an idea: next time when there’s a hateful incident against one group, let’s have a few representatives of all affected groups stand together to condemn the hate. There are fundamental disagreements between affected groups, but all agree that no member of our Canadian family should be subject to intimidation, threats or violence.

Source: We shouldn’t turn a blind eye to assaults on Muslim women

Derek Burney: Serious government downsizing should start at the top

A mixture of some I agree with, some that he should know better given his time in government and heading the Harper transition team and others that are grounded in his ideological perspective. And while greater private sector perspectives and interchanges needed, not sure that previous experience justifies such confidence (without the extreme Musk/DOGE example):

“…Here are some practical suggestions:

1. As the government’s Chief Human Resources Officer has attested, there are too many senior executives in the public service, slowing productivity and creating workplace conflicts. Sharp cuts are needed to excessive ADM (Assistant Deputy Minister) positions and the government should consider eliminating one complete level of senior management — the position of Directors General. Superfluous positions like “Deputy” Director or “Associate” Deputy Minister — extra baggage causing sluggish performance — should be removed.

2. The Treasury Board Secretariat, ostensibly responsible for program management and controlling growth, has failed abysmally at its fundamental role and should be revamped and headed by an external business executive with a proven track record for efficient results.

3. All woke-induced prescriptions like DEI should be dropped, giving more exclusive value to meritocracy with clear descriptions of achievement goals and accountability for all senior public service positions.

4. The government’s faint-hearted effort to recognize the importance of artificial intelligence was to designate a minister with the responsibility but with few specific duties or resources. AI is the most significant technological innovation in more than a century. Implemented with appropriate guard rails to prevent misuse, Artificial Intelligence can reduce waste in government, sharpen technological innovation, improve productivity and expedite decision-making. It will require substantial investments in energy to serve new data centres, to update our electricity grid and develop new technologies. The Americans are moving at warp speed to maintain their global lead. Canada cannot afford to stand pat.

5. The military cannot be spared especially with the massive increase in spending it will belatedly receive. As the ranks were reduced in the past two decades, the ratio of enlisted personnel to officers rose substantially to 2.8:1 whereas the U.S. Marines is at 7.1:1. That trend undermines any notion that more funds will produce better performance. The current model of procurement is flawed with overlapping responsibilities among different departments and ever-lengthening overruns on delivery. The system should be outsourced to an independent tribunal with knowledge and experience relating to current technologies. Australia may offer a compelling model.

6. All governments in Canada should stop pandering to Indigenous groups with gratuitous expressions of atonement as in King Charles’ speech from the throne (written by the PMO/PCO), and at major events across Canada. Giving Indigenous communities real partnerships in major, national-interest projects would do much more for their well-being than sanctimonious verbal expressions of regret.

7. It is time to drive a stake through the climate hysteria that has stifled economic development for more than two decades. As Joe Oliver articulated cogently in these columns, public concern about climate change has declined dramatically in Canada. In 2022, 73 per cent of Canadians believed we were confronting a climate emergency. But now only four per cent say climate change is the No. 1 issue facing the country, according to a recent Leger poll. Many favour instead efforts to expedite pipelines to tidewater that “will bring economic growth, employment, energy security and funding for social programs or tax relief.”

Remaining vestiges of climate hypocrisy, including some in the current cabinet, stubbornly support unrealistic EV mandates and inconsistent wind-power farms that blight our physical environment. “Net-zero” targets are patently unrealistic. All are being rejected by the U.S. while it accelerates conventional energy development. Growing climate realism should give Canadian politicians the courage to implement energy projects needed to secure economic growth.

8. For serious downsizing, the government should assign the role to an external panel of five credible business executives with relevant knowledge and experience.

Prime Minister Mark Carney gained a spectacular victory in the April election (due partly to the relatively inept performance by the Opposition Leader and his campaign team.) Carney has about six more months to demonstrate that he can act forcefully on that victory. Otherwise, confidence and trust will evaporate as quickly as it did for his predecessor. The challenge begins in the government itself where he has unfettered control.”

