Canada’s controversial ban on adoptions from several Muslim countries sparks court challenge

Another case to watch (hard to understand rationale for difference with USA, UK and Australia which allow the practice, when government does not appear to have articulated the reasons):

A major challenge of Canada’s ban on adoptions from several Muslim countries is set to play out in the Federal Court — a move some legal observers say wouldn’t be necessary if the government wasn’t upholding what they call a “discriminatory” policy.

The case, which could be heard as early as April, comes more than five years after the federal government promised to review the ban introduced when the Conservatives last held office. Since then, the Liberal government has refused to say whether that review took place or what it involved, despite repeated inquiries from CBC News.

In 2013, Canada suddenly put a stop to adoptions from Pakistan, arguing Shariah law doesn’t allow for birth ties between a parent and child to be severed and that the Islamic principle of guardianship (kafala) could no longer be recognized as the basis for adoption. The United States, United Kingdom and Australia all continue to allow adoptions from Pakistan, despite Canada’s claim that doing so would violate its commitment to the Hague Convention.

While on paper the ban applied only to Pakistan, an investigation by CBC’s The Fifth Estate found that in practice, immigration officials quietly extended it to other Muslim-majority countries, including Iran, Sudan, Iraq, Qatar, Afghanistan and Algeria.

An access-to-information request on the ban turned up dozens of redacted pages, including a June 25, 2013, memo marked “secret,” titled “Canadian programming to counter the terrorist threat from Pakistan” — raising questions about what national security might have to do with the adoption of children.

One legal observer said that not only is the ban discriminatory, but it unfairly puts the burden on individual families to argue the validity of their religious traditions.

“Frankly, I’m shocked that the government has not revisited this legislatively,” said Faisal Bhabha, an associate professor at York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. “A case like this should really not fall on the shoulders of a family.

“The last thing they need is for their government to be telling them what their religion prescribes or doesn’t prescribe…. I don’t see how this case could not be successful.”

Pakistani court gives permission for adoption

At the centre of the court challenge is a Toronto woman who became the caregiver to her sister’s three children while living in Pakistan after her sister’s death. Since 2012, Jameela Qadeer has cared for her sister’s son and two daughters as if they were her own, with their father unable to do so.

“When their biological mother died, I knew that I would do anything I could to make sure that they never felt motherless,” she told CBC News, recalling how they’d sleep in one bed together so they wouldn’t feel alone.

A major challenge of Canada’s ban on adoptions from many Muslim countries is set to play out at the Federal Court. Jameela Qadeer took in her sister’s three children after her death more than a decade ago. A Pakistan court recognized her as their adoptive mother but after an abrupt 2013 change, Canada says the Islamic legal principle of guardianship Pakistan and other countries use doesn’t meet the bar of a parent-child relationship.

Now separated from the children, she said, “I think about that now and as I’m going to sleep.”

As an Ahmadi Muslim facing persecution in Pakistan, Qadeer moved to Canada more than six years ago with her biological daughter, first with protected status and now as a permanent resident. But she soon learned Canada wouldn’t recognize her sister’s children as her own.

Pakistan has no official adoption law. Instead, like many other Muslim countries, it relies on the principle of guardianship, which preserves lineage to protect inheritance rights, for example.

To facilitate adoptions abroad, Pakistan’s courts routinely grant permission for those with guardianship orders to complete adoptions in other countries. That was the case with Canada until the 2013 ban.

Qadeer, whose husband has been working in South Africa, formalized her guardianship of the children in Pakistan in 2017. In 2019, after Canada’s refusal to recognize the children as her own, she turned to a Pakistani court, which declared her their adoptive mother.

Canada still refused the children’s application to join her, with an immigration officer saying that “the guardianship arrangements confirmed by the courts in Pakistan do not create a legal parent-child relationship.”

When Qadeer first applied in 2017 to bring the children to Canada, all three were minors. Today, they’re 19, 23 and 25 years old. Asked if their ages could hurt the case, their lawyer said what matters is the date the application was filed.

Qadeer said Canada’s refusal to recognize the children as her own means they could be ripped away from a mother for a second time.

“I would feel like I’ve gotten heaven on Earth” if the children were here, she said.

