Kay: Liberalism’s Lonely-Hearts Club

2025/12/15 Leave a comment

Good calling out of the hypocrisy of the anti-woke when it comes to their betrayal of liberal beliefs in the age of authoritarian Trump and his policies:

…While Quillette’s liberal editorial mission has never really changed, executing it became more complicated during the COVID pandemic—especially once vaccinesbecame available. When heated and pressurised under lockdown, the same sort of free-thinking scepticism that fuels heterodox political thought, it turns out, can readily blur into conspiracism and junk science. A prominent example is Bret Weinstein, the one-time Quillette academic darling who began telling Americans that COVID vaccines had, according to one “credible estimate,” caused “something like 17 million deaths globally.” (In fact, the figure represents a passable ballpark estimate of the number of lives that such vaccines have saved.)

Even in ultra-progressive Canada, where this sort of conspiracism is less common, I’ve seen a number of prominent anti-wokesters go down similar rabbit holes. And though it’s been years since the pandemic ended, not all of them have found their way back to the surface. 

Following a recent speech I gave to a free-thinking Toronto crowd, the organiser felt moved to explain to attendees that it was important to hear “diverse views.” This was a diplomatic reference to my (poorly received) observation that many self-described heterodox intellectuals who cheer on my opposition to trans-activist pseudoscience will also insist (falsely) that COVID vaccines don’t work and (also falsely) that anthropogenic global warming is a myth. Science isn’t a buffet where you get to pick and choose what proven truths to accept, I told them. Few in the crowd looked convinced.

Another major schism within our liberal movement has centred on Donald Trump and conservative populism more generally. Trump’s second presidency, in particular, has accelerated the ongoing process by which critics of progressive illiberalism have been self-organising into two separate camps—(1) one that continues to oppose illiberalism of all flavours (that’s us), and (2) another that’s just fine with authoritarian political creeds, so long as the authoritarians come from the conservative side of the aisle.

If the goal is to get rid of DEI and throw men off women’s college sports teams, members of this latter Trump-friendly faction reason, why bother with the hard intellectual slog of staging “heterodox” academic conferences and writing long essays about Martin Luther King Jr., Areopagitica, and the nature of human sexual biology? Just elect a strongman who tells university presidents and athletic directors what to do, on pain of losing their government cash. Problem solved.

…While the University of Austin is just one institution, it serves as a bellwether of the whole anti-woke project more generally—having been conceived as a sort of model liberal project by some of the leading lights of this movement. Its board of trustees includes historian Niall Ferguson and journalist Bari Weiss, while the board of advisors boasts Eric Kaufmann, economists Glenn Loury and Tyler Cowen, and famed evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. Harvard professor Steven Pinker was also an early advisor; as was social scientist Jonathan Haidt (a founder of the staunchly liberal-minded Heterodox Academy)—though both have since departed. Every one of these people has been featured by Quillette at one time or another, either as author or podcast guest. It says a lot about the stormy seas that liberals now face that even a once-impeccably liberal organisation such as this can begin listing to starboard just four years out of the shipyard.

I find these developments not just politically disturbing, but also personally disappointing. Not so long ago, I imagined that the coalition of plucky liberal gadflies that began countering illiberal progressivism at around the time I began working for Quillette could be sustained indefinitely—and perhaps even solidify into a durable movement that would become my long-term political home. (I’ve never had one, and it would be nice if I finally did.) But that’s now been exposed as an exercise in wishful thinking.

O’Sullivan’s Law and Quillette’s Law (I promise that’s the last time I’ll use the phrase) both describe ideologically centrifugal forces—driving people away, in opposite directions, from the liberal democratic baseline that I’d always taken for granted as the natural resting point for mainstream intellectual life. Battling against illiberalism from both sides at the same time can feel like a lonely and hopeless intellectual project. But absent the emergence of some third law that will deliver me from my labours, I see no principled alternative.

Source: Liberalism’s Lonely-Hearts Club

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Bouchard | Questions de laïcité à M. Legault

2025/12/15 Leave a comment

Bouchard still going strong with his pointed critique:

Des restrictions non justifiées. Le nouveau projet de loi sur la laïcité contient des mesures bienvenues, notamment la fin des exemptions en faveur des écoles privées. Mais d’autres mesures font problème parce que leur justification n’est pas démontrée. Où sont les études qui précisent le nombre d’éducatrices en CPE et en garderies subventionnées qui portent le hidjab ? Ou des études qui établissent que cette pratique perturbe les enfants ? Qui dénombrent les femmes exerçant leurs activités à visage couvert dans les institutions publiques ? Qui évaluent rigoureusement l’ampleur du problème des prières en public ?

Vous dites, Monsieur Legault, qu’il vaut mieux prévenir que guérir. La religion musulmane au Québec serait donc un fléau en dormance ? Et la bonne façon de s’en protéger serait de resserrer des mesures déjà très restrictives ? Vous ne craignez pas de favoriser ainsi ce que vous prétendez prévenir ?

Un terrain mal connu. Contre quoi précisément entendez-vous nous protéger ? Voit-on les signes d’un grave problème islamiste au Québec ? Observe-t-on des manifestations de haine, des mouvements de rue, de la violence ? Que savons-nous exactement de la situation, de l’humeur de cette minorité ? De l’état de la foi et de la pratique ? De son attitude envers l’intégration ? Des tendances qui la traversent ou la divisent ? Est-elle aussi homogène que vous le croyez ? Que savons-nous de ses dispositions envers notre société ? Sont-elles marquées par l’agressivité, le retranchement ? Je parle ici de connaissances et non de stéréotypes ou de rumeurs nées d’épisodes montés en épingle.

Pourtant, en cette matière tout particulièrement, il importerait de bien connaître le terrain sur lequel vous intervenez. Ce n’est pas le cas. Vous vous laissez guider surtout par la boussole électorale.

Des contradictions. Votre démarche est plombée par des contradictions qui révèlent un étrange bricolage. En voici deux exemples. Les signes religieux et les lieux de prière sont interdits dans les universités. Cependant, une chapelle catholique située sur le campus de l’Université Laval restera ouverte. Motif ? Ce serait un « milieu de vie » isolé à l’image des prisons et des CHSLD ! S’il s’agissait d’une petite mosquée, aurait-elle droit à la même indulgence ?

Votre gouvernement entend légiférer dans les écoles privées à vocation religieuse. Mais en respectant quelques conditions, elles continueront néanmoins à être financées par l’État (coût en 2024 : 160 millions de dollars, ce que M. Drainville a fièrement qualifié de « compromis historique »). Ici, c’est donc l’ensemble de l’école qui sera elle-même religieuse. Où est la logique ?