Source: Derek Burney: Serious government downsizing should start at the top

Décision rendue fin juillet | Une première peine adaptée aux criminels racisés au Québec

Of note:

Dans une décision récente rendue fin juillet au palais de justice de Longueuil, la juge Magali Lepage a condamné l’accusé Frank Paris à 24 mois de prison dans une affaire de trafic de cannabis et de haschich. Ce dernier avait déjà plaidé coupable. Jusqu’ici, rien d’inhabituel.

Or, pour déterminer sa peine, la juge a considéré la jurisprudence, une analyse de la preuve, une balance des facteurs aggravants et atténuants… mais aussi une évaluation de l’impact de l’origine ethnique ou culturelle (EIOEC), une analyse particulière qui se penche sur le parcours personnel d’un criminel à travers la loupe des barrières systémiques auxquelles il a pu faire face.

Après la lecture de l’évaluation, la juge a décidé d’accepter la suggestion de la défense, presque un an plus courte que celle de la poursuite.

Il s’agit d’une première au Québec. Aucun juge québécois n’avait considéré une EIOEC dans la détermination d’une peine jusqu’au 28 juillet dernier. La décision risque donc de faire jurisprudence dans le contexte québécois. De telles procédures existent depuis 2014, ailleurs au Canada.

Qu’est-ce qu’une EIOEC ?

Une EIOEC est un rapport présentenciel d’experts qui est utilisé pour déterminer la peine d’une personne racisée – mais qui est surtout utilisé pour les personnes noires. Elle est donc déposée après qu’un accusé est reconnu coupable, mais avant que la peine soit déterminée.

Le rapport fait un examen exhaustif du parcours de l’accusé, avec une insistance sur les « réalités propres » aux personnes racisées, à la « discrimination systémique » qu’elles ont vécue et aux défis spécifiques auxquels elles sont plus exposées (plus bas taux de diplomation, plus grande proportion de familles monoparentales et de père absent, plus grand risque de vivre dans des quartiers défavorisés et criminalisés, etc.).

On considère que ces facteurs, plus présents chez les Noirs, mènent plus facilement à la criminalité.

Comme l’explique MValérie Black St-Laurent, avocate et directrice des opérations chez Jurigo, « l’objectif d’une EIOEC, c’est vraiment d’informer la Cour pour contextualiser le parcours de la personne qui se trouve devant elle et pour qu’elle puisse rendre une peine qui est juste » et individualisée, comme le prévoit le Code criminel.

« C’est individualisé, mais il reste que les statistiques montrent que tout le groupe des personnes noires est victime de discrimination », renchérit Karine Millaire, professeure adjointe à la faculté de droit de l’Université de Montréal.

« Il faut tenir compte du fait qu’il y a une surincarcération des personnes noires qui est issue du fait que notre système est aussi discriminatoire », dit-elle….

Source: Décision rendue fin juillet | Une première peine adaptée aux criminels racisés au Québec

In a recent decision delivered at the end of July at the Longueuil courthouse, Judge Magali Lepage sentenced the accused Frank Paris to 24 months in prison in a cannabis and hashish trafficking case. The latter had already pleaded guilty. So far, nothing unusual.

However, to determine her sentence, the judge considered the case law, an analysis of the evidence, a balance of aggravating and mitigating factors… but also an assessment of the impact of ethnic or cultural origin (EIOEC), a particular analysis that looks at the personal journey of a criminal through the magnifying glass of the systemic barriers he was able to face.

After reading the evaluation, the judge decided to accept the suggestion of the defense, almost a year shorter than that of the prosecution.

This is a first in Quebec. No Quebec judge had considered an EIOEC in determining a sentence until July 28. The decision is therefore likely to become jurisprudence in the Quebec context. Such procedures have existed since 2014, elsewhere in Canada.