‘I believe the law is discriminatory’: lawyer

Qadeer’s Toronto-based lawyer, Warda Shazadi Meighen, said she believes the constitutional challenge is the first of its kind.

“I believe the law is discriminatory,” she said in an interview.

The crux of the case, Shazadi Meighen said, is that if the children had been adopted through a legal system not based in Islamic law, Canada would recognize their adoptions — meaning their very identities prevent them from being together as a family.

The children “are unable to reunite with their adoptive mother in Canada and unable to access permanent residence, unlike adopted family members of protected persons in Canada who do not follow Islamic law and/or are not of Pakistani origin and based in Pakistan,” Qadeer’s court filing says.

The filing says Canada’s refusal to recognize Qadeer’s relationship with the children violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically Section 15 (equality rights), Section 2(a) (freedom of religion) and Section 7 (right to security of the person).

“The bottom line is there is no other parent for these children,” Shazadi Meighen said.

In 2018, Pakistan’s High Commission in Ottawa said the claim that Pakistan’s legal system did not allow for adoptions was false. “We believe that the ban from the Canadian government is unjustified,” spokesperson Nadeem Kiani said then.

At the time, then-immigration minister Ahmed Hussen’s press secretary told The Fifth Estate: “We have asked the department to initiate a review of this policy and begin consultations with Pakistan as well as provincial and territorial governments to determine a path forward to regularize adoptions from Pakistan.”

Government not commenting on case

Asked by CBC News if that review ever happened, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada would not say. The department also said it could not comment on active litigation cases.

“We understand and sympathize with prospective parents who have experienced hardships while trying to bring children under guardianship placement from Pakistan to Canada,” spokesperson Mary Rose Sabater said in an emailed statement.

Source: Canada’s controversial ban on adoptions from several Muslim countries sparks court challenge

Yakabuski: Quand la digue du débat sur l’immigration cède

Indeed. Remarkable change:

La digue a cédé. Depuis plusieurs mois, les critiques fusent de toutes parts pour dénoncer une politique fédérale d’immigration hors de contrôle qui contribue à la crise du logement, notamment en raison de la croissance fulgurante du nombre de travailleurs étrangers temporaires et d’étudiants étrangers qui s’installent au pays.

Plusieurs économistes parmi les plus respectés accusent Ottawa de faire fi de la capacité de l’économie canadienne à accueillir un si grand nombre de nouveaux venus sans faire les investissements nécessaires à la construction de nouveaux logements et de nouvelles infrastructures. Bref, de mener une politique d’immigration qui vise à doper la croissance économique — sinon à gagner les votes de certaines clientèles politiques —, mais qui finit plutôt par créer toutes sortes d’effets pervers dont les répercussions néfastes se feront sentir dans les années à venir.

Jusqu’à cette semaine, le premier ministre Justin Trudeau et son ministre de l’Immigration, Marc Miller, répondaient à ces critiques en promettant d’examiner la possibilité d’apporter des modifications somme toute mineures aux programmes d’immigration temporaire. Jamais n’ont-ils manifesté un sentiment d’urgence qui justifie la correction des failles béantes dans ces programmes qui ont mené à l’explosion de cette filière. 

En date du 1er octobre dernier, le Canada comptait plus de 2,5 millions de résidents non permanents, ce qui correspond à une augmentation de plus de 40 % en un an. Leur nombre a certainement augmenté depuis cette date, car rien n’a été fait pour limiter l’octroi des permis de travail et d’études. Cela fait l’affaire des employeurs et des établissements postsecondaires qui, partout au pays, sont devenus accros aux programmes fédéraux d’immigration temporaire, cela au détriment de l’économie canadienne dans son ensemble.

Dans une étude publiée en début de semaine, les économistes Stéfane Marion et Alexandra Ducharme, de la Financière Banque Nationale, prétendent que le Canada fait actuellement face à un « piège démographique » en raison d’un taux de croissance de sa population cinq fois supérieur à la moyenne des pays membres de l’Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques (OCDE). Leur constat est cinglant : « Présentement, nous ne disposons pas des infrastructures et du stock de capital nécessaires pour absorber la croissance démographique et améliorer notre niveau de vie. »

Une telle situation, typiquement le lot des pays émergents ayant un fort taux de natalité, engendre un cercle vicieux qui mène à l’appauvrissement collectif. Au Canada, notre piège démographique découle d’une politique d’immigration délibérément choisie par le gouvernement Trudeau.