De la retenue. Notre société a été jusqu’ici épargnée par les conflits religieux. Mais la réalité internationale enseigne que le sujet doit être traité avec prudence et lucidité. Il faut se garder d’initiatives dont on n’a mesuré ni la pertinence ni le potentiel d’effets nocifs.

Élargissons la perspective. Des études québécoises montrent que la majorité des immigrants désirent s’intégrer et nourrissent une vision favorable de notre société. Mais ces travaux semblent ignorés. J’ai à l’esprit la déclaration d’un de vos ministres de l’Immigration se désolant de ce que les immigrants refusent de travailler, méprisent nos valeurs, rejettent le français, etc.

Cette vision reflète-t-elle la réalité ? Donne-t-elle le goût du Québec ? Inspire-t-elle confiance en votre gouvernement ?

De l’inconséquence. Sous prétexte de fermeté et de vigilance, ne craignez-vous pas de faire mal au Québec en semant les graines d’un vrai problème qui mettrait un grand désordre dans notre vie collective ? Avez-vous une pensée pour la réaction des jeunes musulmans d’aujourd’hui quand ils auront pris conscience des effets que vos politiques à courte vue auront provoqués ? Curieusement, votre projet de loi est pourtant présenté sous l’affiche de la « paix sociale » — j’ai lu aussi : « apaiser le climat social ». Étrange médecine. Et ce climat serait donc présentement turbulent ?

Monsieur Legault, vous avez opté pour la méthode forte avec votre laïcité répressive. Peut-être pourriez-vous jeter un coup d’œil du côté de la France pour voir ce qu’il en est ? On constate aujourd’hui chez les jeunes musulmans français qu’au lieu de s’intégrer, ils se replient sur un islam plus radical que celui de leurs parents.

Il y a plus. Selon des études fiables, un grand nombre de jeunes écoliers québécois manifestent beaucoup d’ouverture en matière de diversité ethnique et religieuse. Comment réagiront-ils à vos initiatives ? Leur disposition sera-t-elle ébranlée ? Vous apprêtez-vous à compromettre une importante avancée de notre système scolaire ?

Une phobie du religieux. Je ne comprends pas pourquoi il faut interdire le port du hidjab à une étudiante universitaire, une adulte agissant selon des convictions profondes, en conformité avec le droit consacré par notre charte et qui ne porte préjudice à personne — sauf à ceux et celles que la seule vue d’un signe religieux indispose. C’est pour moi l’exemple le plus frappant d’une violation arbitraire d’un droit fondamental. Réalisez-vous que, ce faisant, vous encouragez l’hostilité non seulement envers les signes religieux, mais envers le religieux lui-même ? Et ce n’est pas un n’est pas un croyant qui vous en fait reproche, c’est un athée tout simplement respectueux du droit.

J’ai peine aussi à comprendre que les manifestations et rassemblements publics à caractère social, culturel ou politique sont admis, mais non ceux qui ont une connotation religieuse. Cet interdit ne relève-t-il pas d’une phobie du religieux, tout comme l’interdiction du hidjab chez les éducatrices de la petite enfance ?

Et tout ça, pour quoi au fond ? Pour tenter de refaire votre image en vue de la prochaine élection ? Cet objectif justifierait les sensibilités que vous allez heurter, les préjugés que vous allez remuer, les divisions que vous risquez de créer ?

Apparemment, « c’est comme ça qu’on fonctionne au Québec ». Et les droits ? Ils ne feraient pas partie de notre fonctionnement eux aussi ?

Éviter l’autre extrême. Cela dit, évitons tout malentendu. Il faut évidemment se garder de la naïveté. Je crois que des garde-fous s’imposent — nous l’avons vu dans le cas de l’école Bedford. Mais leur mise en place doit être arbitrée par la mesure, la clairvoyance et la sagesse.

Source: Idées | Questions de laïcité à M. Legault

Unjustified restrictions. The new bill on secularism contains welcome measures, including the end of exemptions for private schools. But other measures are problematic because their justification is not demonstrated. Where are the studies that specify the number of educators in CPE and subsidized daycare centers who wear the hijab? Or studies that establish that this practice disturbs children? Who counts women carrying out their activities with their faces covered in public institutions? Who rigorously assess the extent of the problem of public prayers?

You say, Mr. Legault, that prevention is better than cure. Would the Muslim religion in Quebec therefore be a dormant scourge? And the right way to protect yourself from it would be to tighten already very restrictive measures? Are you not afraid to favor what you claim to prevent?

A poorly known terrain. What exactly do you intend to protect us against? Do we see signs of a serious Islamist problem in Quebec? Do we observe manifestations of hatred, street movements, violence? What exactly do we know about the situation, the mood of this minority? The state of faith and practice? Of his attitude towards integration? Trends that cross it or divide it? Is it as homogeneous as you think? What do we know about his dispositions towards our society? Are they marked by aggressiveness, entrenchment? I’m talking here about acquaintances and not stereotypes or rumors born of episodes edited in pins.

However, in this matter in particular, it would be important to know the field in which you intervene. This is not the case. You let yourself be guided above all by the electoral compass.

Contradictions. Your approach is weighed down by contradictions that reveal a strange DIY. Here are two examples. Religious signs and places of prayer are prohibited in universities. However, a Catholic chapel located on the Université Laval campus will remain open. Reason? It would be an isolated “liveing environment” like prisons and CHSLDs! If it were a small mosque, would it be entitled to the same indulgence?

Your government intends to legislate in private schools with a religious vocation. But by meeting some conditions, they will nevertheless continue to be financed by the State (cost in 2024: $160 million, which Mr. Drainville proudly described it as a “historic compromise”). Here, it is therefore the whole school that will itself be religious. Where is the logic?

Restraint. Our society has so far been spared from religious conflicts. But the international reality teaches that the subject must be treated with caution and lucidity. We must beware of initiatives whose relevance or potential for harmful effects has not been measured.

Let’s expand the perspective. Quebec studies show that the majority of immigrants want to integrate and have a favorable view of our society. But this work seems to be ignored. I have in mind the statement of one of your Ministers of Immigration regretting that immigrants refuse to work, despise our values, reject French, etc.

Does this vision reflect reality? Does it give the taste of Quebec? Does it inspire confidence in your government?