What is an EIOEC?

An EIOEC is a face-to-face expert report that is used to determine the sentence of a racialized person – but is mainly used for black people. It is therefore filed after an accused is found guilty, but before the sentence is determined.

The report makes an exhaustive examination of the accused’s career, with an emphasis on the “realities specific” of racialized people, the “systemic discrimination” they have experienced and the specific challenges to which they are more exposed (lower graduation rates, greater proportion of single-parent families and absent fathers, higher risk of living in disadvantaged and criminalized neighborhoods, etc.).

These factors, more present among blacks, are considered to lead more easily to crime.

As explained by Valérie Black St-Laurent, lawyer and director of operations at Jurigo, “the objective of an EIOEC is really to inform the Court to contextualize the journey of the person who is in front of it and so that he can render a sentence that is fair” and individualized, as provided for by the Criminal Code.

“It’s individualized, but the statistics still show that the entire group of black people is a victim of discrimination,” adds Karine Millaire, assistant professor at the Faculty of Law at the University of Montreal.

“We must take into account the fact that there is an over-imprisonment of black people that results from the fact that our system is also discriminatory,” she says….

Patrick Lagacé’s biting critique of the EIOEC reasoning the judgement relied on:

La suite du paragraphe est hallucinante de déresponsabilisation : « Bien que M. Paris ait cru qu’il servait sa communauté d’une façon positive en donnant une tribune aux artistes et l’accès à l’internet, il y vendait aussi des substances illicites. En rétrospective, M. Paris croit qu’il aurait dû cesser de vendre de la cocaïne à cette époque… »

Et c’est comme ça sur 44 pages, cette « évaluation de l’incidence de l’origine ethnique et culturelle », j’en passe et des meilleures : tout est la faute de la société, rien n’a jamais été, rien n’est et ne sera jamais la faute de Frank Paris.

S’il commet des crimes, si la récidive lui tombe dessus à répétition, c’est parce qu’il est noir dans une société anti-black. Et handicapé, mais ça me prendrait une autre chronique pour vous expliquer cette intersectionnalité fascinante qui pousse aussi M. Paris à la criminalité.

Bref, je ne sais pas si les « évaluations de l’incidence de l’origine ethnique et culturelle » nées en Nouvelle-Écosse sont toujours de la bullshit, mais celle de M. Frank Paris, la première utilisée par une juge au Québec, m’apparaît comme ça et juste ça : de la bullshitpur jus.

Source: Un rapport vaguement ésotérique

The rest of the paragraph is hallucinating with deresponsibility: “Although Mr. Paris believed that he served his community in a positive way by giving a forum to artists and access to the Internet, he also sold illicit substances there. In retrospect, Mr. Paris believes that he should have stopped selling cocaine at that time…”
And that’s how it is on 44 pages, this “assessment of the impact of ethnic and cultural origin”, I pass and the best: everything is the fault of society, nothing has ever been, nothing is and will never be the fault of Frank Paris.
If he commits crimes, if recidivism falls on him repeatedly, it is because he is black in an anti-black society. And disabled, but it would take me another column to explain this fascinating intersectionality that also pushes Mr. Paris to crime.
In short, I don’t know if the “evaluations of the incidence of ethnic and cultural origin” born in Nova Scotia are still bullshit, but that of Mr. Frank Paris, the first used by a judge in Quebec, appears to me like this and just that: bullshitpur jus.



Les faux représentants en immigration, un véritable fléau

Good series in Le Devoir on immigration consultants and fraud:

…Consultants « fantômes », faux avocats, usurpateurs d’identité de vrais consultants : de plus en plus de faux représentants font payer des services d’immigration sans être autorisés à les dispenser, selon les informations compilées par Le Devoir.