Un ménage s’impose. Il reste à voir si MM. Trudeau et Miller feront preuve de courage politique et redresseront la barre. Mardi, lors d’un déjeuner-causerie devant la Chambre de commerce du Montréal métropolitain, M. Trudeau a dit ne pas avoir l’intention de toucher aux seuils d’immigration permanente. Le pays compte accueillir 500 000 nouveaux résidents permanents en 2025 et dans les années qui suivent. « Ça, c’est le chiffre dont on a besoin pour continuer à appuyer la croissance économique et des opportunités, a-t-il fait valoir. Ce sont surtout des étudiants internationaux et des travailleurs temporaires. Ce sont ces groupes-là qu’il va falloir qu’on mette un peu sous contrôle. »

« Un peu sous contrôle » ? Les économistes de la Banque Nationale estiment que la croissance de la population canadienne devrait être ramenée entre 300 000 et 500 000 personnes par année « si nous voulons échapper au piège démographique ». Or, la population canadienne a augmenté de plus de 1,2 million en 2023. Ce ne sont pas des demi-mesures qui pourront restaurer l’équilibre. Des réformes en profondeur seront nécessaires.

M. Miller songe à serrer la vis à certaines provinces pour que leurs établissements postsecondaires acceptent moins d’étudiants étrangers.

À elle seule, l’Ontario compte plus de la moitié des près de 900 000 étudiants étrangers du pays. Ces derniers sont inscrits non seulement dans les universités et les collèges communautaires de la province, mais aussi dans des centaines d’écoles de formation professionnelle. Certaines de ces écoles sont accusées d’exploiter des étudiants étrangers vulnérables qui cherchent à fuir leur pays d’origine en percevant des droits de scolarité astronomiques sans donner une éducation digne du nom. Mais il ne suffit pas de sévir contre ces « usines à chiots », comme M. Miller les appelle. La vaste majorité des étudiants étrangers au Canada sont inscrits à l’université ou à un collège d’enseignement technique, et il faudrait aussi y réduire leur nombre.

Or, une diminution du nombre d’étudiants étrangers risquerait de plonger la plupart des établissements postsecondaires du pays dans une crise financière pouvant menacer leur survie. C’est surtout le cas en Ontario, où le gouvernement conservateur de Doug Ford a instauré un gel des droits de scolarité en 2019. Les établissements postsecondaires de la province se sont tournés massivement depuis vers les étudiants étrangers, dont les droits de scolarité s’élèvent à plusieurs fois ceux payés par les étudiants canadiens.

Et que faire du nombre grandissant de travailleurs étrangers temporaires ? À en juger par le silence de M. Miller à ce sujet, on dirait que le ministre n’est pas pressé de s’y attaquer. Or, la promesse faite cette semaine par Pierre Poilievre de rééquilibrer les seuils d’immigration en fonction de la construction de logements change la donne politique. Le chef conservateur avait jusque-là soigneusement évité d’aborder la question de l’immigration dans ses discours sur la crise du logement.

Son changement de cap signale le début d’un débat politique sur l’immigration auquel les Canadiens hors Québec sont peu habitués tellement le consensus sur la question semblait inébranlable. Mais les libéraux ont permis à l’eau de monter. Et la digue ne tient plus.

Source: Quand la digue du débat sur l’immigration cède

Lisée: L’immigration et la loi de la gravité

Sarcasm, well justified:

Le saviez-vous ? Avant qu’Isaac Newton ne découvre la gravité, tout le monde prenait les choses à la légère. La boutade s’applique superbement à la soudaine épiphanie de membres du gouvernement Trudeau face à l’immigration.

« Je crois que personne n’a besoin d’un briefing pour comprendre que, s’il y a plus de gens qui ont besoin de se loger, cela va avoir un impact sur la situation du logement », affirmait cette semaine l’un des architectes de l’immigration massive trudeauiste, car jusqu’à récemment titulaire de ce portefeuille, Sean Fraser, mais qui, depuis l’été, est puni par là où il a péché, car il est désormais ministre du Logement.