Inconsistency. Under the pretext of firmness and vigilance, aren’t you afraid of hurting Quebec by sowing the seeds of a real problem that would put a great mess in our collective life? Do you have a thought for the reaction of today’s young Muslims when they become aware of the effects that your short-sighted policies will have caused? Curiously, your bill is nevertheless presented under the poster of “social peace” – I also read: “appease the social climate”. Strange medicine. And this climate would therefore be turbulent at the moment?

Mr. Legault, you have opted for the strong method with your repressive secularism. Maybe you could take a look at France to see what’s going on? We see today among young French Muslims that instead of integrating, they fall back on a more radical Islam than that of their parents.

There is more. According to reliable studies, a large number of young Quebec schoolchildren show a lot of openness in terms of ethnic and religious diversity. How will they react to your initiatives? Will their disposition be shaken? Are you about to compromise an important advance in our school system?

A phobia of the religious. I do not understand why the wearing of the hijab should be prohibited to a university student, an adult acting according to deep convictions, in accordance with the law enshrined in our charter and who does not harm anyone – except those whom the mere sight of a religious sign indisposed. For me, this is the most striking example of an arbitrary violation of a fundamental right. Do you realize that, in doing so, you encourage hostility not only towards religious signs, but towards the religious himself? And it is not a believer who reproaches you, it is simply an atheist who respects the law.

I also find it difficult to understand that public demonstrations and gatherings of a social, cultural or political nature are allowed, but not those with a religious connotation. Isn’t this prohibition a phobia of the religious, just like the prohibition of the hijab among early childhood educators?

And all this, for what basically? To try to remake your image for the next election? Would this objective justify the sensitivities that you will offend, the prejudices that you will stir, the divisions that you risk creating?

Apparently, “that’s how we work in Quebec”. And the rights? Wouldn’t they be part of our operation too?

Avoid the other extreme. That said, let’s avoid any misunderstanding. We must obviously beware of naivety. I believe that safeguards are necessary – we have seen it in the case of Bedford School. But their implementation must be arbitrated by measure, foresight and wisdom.

Filed under Interculturalisme, Laïcité, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Government retreats on Victims of Communism memorial names in aftermath of Nazi controversy

2025/12/12 Leave a comment

Of note:

The controversial Victims of Communism memorial in downtown Ottawa will no longer feature the names of specific individuals after federal officials determined a significant number could be linked to the Nazis.

The memorial, located near the corner of Wellington and Bay streets, was intended to honour those who suffered under communism.

But concerns have been raised over the years by Jewish organizations and historians that names of eastern Europeans who collaborated with the Nazis in the Holocaust have been put forward in an attempt to whitewash their past.

The Ottawa Citizen reported in 2024 that the Department of Canadian Heritage was told by historians that more than half of the 550 names to be inscribed on the Memorial to the Victims of Communism should be removed. The reason was because of potential links to the Nazis or questions about affiliations with fascist groups.

As originally planned, there were to be 553 entries on the memorial’s Wall of Remembrance.

Canadian Heritage has now reversed course on inscribing specific names. “The Government of Canada has emphasized that all aspects of the Memorial to the Victims of Communism must align with Canadian values of democracy and human rights,” department spokesperson Caroline Czajkowski said in an email. “The Wall of Remembrance will now solely feature thematic content that conveys the broader commemorative and educational intent of the Memorial.”

Czajkowski noted “there is currently no set timeline for the completion of the thematic content.”

She declined to say what exactly the department meant by “thematic content.”

But federal documents show that government officials had suggested one way out of the controversy over the Nazi names would be to drop honouring specific individuals and instead focus on various themes or points of history. Those could include events such as the fall of the Berlin Wall and the arrival of the Vietnamese refugees to Canada….

Source: Government retreats on Victims of Communism memorial names in aftermath of Nazi controversy

Filed under Historical Recognition, Multiculturalism Tagged with

Le Devoir Éditorial | Une réforme au succès incertain [religious hate speech exception] and related commentary

2025/12/12 Leave a comment

We will see how this works in practice and whether it is enforced:

Heurter des convictions, des croyances ou des visions du monde, c’est le propre de la liberté d’expression. C’est par la réprobation sociale, et non le risque de poursuite et d’emprisonnement, qu’une société démocratique respectueuse de l’équilibre entre les droits fondamentaux vient à bout des discours fiévreux et orageux.

Le Bloc québécois a souvent demandé aux libéraux d’en faire plus pour que la foi ne soit plus utilisée comme une excuse pour tenir des propos haineux. La formation s’appuyait notamment sur l’aversion suscitée par les propos d’un prédicateur incendiaire, Adil Charkaoui, qui implorait le Tout-Puissant de se charger des « sionistes agresseurs », au lendemain de l’invasion de la bande de Gaza par l’armée israélienne. « Assure-toi de n’en laisser aucun », disait-il. Il en appelait aussi à « recenser et exterminer » tous les « ennemis du peuple de Gaza ». Le Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales (DPCP) n’y avait pas trouvé matière à déposer des accusations.

Les débordements et les excès de langage qui ont accompagné les manifestations pro-palestiennes, en particulier sur les campus universitaires, ont grandement influencé la teneur du débat entourant le projet de loi visant à lutter contre la haine. L’affichage de signes ou de symboles associés à des groupes inscrits sur la liste des entités terroristes sera désormais passible de poursuites, au même titre que le blocage des lieux de culte. La montée en force de l’antisémitisme a de quoi inquiéter, et elle doit être dénoncée avec vigueur.

La fin de l’exception religieuse dans le Code criminel marquera sûrement une nouvelle ère, et suivra une nouvelle jurisprudence de la Cour suprême, ultime arbitre de ces questions. Qui sait ce que le DPCP ferait des propos de Charkaoui avec ces nouvelles balises à sa disposition ?

Il n’en demeure pas moins qu’il y a des risques à baisser le seuil en vertu duquel un discours peut être qualifié comme haineux. C’est une porte ouverte à disposer de la question selon l’humeur politique du moment. La loi procurera de nouveaux outils d’intervention aux forces policières, mais seront-elles outillées pour s’en servir ? Départager la véritable haine de la croyance religieuse abêtie, dans ce nouveau contexte, exigera une analyse minutieuse. L’épreuve de la réalité viendra assez vite, car la véritable mesure de succès d’une loi (et son utilité) réside dans la capacité des pouvoirs publics de la faire respecter, sans engendrer de situations arbitraires.