Au Québec et dans le reste du Canada, il n’est pas obligatoire d’avoir recours à ce genre d’intermédiaire pour déposer une demande en immigration, quelle qu’elle soit. Mais à partir du moment où quelqu’un facture ce genre de services, il doit en revanche être impérativement autorisé : avocat membre du Barreau du Québec, consultant membre du Collège des consultants en immigration et en citoyenneté (CCIC) ou encore notaire à la Chambre des notaires du Québec.

Le problème est difficile à appréhender dans son ensemble, notamment parce que plusieurs entités opèrent de l’étranger et en dehors de la loi. Mais s’il n’y a qu’une pointe de l’iceberg à déceler, elle est déjà immense : dans la dernière année, le CCIC a fait fermer plus de 5000 pages Web et de médias sociaux qui faisaient la promotion de praticiens non autorisés.

Sur le terrain

Dans un contexte où les restrictions en immigration rendent de plus en plus difficile le renouvellement des permis de travail, d’études ou encore l’accès à la résidence permanente, « les faux représentants sont devenus un vrai fléau », dit Louis-Philippe Jannard, coordonnateur du volet protection de la Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes.

« C’est un problème endémique dans certains quartiers », abonde aussi Camille Bonenfant, organisatrice communautaire à la Clinique pour la justice migrante. Lorsque des membres de son équipe se déplacent pour donner des ateliers d’information, c’est presque « systématique » : les personnes rencontrées « s’approchent et nous montrent une carte d’affaires d’une personne qui n’est enregistrée nulle part ».

« C’est sûr qu’il y a une augmentation », tranche aussi Dory Jade, qui soulève le problème depuis 20 ans. Il est directeur général de l’Association canadienne des consultants professionnels en immigration et a eu connaissance des plus grandes comme des plus petites fraudes : « Il y a des cas qui ont payé des centaines de milliers de dollars à des individus qui leur ont fait miroiter qu’ils pouvaient les emmener au Canada », raconte-t-il.

Ou encore des gens qui ont vendu toutes leurs possessions pour obtenir des papiers… qui ne sont jamais arrivés, poursuit M. Jade….

Source: Les faux représentants en immigration, un véritable fléau

Other articles in the series: Des usurpateurs aux faux avocats : la jungle des consultants en immigration, Des solutions pour contrer les consultants fantômes en immigration, Quand le rêve canadien vire au cauchemar | Parcours

… “Ghost” consultants, false lawyers, identity thieves of real consultants: more and more false representatives are charging immigration services without being authorized to dispense them, according to information compiled by Le Devoir.

In Quebec and the rest of Canada, it is not mandatory to use this kind of intermediary to file an immigration application, whatever it may be. But from the moment someone charges for this type of service, he must be authorized: a lawyer member of the Barreau du Québec, a consultant member of the Collège des consultants en immigration et en citoyenneté (CCIC) or a notary at the Chambre des notaires du Québec.

The problem is difficult to understand as a whole, in particular because several entities operate from abroad and outside the law. But if there is only one tip of the iceberg to detect, it is already huge: in the last year, the CCIC has closed more than 5,000 web and social media pages that promoted unauthorized practitioners.

In the field

In a context where immigration restrictions are making it increasingly difficult to renew work permits, study permits or access to permanent residence, “false representatives have become a real scourge,” says Louis-Philippe Jannard, coordinator of the protection component of the Consultation Table for organizations serving refugees and immigrants.

“It’s an endemic problem in some neighborhoods,” says Camille Bonenfant, community organizer at the Clinic for Migrant Justice. When members of his team travel to give information workshops, it is almost “systematic”: the people met “approach and show us a business card of a person who is not registered anywhere”.

“It is certain that there is an increase,” says Dory Jade, who has been raising the problem for 20 years. He is Director General of the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants and has learned of the biggest and smallest frauds: “There are cases that have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to individuals who have made them think they could take them to Canada,” he says.

Or people who sold all their possessions to get papers… who never arrived, continues Mr. Jade….