Son successeur, Marc Miller, est allé jusqu’à déclarer que le pays avait « perdu le contrôle » du nombre d’étudiants étrangers au pays, mais que cet état de fait était la responsabilité des provinces, dont certaines tolèrent la présence sur leur territoire de ce qu’il a appelé des « puppy mills ». En français, il s’agit d’« usines à chiots ». Il parle de ces écoles privées qui sont des usines à diplômes de qualité incertaine, délivrés dans un temps record à des étudiants pour beaucoup venus de l’Inde et de la Chine, et qui leur donne, selon les généreuses règles en vigueur, un accès rapide à la citoyenneté.

Une des meilleures recettes de la mauvaise foi politique est d’identifier, à l’intérieur d’un problème majeur, un élément réel, mais secondaire, et de faire semblant qu’en s’y attaquant, on prend l’enjeu de front. Car, au fond, les membres du gouvernement Trudeau pensent-ils qu’avoir haussé à un demi-million par an le nombre d’immigrants permanents est excessif ? Non. 

« Les Canadiens sont presque unanimes dans leur appui à l’immigration. C’est un avantage extraordinaire. Nos seuils actuels d’immigration permanente sont ceux dont on a besoin pour notre économie », a déclaré sans rire Justin Trudeau. Tous les sondages récents démontrent au contraire que l’appui des Canadiens aux seuils d’immigration connaît une chute historique. Près des trois quarts jugent — avec sagesse — qu’il faut réduire les seuils au moins le temps que se résorbe la crise du logement. Si la tendance se maintient, il y aura bientôt unanimité.

Le festival du sophisme

Peut-être pense-t-il que les milieux d’affaires torontois, qui ont plaidé pendant des années pour une augmentation de l’immigration et qui alimentent sa caisse électorale, sont toujours avec lui. Pas selon leur Pravda, le Financial Post, qui résume ainsi le consensus ambiant : « La décision du premier ministre Justin Trudeau d’augmenter considérablement l’immigration […] sans fournir un soutien adéquat a créé une longue liste de problèmes économiques, notamment une inflation plus élevée et une faible productivité. » L’économiste en chef de la Banque TD, Beata Caranci, résume la chose ainsi : Trudeau « screwed up ». 

Comment le jugement du premier ministre peut-il être aussi éloigné du réel ? Les solutions, explique-t-il en empirant son cas, sont à portée de main : les 500 000 permanents par an peuvent trouver à se loger, prétend-il, pour peu que les universités dénichent des logements pour leurs étudiants internationaux et les entreprises pour leurs travailleurs temporaires. Il suffisait d’y penser. Car dans l’univers trudeauiste, il y a trois marchés distincts du logement. Incrédule ? Rappelons qu’on parle d’un homme qui, ayant obtenu pour ses vacances en Jamaïque un hébergement d’une valeur de 84 000 $, a déclaré que, « comme énormément de familles canadiennes, on est allés rester chez des amis pour les vacances de Noël ».

On s’ennuie du temps où il débitait des phrases creuses. Car ses nouvelles déclarations sont pires : fausses. Il continue à affirmer qu’il nous faut davantage d’immigration pour résoudre les pénuries de main-d’oeuvre. Mais puisque le Canada a reçu plus de deux millions d’arrivants en deux ans, ne devrions-nous pas avoir réglé le problème et être en surplus de main-d’oeuvre ? 

L’économiste Pierre Fortin a conclu de la revue de la littérature scientifique récente que cette conclusion « n’est rien d’autre qu’un gros sophisme ». Chaque immigrant qui pourvoit un emploi requiert la création d’un autre emploi pour lui fournir tous ses services. Idem pour la prétention que l’immigration nous enrichit (l’impact est non significatif) ou nous rajeunit (même résultat). On continue cependant à entendre politiciens, patrons et commentateurs répéter ces sornettes.

Pour entrer dans le détail, disons qu’il est vrai que, si on déverse un million de Chinois au Québec ayant chacun 1000 $ en poche, le PIB va croître d’un milliard. Si vous êtes un PIB, c’est la joie. Si vous n’êtes pas un PIB, c’est moins drôle. Et s’il s’agissait d’éviter un déclin démographique en maintenant la croissance récente de la population du Québec, le démographe Marc Termotte a conclu qu’il ne faudrait, pour ce faire, toutes catégories comprises, que 58 000 immigrants par année, plutôt que les 580 000 actuels — les 55 000 permanents et les 528 000 non permanents. Donc, le dixième.