Source: Éditorial | Une réforme au succès incertain

To hit convictions, beliefs or visions of the world is the characteristic of freedom of expression. It is through social reprobation, and not the risk of prosecution and imprisonment, that a democratic society that respects the balance between fundamental rights overcomes feverish and stormy speeches.

The Bloc Québécois has often asked liberals to do more so that faith is no longer used as an excuse for making hate speech. The formation was based in particular on the aversion aroused by the words of an incendiary preacher, Adil Charkaoui, who implored the Almighty to take charge of the “Aggressive Sionists”, the day after the invasion of the Gaza Strip by the Israeli army. ” Make sure you don’t leave any,” he said. He also called for the “identification and extermination” of all the “enemies of the people of Gaza”. The Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP) had not found reason to file charges.

The overflows and excesses of language that accompanied the pro-Palestian demonstrations, especially on university campuses, greatly influenced the content of the debate surrounding the bill to combat hatred. The display of signs or symbols associated with groups on the list of terrorist entities will now be subject to prosecution, as will the blocking of places of worship. The rise of anti-Semitism is worrying, and it must be vigorously denounced.

The end of the religious exception in the Criminal Code will surely mark a new era, and will follow a new jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of these issues. Who knows what the DPCP would do about Charkaoui’s remarks with these new beacons at its disposal?

Nevertheless, there are risks to lower the threshold by virtue of which a speech can be described as hateful. It is an open door to dispose of the question according to the political mood of the moment. The law will provide new intervention tools for police forces, but will they be equipped to use them? Parting the true hatred of the dazed religious belief, in this new context, will require a careful analysis. The test of reality will come quite quickly, because the real measure of success of a law (and its usefulness) lies in the ability of the public authorities to enforce it, without generating arbitrary situations.

Lisée, Les amis de la haine:

Ailleurs dans le monde, des officiers religieux sont accusés, et parfois condamnés, pour ce genre de propos. En Belgique, au Danemark, en France, en Allemagne, en Suisse, pasteurs et imams savent que la tenue de propos extrêmes, même dans leurs temples, même en citant leurs dieux, peut avoir des conséquences, non seulement pour les cibles de leur haine, mais aussi pour leur propre liberté. Partout, ils peuvent plaider la liberté d’expression et la liberté de religion. Partout, les juges doivent mettre ces libertés dans la balance. Pas au Canada. Au Canada, l’exception sert de bouclier impénétrable pour la haine religieuse.

Elle n’est pas fréquente. En fait, rarissime. Élevé dans le catholicisme, je n’ai jamais entendu un curé citer les passages de la Bible susmentionnés. Les textes sacrés offrent aux célébrants le choix des thèmes, et la plupart choisissent d’en tirer des appels à la fraternité, à la compassion et à l’entraide. C’est pourquoi nous avons des religions apaisées. Mais aux religieux qui ne le sont pas, je ne vois pas pourquoi on donnerait le bon Dieu sans confession.

Elsewhere in the world, religious officers are accused, and sometimes convicted, for this kind of statement. In Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Switzerland, pastors and imams know that holding extreme remarks, even in their temples, even by quoting their gods, can have consequences, not only for the targets of their hatred, but also for their own freedom. Everywhere, they can plead for freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Everywhere, judges must put these freedoms in the balance. Not in Canada. In Canada, the exception serves as an impenetrable shield for religious hatred.

It is not frequent. In fact, very rare. Raised in Catholicism, I have never heard a parish priest quote the aforementioned passages of the Bible. The sacred texts offer the celebrants the choice of themes, and most choose to draw calls for brotherhood, compassion and mutual help. That’s why we have peaceful religions. But to the religious who are not, I do not see why we would give the good God without confession.

John Ivison: How I changed my mind about the Liberals ending religious exemptions for hate speech

Baber’s impassioned performance at the justice committee made the case that stripping the religious defence was more likely to criminalize faith than combat hate.

He pointed out that the religious defence has never been used to acquit a defendant accused of public incitement of hatred. “When we start going down the road of criminalizing more and more speech, we kill free speech,” he said.

The Bloc amendment was aimed at separating religion from the state. But Baber said “everyday Canadians” should not have to fear quoting religious scripture. “That is definitely not something the state should engage in.”

He said the problem the Bloc is trying to solve in the Criminal Code does not exist.

Baber pointed out that the religious defence does not apply to the Section 318 of the Criminal Code on advocating genocide. Nor does it apply to the public incitement of hatred.

Proponents of removing the religious defence have pointed to controversial imam Adil Charkaoui who at a pro-Palestinian rally in Quebec in 2023 made a call “to kill the enemies of the people of Gaza” and “take care of Zionist aggressors.” However, the decision not to charge Charkaoui turned on the basic threshold of incitement to hatred, not on the religious defence.

“I’m so tired that there is no nuance in this place,” Baber told the committee.

“For goodness sakes, look at how much money we’re spending and there’s no professional thought. We’ve got to inject a little bit more professionalism into politics.

“You don’t need a fancy lawyer, you need someone to read the section. The problem you (the Bloc) are trying to solve does not exist. You cannot defend yourself with a religious exemption after inciting hatred or inciting violence. I implore you to please not do this.”

But, of course, the Liberals and the Bloc teamed up, and they did.

My takeaway from the gruelling hours of testimony at the committee was that the government made a Faustian bargain to gain passage of their bill.

They won, but it was not a clean win.

The removal of the religious exemption may well prove to be an assault on freedom of expression if misused, and its impact will have to be watched closely.

The Liberals will claim victory but if they rack up more wins like this, they will be ruined.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , , ,

StatsCan: Portrait of the South Asian populations in Canada

2025/12/09 Leave a comment

Another in StatsCan population portraits:

South Asian populations in Canada nearly quadrupled from 1996 to 2021

In 2021, South Asian populations were the largest racialized group in Canada, numbering nearly 2.6 million people and representing 7.1% of Canada’s total population. This was nearly four times as large as the size of the South Asian populations 25 years earlier, in 1996, when they numbered 669,060 people and made up 2.4% of the population.

According to the latest population projections, South Asian populations in Canada could reach 4.7 million to 6.5 million people by 2041, which would make up 11.0% to 12.5% of the total population.

India is the most common place of birth of South Asian populations in Canada

Overall, approximately 6 in 10 South Asians in Canada in 2021 were born in Southern Asia, 3 in 10 were born in Canada and 1 in 10 were born in other regions of the world.

The most common country of birth for South Asian populations was India (44%), while the other main places of birth in South Asia were Pakistan (9%), Sri Lanka (5%) and Bangladesh (3%).