Les sophismes sur les bienfaits de l’immigration ne seraient que du bruit de fond si les conséquences ne devenaient pas si graves, pour le logement, l’éducation — 1500 classes d’accueil supplémentaires au Québec — et, au bout du compte, l’explosion de l’itinérance.

Difficulté cognitive

Des esprits tordus prétendent que la difficulté cognitive des libéraux fédéraux en matière d’immigration tient à cette information, rapportée dans Le Soleil par Hélène Buzzetti : « À leur dernier congrès, le sondeur Dan Arnold a révélé que les électeurs nés à l’extérieur du Canada sont les plus susceptibles de voter libéral. Leur niveau d’appui au Parti libéral a dépassé celui des non-immigrants par 8 points à l’élection de 2015, par 13 points en 2019 et par 19 points en 2021 . » Réduire le flot d’entrées de cette manne électorale est un pensez-y bien, surtout pendant une traversée du désert.

François Legault a de son côté utilisé la formule Miller : identifier une partie du problème et faire comme s’il s’agissait de l’essentiel. Le trop-plein de demandeurs d’asile, écrit-il à Trudeau, ne peut plus durer. Certes. Mais Legault a toujours eu le loisir de limiter le nombre d’étudiants étrangers et de travailleurs temporaires sur son territoire. Il a choisi de ne pas le faire. Sa ministre Christine Fréchette se plaint qu’une bonne part des immigrants temporaires ne sont que du ressort d’Ottawa. Mais c’est parce qu’elle refuse d’invoquer l’entente Canada-Québec sur l’immigration pour exiger d’en avoir le contrôle.

C’est le malheur particulier des Québécois d’être en ce moment gouvernés à Ottawa par des trudeauistes qui prennent leurs lubies de grandeur postnationales pour des vérités et à Québec par un premier ministre qui avouait en campagne électorale ne pas être « un génie en herbe de l’immigration ». Cela paraît.

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon a beau jeu de pousser ce cortège de sophistes dans leurs contradictions, et d’éclairer combien la passivité de la Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) est navrante et combien le projet canadien est contraire, non seulement à nos intérêts, mais à la simple bonne gestion de nos affaires. Il semble être le seul à comprendre la gravité de l’enjeu. Il mérite donc, pour cette semaine, le prix Isaac Newton.

Source: L’immigration et la loi de la gravité

Few immigrant applicants to Canadian military get enlisted: Report

Of note:

Efforts by Canada’s military to recruit new immigrants have been futile.

In fact, a December 2023 briefing note for Defence Minister Bill Blair said only 77 applicants out of thousands of permanent residents successfully enlisted, according to Blacklock’s Reporter.

“Between November 1, 2022 and November 24, 2023, the Canadian Armed Forces received 21,472 applications from permanent residents,” said the note Recruitment Of Permanent Residents. “Seventy-seven permanent residents have been enrolled.”

In 2022, the military altered regulations that promised a quicker path to citizenship for landed immigrants if they enlisted as soldiers, sailors and air crew.

Despite the more favourable regulation changes, the note cited lengthy security checks with the abysmal number of successful recruits during that timeframe.

“There are important and necessary measures which need to be completed such as security checks and medical evaluations,” said the note. “As well the validation of security clearances generally takes longer for permanent residents.”

Due to a 35% decline in recruitment numbers in 2022 — from 8,069 to 5,242 volunteers — the military turned to foreigners who had army training to fill the gap.

“The Canadian Forces recruiting group accepts trained applicants from foreign militaries,” said the note. “These applicants include pilots, logistics officers, infantry officers and other skilled professionals who may become enrolled in the Canadian Armed Forces if they have permanent resident status in Canada. This enables other permanent residents who meet the same criteria as Canadian citizens to enroll in the Canadian Armed Forces as new recruits or officer cadets.”

The military says at minimum 60,500 fully trained full-time members are required while also setting a goal of reaching 68,000 military forces.