Other places of birth outside Canada included countries in other regions of Asia (such as the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan), Africa (such as Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda), the Caribbean and Central and South America (mainly Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago), Europe (mainly the United Kingdom), Oceania (mainly Fiji) and the United States (Table 1).

Among the 29% of South Asians who were born in Canada, the largest group was that of people whose parents were both born in India, followed by those whose parents were both born in Pakistan, both born in Sri Lanka and both born in Canada.

The majority of South Asian immigrants who immigrated from 1980 to 2021 are economic immigrants

Among South Asian immigrants living in Canada in 2021 who immigrated during the period from 1980 to 2021, the majority were economic immigrants (54%). This share was larger among those who had immigrated from 2011 to 2021 (69%) than among those who had immigrated from 1981 to 1990 (36%).

From 1980 to 2021, economic immigrants made up the majority of South Asian immigrants across many places of birth, including India (57%), Pakistan (56%) and Bangladesh (61%) (Chart 1). Meanwhile, South Asians born in Sri Lanka were mostly a mix of refugees (42%), immigrants sponsored by family (33%) and economic immigrants (21%)….

Source: Study: Portrait of the South Asian populations in Canada

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Diversity of candidates is fundamental to trust in political leadership

2025/12/08 Leave a comment

I think her arguments overstate concerns over candidate selection by ignoring the fact that the vast majority of candidates selected by the three major parities is visible minority majority ridings (i.e., those ridings with visible minorities forming more than 50 percent of the population) are in fact visible minorities themselves, over 80 percent in ridings with 70 percent visible minorities, over 40 percent in ridings with between 50 and 70 percent. Even in ridings with between 20 and 50 percent visible minorities, over 20 percent are visible minority candidates.

Of course, just like women candidates, visible minority candidates are more likely in non-competitive ridings:

…Party networks and the limits of recruitment

Part of the job of political parties is to select candidates who will win their seats and thus aid in the party’s quest for power.

However, party recruiters tend to select candidates from their own networks, which are mainly comprised of people like themselves. If recruiters are mostly white men – and that’s been the case historically – then most candidates will likely be white men. Changing this trend requires changing both the recruiter and their networks.

Some parties have tried to combat this by insisting that riding associations look harder for more diverse candidates. The New Democrats are notable here.

But local executives can undermine these efforts even once a candidate has been chosen. For example, a Black lesbian candidate told me that her Liberal riding association said it didn’t have a lot of money for her campaign, yet had no trouble finding more cash for the white men who ran before and after her. These actions can send the message that only white men should apply to be candidates.

Social media scrutiny as a new barrier

In addition, social media scandals are an emerging barrier to candidacy. They first became an issue earlier this century when several federal and provincial candidates were forced to step down after problematic posts came to light. Negative headlines led parties to tighten candidate vetting as a result.

But heightened scrutiny runs the risk of excluding Indigenous, queer and feminist individuals who definitely don’t share the party’s views on everything or whose views may have changed over the years, yet their original posts can still be found online. This could also deter some young people from running because many of them have documented their lives and views online since adolescence.

Scrub one’s social media sites, you say? That doesn’t always work. It’s not uncommon for party operatives to document the online accounts of people they expect to run for office in the future – both to protect themselves and to inflict reputational harm on their opponents. The inability to fully erase one’s online presence means candidate vetting will likely get tougher.

This reality might make it even harder for diverse candidates to make it to the electoral starting line. If so, white men’s dominance in our legislatures and leadership positions will continue.

Barriers such as these make it harder for Canadians of all backgrounds to contribute to our collective governance. More importantly, ongoing resistance to diverse candidates can undermine political trust. If political parties don’t trust diverse people to hold power, why should diverse Canadians trust politicians to govern on their behalf?

Dr. Angelia Wagner is an assistant lecturer and adjunct professor in the department of political science at the University of Alberta. 

Source: Diversity of candidates is fundamental to trust in political leadership

Filed under Multiculturalism, Politics Tagged with , ,

StatsCan: The diverse volunteering contributions of racialized Canadians, 2023

2025/12/08 Leave a comment

Interesting findings:

In 2023, 70% of racialized Canadians gave their time, expertise and skills to a range of benevolent causes in the previous 12 months.

Most of this help was arranged informally, mirroring overall patterns in volunteering. In 2023, 64% of racialized Canadians reported helping people directly or improving the community on their own. Meanwhile, 29% of racialized Canadians reported volunteering through a charitable organization or group.

In recognition of International Volunteer Day, Statistics Canada is releasing a new study examining the volunteering contributions of racialized Canadians, entitled ”The diverse volunteering contributions of racialized Canadians.” This study uses data from the 2023 Survey on Giving, Volunteering and Participating, which was held from September 15, 2023, to March 30, 2024. This marks the first time this survey has collected data on racialized groups, allowing for an in-depth look at volunteering among these populations in Canada.

Particular attention is paid to differences in volunteering patterns between racialized Canadian-born and racialized immigrant populations given that three-quarters of racialized individuals were born outside Canada.

Among racialized individuals, those born in Canada are most likely to volunteer

Racialized populations in Canada are diverse in terms of their ethnic and cultural origins and their immigrant status. Some people are newcomers, others long-established residents, and many were born in Canada. These differences are reflected in volunteering patterns.

Overall, in 2023, volunteering was more common among racialized individuals born in Canada (79%) compared with racialized immigrants (67%), both recent (66%) and established (67%) immigrants. The volunteering rate for Canadian-born racialized individuals (79%) also surpassed the volunteering rates for non-racialized, non-Indigenous populations born in Canada (74%) and those born outside of Canada (70%).

This higher rate of volunteering among Canadian-born racialized individuals was seen across all racialized groups. For example, among South Asians—who had one of the highest volunteering rates—82% of those born in Canada volunteered in the 12 months prior to the survey, compared with 69% of South Asian immigrants.

Religious and social services are the most common sectors receiving help from racialized volunteers

When racialized Canadians volunteered on behalf of an organization or group in the 12 months prior to the 2023 survey, the religious and social service sectors emerged as the most common areas of involvement. Overall, 25% of racialized volunteers gave their time to religious organizations. This proportion is similar to that of racialized volunteers who provided support to social services (24%), which can include organizations providing services for families, emergency and relief, and income support.

Among racialized volunteers, the level of volunteering was greatest in the religious sector, with the total number of volunteering hours in this sector surpassing that of all other sectors. This contrasts with the patterns observed for non-racialized, non-Indigenous volunteers, for whom the total hours dedicated to the religious sector did not significantly differ from that of other sectors.

The greater involvement of racialized volunteers in the religious sector was driven by racialized immigrant volunteers (28%), who were more likely than racialized Canadian-born volunteers (19%) to dedicate time to this sector. Meanwhile, Canadian-born racialized volunteers were more likely than racialized immigrant volunteers to dedicate time to the education and research sector (23% compared with 11%) and the sports and recreation sector (17% compared with 10%).

Contributing to the community is a leading reason for volunteering 

When asked about the reasons for volunteering on behalf of an organization or group in the 12 months preceding the 2023 survey, contributing to the community (87%) and wanting to use one’s skills and experience (74%) were the top reasons given by racialized volunteers. Networking and meeting new people were other common motivations, reported by 52% of racialized volunteers, with there being no difference by place of birth (in or outside of Canada). One difference, however, was the higher likelihood of volunteering to improve job opportunities among Canadian-born racialized individuals (48%) than among racialized immigrants (28%).

Chart 1 
Top five reasons for formal volunteering among racialized volunteers, 2023

Chart 1: Top five reasons for formal volunteering among racialized volunteers, 2023

As for barriers to volunteering, Canadian-born racialized individuals (particularly Chinese and Black populations) were slightly more likely (95%) to report facing at least one challenge, compared with racialized immigrants (92%). There were no other differences across other population groups.

Not having enough time was the leading barrier to volunteering across all groups, though this barrier was more often reported by racialized individuals born in Canada (82%) than by racialized immigrants (74%). Knowledge, access and information barriers were more commonly reported by racialized immigrants (42%) than by racialized individuals born in Canada (36%).

Source: Study: The diverse volunteering contributions of racialized Canadians, 2023

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

Trump official signals potential rollback of changes to census racial categories

2025/12/08 Leave a comment

Not unexpected but still shortsighted and further demonstration of an age of ignorance:

A Trump administration official on Friday signaled a potential rollback of the racial and ethnic categories approved for the 2030 census and other future federal government forms.

Supporters of those categories fear that any last-minute modifications to the U.S. government’s standards for data about race and ethnicity could hurt the accuracy of census data and other future statistics used for redrawing voting districts, enforcing civil rights protections and guiding policymaking.

Those standards were last revised in 2024 during the Biden administration, after Census Bureau research and public discussion.

A White House agency at the time approved, among other changes, new checkboxes for “Middle Eastern or North African” and “Hispanic or Latino” under a reformatted question that asks survey participants: “What is your race and/or ethnicity?” The revisions also require the federal government to stop automatically categorizing people who identify with Middle Eastern or North African groups as white.

But at a Friday meeting of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics in Washington, D.C., the chief statistician within the White House’s Office of Management and Budget revealed that the Trump administration has started a new review of those standards and how the 2024 revisions were approved.

“We’re still at the very beginning of a review. And this, again, is not prejudging any particular outcome. I think we just wanted to be able to take a look at the process and decide where we wanted to end up on a number of these questions,” said Mark Calabria. “I’ve certainly heard a wide range of views within the administration. So it’s just premature to say where we’ll end up.”

OMB’s press office did not immediately respond to NPR’s request for comment.

Source: Trump official signals potential rollback of changes to census racial categories

Filed under Multiculturalism, Trump administration Tagged with ,

Le Devoir Éditorial | De quoi Bedford est-il le nom?

2025/12/06 Leave a comment

Valid critique of the union defending the undefendable:

…Il faut avoir le courage de revenir à la base : de quoi Bedford est-il le nom, au juste ?

Le scandale de Bedford, c’est d’abord le fait de profs qui ont refusé d’enseigner la science, la technologie ou l’éducation à la sexualité, ont rejeté le français comme langue d’usage, ont pratiqué le déni d’assistance et l’humiliation des élèves éprouvant des difficultés d’apprentissage, ont refusé de se plier au principe de l’égalité filles-garçons en classe, ont harcelé et intimidé leurs collègues et leurs directions, ont piétiné la laïcité.

C’est cela qu’on veut dans nos classes ? Car c’est bien ce dont il s’agit ici, ne le perdons pas de vue.

Il y a déjà eu un rapport — dévastateur — d’un psychologue industriel dépêché sur les lieux en 2021. Il y a eu une enquête de cinq mois — tout aussi dévastatrice — de la Direction générale des affaires internes, au fil de laquelle 70 personnes ont été rencontrées. Un plan d’action ambitieux. Surtout, il y a eu 11 comités d’enquête, un pour chaque prof pour éviter tout amalgame fortuit, raccourci de facilité ou contamination malheureuse, dont certains sont toujours en cours.

Même le politique a joué ses cartes sans tricher ni plastronner. On peut reprocher bien des choses au gouvernement Legault, qui a multiplié les bourdes et les reculs inacceptables en éducation. Reste que, dans cette affaire, ses deux ministres, M. Drainville d’abord, Mme LeBel ensuite, ont fait les choses dans l’ordre, sans pression indue.

Qu’est-ce que l’Alliance voudrait de plus ?

Hélas, elle n’en dit mot. Elle se réfugie derrière l’article 47.2 du Code du travail, qui l’oblige à défendre ses membres. Il est vrai que cet article la pousse rudement dans les câbles. Mais ce n’est pas un absolu : il arrive qu’un syndicat se range derrière des preuves accablantes. L’« opacité » qui la pousse aujourd’hui à se lever pour ce noyau dur est-elle fondée, solidement harnachée sur des faits et non sur des impressions montées en épingle ?

Il est permis d’en douter, d’autant que l’Alliance comme le Centre de services scolaire de Montréal, d’ailleurs, n’auront pas spécialement brillé, allant jusqu’à renvoyer les plaintes des professeurs intimidés à leur délégué syndical… qui était lui-même membre de la clique contrôlant l’école Bedford.

Impossible de ne pas voir une dissonance dérangeante entre la fermeté d’un discours syndical qui refuse de faire son autocritique et la négation des besoins fondamentaux des plus vulnérables, une rengaine que le conflit à la Société de transport de Montréal (STM) a usée de triste manière.

À Bedford, des collègues professeurs et des patrons ont été intimidés des années durant. Surtout, des élèves ont été privés de leur droit le plus fondamental à une éducation de qualité dans un « milieu d’apprentissage sain et sécuritaire » exempt d’intimidation ou de violence. Car Bedford, c’est d’abord ça : un milieu détourné de sa mission première au détriment de ceux-là mêmes qui l’habitent. Et il faudrait que cela puisse encore être défendu ?