Source: Few immigrant applicants to Canadian military get enlisted: Report

Canadian universities raise alarm over international student visa cap 

No surprise and self-serving for the most part:

Canadian postsecondary schools are warning that a federal cap on international student visas could have unintended consequences that will hurt institutions under financial strain and risk damaging the country’s image as a study destination.

…

Larissa Bezo, president of the Canadian Bureau for International Education, said Ottawa must avoid what she called “simplistic, short-term solutions” that would damage Canada’s reputation as a welcoming, attractive country to international students. [as if the current policies are not already doing so]

Source: Canadian universities raise alarm over international student visa cap

Keller: How the Liberals can fix the immigration system that they broke

Generally reasonable proposals but unlikely that the government will be courageous (or desperate) enough to rescind some of its policies that have resulted in the shift of public attitudes being more critical of immigration levels:

Step One: Greatly reduce the number of student visas….

Step Two: Restrict the temporary foreign worker stream to a small number of high-end jobs, not millions of low-paying jobs….

Step Three: Rely on the points system to decide on who gets permanent residency. Again, we should be prioritizing immigrants with high skills and educations, and the best shots at earning higher incomes than the average Canadian. …

Step Four: Control the border. A wide and welcoming door, paired with high walls, was an unspoken basis of the Canadian immigration consensus. It was well understood by previous governments, Liberal and Conservative alike….

Liberal brain trust, the choice is yours.

You can restore the national consensus by fixing the parts of the immigration system you broke. Or you can stay the course – which won’t be good for the economy, productivity, housing, higher education, inequality or national unity, but which may give you a wedge issue for the next election.

You can fix the problem, but lose the wedge. Or you can wait for the Conservatives to criticize your immigration mess, and then you can try to weaponize that criticism, turning a practical question of how to run the immigration system for the benefit of Canadians into a moral issue, in which any questioning of your immigration policy and levels will be defined, by you, as racist.

For the sake of the country, choose the first course.

Source: How the Liberals can fix the immigration system that they broke

Globe editorial reinforces some of this points, with the following punchline:

As Mr. Miller has seemingly recognized, the immigration system has indeed spun out of control. Quick action is needed to restore its stability: not in coming months, but now.

Source: The Liberals’ half-measures won’t fix a broken immigration system

Douglas Todd: Ottawa insider warns about immigrant-investor schemes – Vancouver Sun

Wise warning (disclosure: I am friends of some of those quoted):

An adviser within Canada’s immigration department is warning about the dangers of entry programs that favour entrepreneurs, given the failure of earlier initiatives.

The internal cautions come at the same time the immigration department, which has been under fire from top bank economists for damaging the economy by bringing in a record 1.25 million permanent and temporary residents in a year, is expanding another program that gives preference to would-be entrepreneurs.

The internal government memo, obtained by Vancouver lawyer Richard Kurland under an access-to-information request, reveals how an adviser to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) warned that a variety of earlier immigrant-business programs suffered widespread abuse — resulting in a trivial number of new businesses being opened in Canada, and other problems.

The defunct schemes that targeted wealthy foreign nationals, which the correspondents generally refer to as “business-class programs,” opened the gates to a flood of foreign capital moving into Canadian housing, says the adviser. That raised prices, especially in cities such as Vancouver and Toronto. In addition, the internal email thread alerts decision makers to the way many entrepreneur immigrants ended up paying low amounts of income tax.

The in-house memo comes to light in the same month the Canadian Press reported the IRCC was internally warned two years ago that increasing immigration levels would harm housing affordability and services. A Nanos poll also finds support for migration has in less than a year plunged 20 percentage points, with 53 per cent now wanting fewer immigrants.

The group email shared by top immigration department officials, titled “The strange story of Vancouver,” reveals just how badly things went with the earlier schemes, specifically the longstanding immigrant-investor and entrepreneur programs, which were poorly monitored.

The email thread shows that senior officials in March of last year were working “under the radar” to expand similar business-class schemes, particularly the so-called Start-Up Visa (SUV) program, to welcome more would-be entrepreneurs into the country who have the “potential” to start a new business.

However, when the directors sought advice from Daniel Hiebert, a former UBC geography professor who is now working in the department’s strategic planning section, he said the earlier programs led to only 15 per cent of business-class immigrants actually starting a business.

“Ouch,” Hiebert says in the email, explaining how most of the business-class newcomers failed to start a new company even though their status as permanent residents was supposedly contingent on it.

The Conservatives disbanded the immigrant investor and entrepreneur programs in 2014, openly saying the people who came in through them were generally not having a long-term positive impact on the country, not bringing in significant investment capital for business, had low ability in Canada’s official languages, were tending not to stay in the country, and were paying far lower taxes than the average skilled worker.

Even many of those entrepreneurs who did begin a business through the old program dropped it after two years, said Hiebert. “They started businesses to meet requirements and then later let them go.”

Hiebert said, as far as he knows, not one of those entrepreneur-class immigrants ever had their permanent resident status revoked.

Furthermore, Hiebert explained how many of those business-class immigrants who bought expensive houses in the city tended to pay low mortgages and low income taxes.

“This is still the case,” Hiebert wrote. “The story is that many of the residents of these areas came through business-class programs with the intent to retire and live a comfortable lifestyle.”

After initially transferring their money out of their country of origin, typically somewhere in East Asia, Hiebert wrote, most purchased a house “along with a Mercedes, Audi or whatever. And then life is lived quite simply, on a small budget and with little owing in terms of income tax. The kids get to go to UBC or SFU while paying domestic fees, which is a big bonus.”

Hiebert concludes his March, 2023, memo by saying, “I think it’s time to review the economic outcomes of the Start-Up Visa program and I suspect they will show more of the same.”

At one point in the email thread, Umit Kiziltan, director general of the IRCC, said the “burning questions” that Hiebert raised required the “outmost (sic) attention” while the department evaluates whether to expand the Start-Up Visa program and others aimed at wealthy immigrants.

Also included in the thread are Maggie Pastorek, director of policy, and James McNamee, senior director in the economic immigration branch.

The group email includes a discussion of a study covered in a Postmedia article from 2022, which shows how UBC business professor Thomas Davidoff and others discovered the owners of Greater Vancouver homes with a median value of $3.7 million pay income taxes of just $15,800 — which is exceedingly low for North American cities.

“Most luxury homes in Greater Vancouver appear to be purchased with wealth derived from sources other than earnings taxed in Canada,” said Davidoff’s study, which confirmed earlier research by Statistics Canada and Hiebert himself.

Several years ago, StatCan and Hiebert found the average value of a detached house bought by more than 4,400 millionaire immigrants who came to Metro Vancouver under the investor program was $3.2 million. That compared to an average of $1.5 million for a Canadian-born owner.

While working at UBC, Hiebert’s studies also found a correlation between neighbourhoods with large foreign-born populations and neighbourhoods that appear to have unusually low taxable incomes, despite their inflated housing prices, such as Richmond and Vancouver’s west side.

Based on the documents provided in response to an access-to-information request by Vancouver immigration lawyer Richard Kurland, it is not clear how the internal discussion affected later decisions the Liberal government made about its Start-Up Visa program

Last year, however, Ottawa scaled up the annual intake of the Start-Up Visa program from 2022, when it offered 1,000 spots. The program’s intake rose to 3,500 last year and is set to bring in 5,000 this year and 6,000 in 2025.

Immigration department officials did not respond by deadline.

Source: Douglas Todd: Ottawa insider warns about immigrant-investor schemes

Immigration Minister urged to crack down on international student ‘no shows’ at colleges

All the negligence on the part of federal and provincial governments, education institutions and others for having enabled this degree of fraud and, in many cases, exploitation.

Likely worth looking into ownership of these private colleges to assess whether any degree of political complicity or corruption involved:

The International Student Compliance Regime, implemented in 2014, is designed to help identify bogus students and help provinces identify questionable schools.

Most of the colleges on IRCC’s top ten list of schools with the highest potential non-compliance rates are privately run and in Ontario, catering heavily to students from India.

The IRCC’s Student Integrity Analysis Report, dated November, 2021, found “no shows” to make up as much as 90 per cent of students at some private colleges. “No shows” are students with letters of acceptance, who should be enrolled but either did not confirm the acceptance, never attended class or suddenly stopped attending.

The Academy of Learning College in Toronto had a 95 per cent “overall potential student non compliance rate” among students, the report said. Ninety per cent of students were recorded as “no shows.”