Source: Éditorial | De quoi Bedford est-il le nom?

… You need to have the courage to go back to the base: what is Bedford’s name, exactly?

The Bedford scandal is first of all the fact of teachers who refused to teach science, technology or sex education, rejected French as a language of use, practiced denial of assistance and humiliation of students experiencing learning difficulties, refused to comply with the principle of girl-boy equality in the classroom, harassed and intimidated their colleagues and their management, trampled on secularism.

Is that what we want in our classes? Because that’s what we’re talking about here, let’s not lose sight of it.

There has already been a report – devastating – of an industrial psychologist dispatched to the scene in 2021. There was a five-month – equally devastating – investigation by the Directorate-General for Internal Affairs, in the course of which 70 people were met. An ambitious action plan. Above all, there were 11 committees of inquiry, one for each teacher to avoid any fortuitous amalgamation, shortcut of ease or unfortunate contamination, some of which are still in progress.

Even the politician played his cards without cheating or cheating. We can blame many things on the Legault government, which has multiplied the blunders and unacceptable setbacks in education. However, in this case, his two ministers, Mr. Drainville first, Mrs. LeBel then, did things in order, without undue pressure.

What more would the Alliance want?

Alas, she doesn’t say a word. She takes refuge behind Article 47.2 of the Labor Code, which obliges her to defend her members. It is true that this article pushes her roughly through the cables. But this is not an absolute: sometimes a union ranks behind overwhelming evidence. Is the “opacity” that pushes it today to stand up for this hard core founded, solidly harnessed on facts and not on pin-mounted impressions?

It is permissible to doubt this, especially since the Alliance as well as the Centre de services scolaires de Montréal, moreover, will not have particularly shone, going so far as to return the complaints of intimidated teachers to their union delegate… who was himself a member of the clique controlling the Bedford school.

It is impossible not to see a disturbing dissonance between the firmness of a union discourse that refuses to make its self-criticism and the denial of the basic needs of the most vulnerable, a line that the conflict at the Société de transport de Montréal (STM) has worn out in a sad way.

In Bedford, fellow teachers and bosses have been bullied for years. Above all, students have been deprived of their most fundamental right to quality education in a “healthy and safe learning environment” free of bullying or violence. Because Bedford is first of all this: an environment diverted from its primary mission to the detriment of those who live there. And should it still be able to be defended?

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Chris Selley: Marc Miller, renegade heritage minister, Michel David: Miller, l’esthète «tanné»

2025/12/05 2 Comments

Miller certainly provoked a firestorm in Quebec, and now being convened by the OL committee in Ottawa. Will see how this plays out but Miller was certainly the strongest Liberal immigration minister and started the sorely needed reductions in levels and other policies. And he’s right that decline in French spoken at home simply reflects immigrant mother tongues:

…But in the meantime, backed by Carney, Miller might have at least done something quite useful here just by calling attention to the fact that the French-language debate in Quebec is a festival of over-torqued hokum.

When a purebred oaf like Legault calls you a full-of-shit disgrace, chances are good you’re on the right track. Same goes for the Parti Québécois and its presumptive next premier of Quebec, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, who on Tuesday assailed Miller as “one of the architects of the greatest decline of French in recent Quebec history.”

That’s many bushels of bananas. It’s a whole shipping container-full. As not-very-successful former immigration Miller noted outside the cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Ottawa been more than happy to indulge Quebec politicians’ desire not just for language restrictions, but for ever-greater francophone immigration to Quebec.

Miller didn’t mention, but could have, that Quebec officialdom is now annoyed by many of these francophone immigrants because they insist on believing in their strange God. Miller could have mentioned, but did not, that if native-born Quebecers aren’t going to have a lot more babies, and if Quebec doesn’t want francophone immigrants from anywhere other than Metropolitan France — and only atheists, at that — then it really might be screwed in the long term.

But as I say, Miller didn’t say that. To my knowledge, Miller has never disputed that the “French fact” in Quebec has downside risks. Rather, as he said on Tuesday, he rejects the “dogma that some political parties want to impose claiming that French is in total decline.” I hope he doesn’t shut up about it, because he’s right, and people really need to hear it.

The “Louisianisation” narrative is garbage. Every four years the Census reports essentially flat numbers on knowledge and use of French in Quebec: In 2021, Statistics Canada found, 94 per cent of Quebecers said the they knew how to speak French; 78 per cent claimed French as their mother tongue (not that mother tongue should matter, if Quebec nationalism is civil rather than ethnic); 79 per cent said they spoke French most often at home; 85 per cent said they spoke French most often at work.

Needless to say, that’s nothing whatsoever like Louisiana. French isn’t even Louisiana’s first second language.

Miller’s crimes against Quebec’s idea of political correctness don’t end there. He has gone so far as to suggest the fact that he speaks Swedish at home with his wife (she’s Swedish; they didn’t just take it up as a hobby) has no negative knock-on effects with respect to the state of French in Quebec. And of course that’s true as well. You’re just not officially allowed to say it in Quebec, which is the only place in the developed world where multilingualism is seen officially (though of course never by officials with respect to their own children) as a bad thing.

Miller has also been sworn into cabinet, in the past, while holding both a Bible and a Koran — a symbol of solidarity with Muslims, he said, but also a double-whammy in a province whose politics is obsessed with both secularism and with the threat of Islam.

The Liberals’ Quebec blind spot is especially remarkable considering how reliable their electoral results in that province are. But if Miller wants to be the minister who shakes things up, speaks truth to nonsense, about the state of play in his home province, I think we should wish him Godspeed.

Source: Chris Selley: Marc Miller, renegade heritage minister

Michel David in Le Devoir:

…Il ne fait aucun doute que M. Miller aime sincèrement la langue française, qu’il parle admirablement, mais cela ressemble davantage à l’amour de l’esthète pour les beaux objets, qui ont l’avantage de se laisser admirer sans faire d’histoires. Le problème est que les histoires de langue sont au cœur de son nouveau mandat.

Le déclin du français au Québec a toujours été contesté au sein de la députation anglo-montréalaise du Parti libéral du Canada. La députée de Saint-Laurent, Emmanuella Lambropoulos, avait dû quitter le comité permanent des langues officielles pour l’avoir nié. Son collègue de Mont-Royal, Anthony Housefather, s’était opposé à la nouvelle version de la Loi sur les langues officielles, craignant plutôt pour les droits des anglophones du Québec.