The 2021 Student Integrity Analysis Report, obtained by immigration lawyer Richard Kurland through an access to information request, found that Flair College of Management and Technology in Vaughan, Ont., had a “no show” of 75 per cent of students.

Both colleges did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Kurland said the IRCC has known for years which colleges have large numbers of international students not attending classes but have so far failed to act on study permits.

He said the data suggest that some schools may have a business model based on bringing students into Canada and getting their tuition, even if the student doesn’t attend.

“The integrity of our International Students Program is of the utmost importance,” she said in an e-mail.

Source: Immigration Minister urged to crack down on international student ‘no shows’ at colleges

‘Breaking point’: Quebec premier asks Trudeau to slow influx of asylum seekers

Valid concerns but with respect to costs, Legault avoids discussing the disproportionate amount Quebec gets under the Canada Quebec accord that ensures Quebec gets a fixed percentage of settlement funding irrespective of the immigration share:

Quebec Premier François Legault is asking Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to slow the influx of asylum seekers entering his province, which he said is nearing a “breaking point.”

Legault made his request in an official letter to Trudeau sent Wednesday afternoon, a copy of which was obtained by The Canadian Press.

“We are very close to the breaking point due to the excessive number of asylum seekers arriving in Quebec month after month. The situation has become unsustainable,” Legault wrote.

He said that in 2022, Quebec took in more asylum seekers than the rest of the country combined.

The closure of the unofficial Roxham Road crossing point south of Montreal in 2023 “momentarily” slowed the flow, he said.

“However, the arrivals have continued to increase at airports. The number of people arriving on a visitor visa and applying for asylum is also increasing significantly.”

Nearly 60,000 new asylum seekers were registered in Quebec in the first 11 months of 2023, which has put “very significant pressure” on services, the premier writes.

“Asylum seekers have trouble finding a place to live, which contributes to accentuating the housing crisis,” the letter said. “Many end up in homeless shelters, which are overflowing.”

He said organizations that help asylum seekers can’t keep up with demand. Legault said the children of asylum seekers are also straining schools that already have a shortage of teachers and space.

The premier reminded Trudeau that asylum seekers who are waiting for work permits receive financial assistance from Quebec. Last October, some 43,200 asylum seekers received $33 million in aid.

Legault expressed particular concern over Mexican nationals, who he said represent a growing proportion of the asylum seekers coming to the province.

“The possibility of entering Canada from Mexico without a visa certainly explains part of the influx of asylum seekers,” he said.

“The airports, particularly in Toronto and Montreal, are becoming sieves and it is time to act,” he added.

Legault is formally asking the prime minister to tighten its policies around granting visas. He’s also seeking the “equitable” distribution of asylum seekers across Canada, possibly by busing them to other provinces.

Source: ‘Breaking point’: Quebec premier asks Trudeau to slow influx of asylum seekers

Sean Speer: Trudeau’s empty-calories economic agenda is failing Canada

Of note:

The key point here is that even if one is motivated by normative commitments to reducing inequality in our society, the answer isn’t to neglect the imperative of intensive growth. A policy agenda that sought to boost business investment and innovation in the name of increasing overall wealth wouldn’t necessarily involve a major equity trade-off. Higher GDP per capita growth is ultimately key to boosting living standards for all Canadian households.

The bigger point though is that the Trudeau government’s experiment with an extensive growth agenda rooted in high immigration and high public spending has manifestly failed to produce positive results. It may have staved off a technical recession, but it has contributed to deep recessionary conditions for Canadian living standards that are having far-reaching socio-political consequences including heightened pessimism about the future among ordinary citizens.

This growing realization has led to renewed debate about Canadian immigration policy. That’s a healthy development. We need to restore a more responsible policy that sets reasonable targets and reprioritizes high-skilled immigrants. Pierre Poilievre deserves political credit for taking a big step in this direction.

But that’s a necessary yet insufficient response to what ails Canada’s economic life. What we ultimately need is to replace the Trudeau government’s empty-calories economic agenda with a healthier mix of pro-growth policies to boost investment, productivity, and living standards.

source: Sean Speer: Trudeau’s empty-calories economic agenda is failing Canada