Sans le nier, M. Miller met des bémols au déclin du français. Au recul de la proportion de ceux dont c’est la langue maternelle, parlée à la maison ou encore au travail, il oppose la hausse du pourcentage de ceux qui sont en mesure de le parler.

Un plus grand usage du français dans l’espace public n’exclut cependant pas la nécessité de maintenir une masse critique suffisante de francophones de souche pour assurer le développement d’une culture française, même si tout le monde reconnaît la richesse de l’apport des diverses communautés.

M. Miller fait valoir qu’il y a eu des progrès depuis l’adoption de la Charte de la langue française (1977). À ce compte, on pourrait répliquer à ceux qui n’ont pas accès à un médecin de famille que la situation s’est améliorée quand même depuis l’instauration du régime d’assurance maladie (1970).

La réaction du premier ministre Legault aux « conneries » de M. Miller, avec lequel il avait déjà un contentieux, a peut-être été excessive, mais la recrue de Mark Carney n’en a pas moins ruiné d’un coup les efforts du successeur de Justin Trudeau pour dissiper la fâcheuse impression que le Québec et le français ne l’intéressent pas.

Le ministre québécois de la Langue française, Jean-François Roberge, a manifestement compris que cela risquait aussi d’apporter de l’eau au moulin souverainiste. Sa réaction aux propos de M. Miller a été bien différente de celle de M. Legault. « Bien, c’est bon, s’il est tanné du déclin du français, il va nous aider à le régler […]. Le Canada, ce n’est pas facile tous les jours, mais on y arrive », a-t-il déclaré.

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon a d’abord réagi avec une modération inhabituelle, constatant simplement que M. Miller est « un gars qui a travaillé très fort contre le Québec dans plusieurs dossiers ». Quelques heures plus tard, son naturel belliqueux a repris le dessus, mais l’objet de sa colère était pour le moins étonnant.

Dénoncer, en disant avoir « honte », la « vacuité intellectuelle », « l’aplaventrisme » et la « déloyauté » d’une « partie substantielle » du milieu culturel québécois, dont les représentants ont salué la nomination de M. Miller, n’est certainement pas la meilleure façon de le rallier à la cause de l’indépendance.

Le chef du Parti québécois devrait prendre acte du fait que le Québec n’est pas encore souverain. Tant qu’ils envoient 40 % de leurs impôts à Ottawa, il ne faut pas s’étonner que les Québécois, y compris les artistes, cherchent à obtenir la part qui leur revient.

Source: Michel David | Miller, l’esthète «tanné»

There is no doubt that Mr. Miller sincerely loves the French language, which he speaks admirably, but it is more like the aesthete’s love for beautiful objects, which have the advantage of being admired without making a fuss. The problem is that language stories are at the heart of his new mandate.

The decline of French in Quebec has always been contested within the Anglo-Lonreal deputation of the Liberal Party of Canada. The MP of Saint-Laurent, Emmanuella Lambropoulos, had to leave the Standing Committee on Official Languages for denying it. His colleague from Mont-Royal, Anthony Housefather, had opposed the new version of the Official Languages Act, fearing instead for the rights of English speakers in Quebec.

Without denying it, Mr. Miller puts flats on the decline of French. To the decline in the proportion of those whose mother tongue is spoken at home or at work, it opposes the increase in the percentage of those who are able to speak it.

A greater use of French in public space, however, does not exclude the need to maintain a sufficient critical mass of native Francophones to ensure the development of a French culture, even if everyone recognizes the richness of the contribution of the various communities.

Mr. Miller argues that there has been progress since the adoption of the Charter of the French Language (1977). To this account, we could reply to those who do not have access to a family doctor that the situation has improved since the introduction of the health insurance plan (1970).

Prime Minister Legault’s reaction to Mr. Miller, with whom he already had a dispute, may have been excessive, but Mark Carney’s recruit has nevertheless ruined Justin Trudeau’s successor’s efforts to dispel the unfortunate impression that Quebec and France are not interested in him.

The Quebec Minister of the French Language, Jean-François Roberge, clearly understood that this also risked bringing water to the sovereignist mill. His reaction to the words of Mr. Miller was very different from Mr. Legault “Well, it’s good, if he is tanned by the decline of French, he will help us settle it […]. Canada is not easy every day, but we can do it,” he said.

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon initially reacted with unusual moderation, simply noting that Mr. Miller is “a guy who has worked very hard against Quebec in several cases”. A few hours later, his warlike naturalness took over, but the object of his anger was surprising to say the least.

Denounce, by saying that they have “shame”, the “intellectual emptiness”, “aplantrism” and “disloyalty” of a “substantial part” of the Quebec cultural community, whose representatives welcomed the appointment of Mr. Miller, is certainly not the best way to rally him to the cause of independence.

The leader of the Parti Québécois should take note of the fact that Quebec is not yet sovereign. As long as they send 40% of their taxes to Ottawa, it is not surprising that Quebecers, including artists, are looking to get their share.

In La Presse, Déclin du français Marc Miller devra s’expliquer devant le comité des Langues officielles

La motion, adoptée jeudi à l’unanimité par les membres du comité, exhorte le ministre Miller à « témoigner pour une période de deux heures concernant sa position sur le déclin du français au Canada, incluant au Québec » au plus tard le 12 février. 

L’adoption de cette motion fait suite aux propos tenus mardi par le ministre Miller, qui s’est dit « assez tanné » du débat public entourant le déclin du français, le qualifiant de « généralement identitaire et électoraliste ».  

Le ministre Miller était déjà attendu jeudi devant le Comité permanent des langues officielles pour répondre aux questions entourant l’étude sur l’usage du français par le premier ministre Mark Carney, mais M. Miller n’était pas autour de la table lors de la rencontre, à la grande surprise du député conservateur Joël Godin.

The motion, adopted unanimously on Thursday by the members of the committee, urges Minister Miller to “testify for a period of two hours regarding his position on the decline of French in Canada, including Quebec” no later than February 12.
The adoption of this motion follows the remarks made on Tuesday by Minister Miller, who said he was “quite tanned” with the public debate surrounding the decline of French, describing it as “generally identity and electoralist”.
Minister Miller was already expected Thursday before the Standing Committee on Official Languages to answer questions surrounding the study on the use of French by Prime Minister Mark Carney, but Mr. Miller was not around the table during the meeting, much to the surprise of Conservative MP Joël Godin.



Filed under Interculturalisme, Language, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →