Gee: Toronto District School Board should reconsider the decision to rename three schools

Agree:

…None of this seems to have made the slightest impression on the TDSB, Canada’s biggest school board. A report that went to the board’s governance and policy committee on Jan. 27 noted that, under a section of the “Revised Naming Schools, Teams and Special-Purpose Area Procedure,” the TDSB was undertaking a “proactive critical review of school names.” Dundas, Ryerson and Macdonald are the first three to be sentenced to deletion.

The report says that for some students, the names might act as “a potentially harmful microaggression.” It goes on: “Having to enter school buildings commemorating such individuals may even contribute to mental-health triggers which negatively impact students, staff or families’ ability to effectively participate in the school environment.”

It may not occur to the kids rushing to gym class in Dundas Junior Public that they are the victims of microaggression (if they even know who Dundas was), but the TDSB is going to protect them from it all the same.

As for the cost of making new signs, plaques and team jerseys with whatever name is chosen to replace the three forbidden ones, well, not to worry. The report says that the changes “will be implemented within the existing budget framework.”

What the board seems to have missed is that the climate on historical erasure is changing. Most people don’t much like being called settlers in their own country, even if they accept that great crimes were committed against its original inhabitants in the process of settlement.

A reaction against all this is one reason that Pierre Poilievre of the Conservatives has been leading in the opinion polls and that the abysmal Donald Trump is in the White House again.

Decent countries acknowledge their past sins while also celebrating their virtues. It is a balancing act, hard to get right. Schools are a good place to learn it. They should be teaching students about residential schools and slavery, Expo 67 and Terry Fox. They should be showing them that history is more than a simple story of heroes and villains. They should be asking them to debate the record of names like Dundas, Ryerson and Macdonald, gathering all the evidence and weighing the good against the bad.

What they should not be doing is stripping those names from their front doors.

Source: Toronto District School Board should reconsider the decision to rename three schools

To: DEI needs to fix systems, not people

True, but rather vague beyond better data:

…One key takeaway from implicit bias research is that interventions targeting individual biases often provide only temporary results because bias is embedded within systems. 

So, what can organizations do to address systemic bias more effectively?

Let’s look at hiring as an example. 

Instead of requiring hiring managers to participate in diversity training, organizations could implement hiring criteria that minimize the influence of race and gender bias in the hiring process. Some research suggests tailoring job descriptions to appeal to underrepresented groups. For example, HR postings that increase the transparency of qualifications or focus on benefits can attract more women for roles in traditionally male-dominated fields.

Policing is another area where systemic change can mitigate bias. Studies show police officers are more likely to stop, question, arrest or use force against Black people than white people. 

Rather than mandating police officers undergo diversity training to educate them about their biases — something that has only a fleeting effect — a restructuring of the policies and procedures around stops and frisks would reduce bias’s impact. 

For instance, policies to ensure the collection of race-based datain police stop and frisks and to encourage stricter accountability among police officers could go a long way to curb racial profiling. 

As DEI programs face increasing scrutiny and skepticism, and many employees feel frustrated by ineffective and repetitive online training, there is a growing need to reframe DEI as systems-focused work. If diversity, equity and inclusion are truly the goals, the solution lies in rebuilding the systems that shape our society.

Source: DEI needs to fix systems, not people

Ivison: DEI screening comes before merit questions in Canadian university hiring

Disappointing that Ivison would cite this tendentious study without background, context, nuance and deeper analysis. And, of course, no real assessment of whether the quality of academics hired has decreased or increased given various inclusion and equity policies. Suspect a mix, as in most hiring:

…But Milke suggested the point is made just as effectively by pre-screening. 

“What they do at the front end is to try and sort through people who they may consider overrepresented, to use an awful word, in a certain profession or faculty.”

He said that merit-based appointments would naturally become more diverse, reflecting the more ethnically diverse country that Canada has become. 

“The problem with diversity, equity, and inclusion, and this attempt to make everything exactly equal at the end and discriminate at the front end to do that, is you’re not looking at merit and qualifications the way that universities claim they are. Instead, you’re basically banning people from the position who don’t fit some irrelevant, non-changeable category.”

Milke said DEI policies entrench the notion that Canada is a systemically racist state. 

“Now, 100 years ago, there was systemic racism. If you were Chinese, for example, you could not get into a white hospital. They had to set up their own hospital. The same with Jewish people in Toronto, which is why Mount Sinai Hospital was set up. But that was 100 years ago. Systemic racism has been outlawed in Canada since the 1950s. You still find individual cases of prejudice, but systemic racism as a policy, as a law, began to be abolished in places like Ontario in the early 1950s.”

Ivison noted that the Trump administration is moving quickly to dismantle DEI in its areas of jurisdiction but that in Canada, the Liberal government has been an enthusiastic cheerleader of the policies, linking DEI hiring to federal funding. 

Milke said he would like to see the federal government reverse direction and admit students and professors based on merit and achievement. 

“The fundamental nature of DEI is flawed and what governments and universities should be doing is saying, ‘look, how can we restructure this? We do want people of all colours, creeds, backgrounds to succeed and help them to do that, but not by focusing on irrelevant characteristics’.

“The more they go down the DEI path, universities are going to capture a segment of the population that believes racism explains all, or mostly all. So, I think a federal government should strongly consider going back to not only Martin Luther King’s vision of equality of the individual (but to) Pierre Trudeau’s vision, in which he believed in the equality of the individual.”

Milke said he believes diversity is a very positive quality and that successful cultures and civilizations need an array of ideas to flourish. 

“These days, we may be admitting too many immigrants at once to have everyone get or provide housing, (but) that’s a separate issue. In the main, cultures that beg, borrow, and steal from each other generally succeed. Diversity is not a bad thing. It can be a very good thing. But not when it’s top down and people look at you and assume because you’re a certain skin colour, you’ve got privilege. I mean, it’s a fallacy.”

Source: Ivison: DEI screening comes before merit questions in Canadian university hiring

Rioux | Le sexe des anges [arguing #s more important for integration than approaches]

Rioux is consistent in the sources he cites and the positions he takes. Numbers are important, as recent Canadian and other experiences attest, but policies and approaches all matter too:

…C’est d’ailleurs tout le drame de l’immigration. Malgré certaines expériences individuelles positives qu’on aura beau brandir comme un étendard, dans l’immense majorité des cas, elle est d’abord une souffrance pour ces individus à qui l’on demande de faire table rase de leur famille, de leur langue et de leur culture pour être ballottés comme de simples produits au gré des besoins du marché. Ensuite, indépendamment des individus, cette immigration massive devient vite un problème. Cela se vérifie partout. On ne transplante pas impunément des populations entières dans n’importe quelle communauté sans ébranler la cohésion sociale et créer inévitablement des réactions de rejet. Réactions que les bonnes âmes auront beau condamner, mais que l’anthropologue Claude Lévi-Strauss jugeait « normales, légitimes même, et en tout cas inévitables ». Une réalité devant laquelle les discours soporifiques sur l’ouverture à l’Autre seront toujours impuissants.

C’est ce que disait Rémy Girard dans Le déclin de l’empire américain : « Il y a trois choses importantes en histoire : premièrement le nombre, deuxièmement le nombre et troisièmement le nombre ». Cette citation que l’on prête à l’historien Michel Brunet est encore plus vraie en matière d’immigration. Et Rémy Girard d’ajouter que « l’histoire n’est pas une science morale. Le bon droit, la compassion, la justice sont des notions étrangères à l’histoire ». Ce qui peut avoir du sens pour l’accueil d’un petit nombre d’individus n’en a plus guère dès lors que l’on parle d’un phénomène de masse. En France, même le premier ministre centriste François Bayrou, qui penche généralement à gauche, a dû se résoudre à parler de « submersion migratoire ». Les chiffres les plus récents étant d’ailleurs là pour le prouver.

Si le nombre est de loin le critère déterminant, d’autres comme la proximité culturelle et la volonté de s’intégrer jouent un rôle. C’est toute la difficulté que connaît la France aujourd’hui dans ses banlieues ethniques. L’intégration de populations de culture musulmane est évidemment plus difficile que celle, hier, des Italiens ou des Portugais. Cette intégration est d’autant plus ardue que des idéologies comme l’islamisme la combattent ouvertement. En 2015, le président Recep Tayyip Erdoğan était venu à Strasbourg présenter la Turquie comme le seul défenseur de la « vraie civilisation » et soutenir que l’assimilation était « un crime contre l’humanité ». Des organismes comme l’Organisation du monde islamique pour l’éducation, les sciences et la culture (ICESCO) incitent ouvertement les immigrants musulmans à ne pas acquérir les valeurs de leur pays d’accueil.

Mais encore faut-il aussi que pour intégrer, on ait confiance dans sa propre culture. Les efforts destinés à favoriser l’intégration sont évidemment louables. Mais ils ne pourront jamais rien contre le nombre. De grâce, cessons de traiter un problème démographique qui est en train de devenir la grande affaire politique du siècle comme une banale question de compassion et de bonne volonté.

Source: Chronique | Le sexe des anges

Clarkson: The Aga Khan believed in Canada

Good tribute:

…We didn’t always talk about profound things, but everything he said was measured, calm and meaningful. He thought very highly of Canada and had a great belief in our values. He wrote that he wanted his people to live here, “where the threat to democracy is minimal and seeks to draw on the experience of established democracy to make a vibrant and civil society and is sensitive to cultural difference. In this way, they can be effective in improving the quality of life of all their citizens. Canada is a prime example of such a country.”

He had such a belief in us. And that is why he established the Global Centre for Pluralism in Ottawa, which works to examine the experience of pluralism in practice. At a time when we are being faced with manic pronouncements and threats to our sovereignty from our nearest neighbour, we must remember that the Aga Khan, the greatest spiritual leader of our time, believed in Canada.

We must always remember how much he believed in us.

Source: The Aga Khan believed in Canada

ICYMI: David | Le pays flou

More Quebec commentary from an indépendantiste slant:

Le ministre québécois de l’Immigration, de la Langue française et de l’Intégration, Jean-François Roberge, a parfaitement raison : « On ne peut pas reprocher aux gens de ne pas être au courant de quelque chose qu’on n’a pas clairement défini. »



M. Roberge voulait parler du « modèle d’intégration » québécois, qu’il estime « cassé » et qu’il veut remplacer par un nouveau « contrat social » entre l’État et les immigrants. Mais c’est plutôt la nature du Québec et son rapport avec le reste du Canada qui demeurent flous et difficiles à saisir pour un nouvel arrivant. Comment le blâmer de ne pas y voir clair ? À l’instar d’Elvis Gratton, de nombreux Québécois dits « de souche » ne semblent pas savoir eux-mêmes qui ils sont.



Depuis la création du ministère de l’Immigration du Québec, en 1968, on ne peut pas reprocher aux gouvernements successifs de ne pas avoir essayé d’expliquer aux immigrants que la société qui les accueille se veut résolument française et qu’elle est attachée à des valeurs qu’ils doivent respecter, à défaut d’y adhérer pleinement.


Dès qu’ils débarquent à l’aéroport et commencent à explorer Montréal, où s’installent la grande majorité d’entre eux, les nouveaux arrivants voient et entendent toutefois un pays essentiellement bilingue et multiculturel, où le français est sans doute un atout, mais pas une condition de survie. C’est le message qui leur est envoyé. Il existe une minorité anglophone suffisamment nombreuse et prospère, appuyée sur une masse de 360 millions de Nord-Américains, qui assure l’hégémonie de l’anglais.

Il faut aussi dire qu’en dépit de la loi 101, le gouvernement n’a pas toujours donné l’exemple en communiquant lui-même en anglais avec les nouveaux arrivants. La loi 96 a voulu corriger cette situation, mais la lettre de la loi et son application sont deux choses.

*****

S’acclimater à un nouvel environnement exige de grands efforts. Ceux qui trouvent encore le temps de s’intéresser au débat public constatent aussi que le gouvernement qui les presse de s’intégrer à la majorité francophone est le premier à déplorer la toute-puissance d’Ottawa, où le Québec a de moins en moins son mot à dire.

Ce que l’ancien souverainiste qu’est M. Roberge ne veut pas dire est que le maintien du Québec dans la fédération le condamne à subir ce multiculturalisme « vicieux » — une « caractéristique fondamentale » du Canada, reconnue par sa Constitution. À deux reprises, le PQ a proposé aux Québécois de s’en retirer, et la majorité d’entre eux ont refusé.

En 2015, la Coalition avenir Québec a proposé un « nouveau projet pour les nationalistes du Québec », qui se voulait « ancré dans la réalité » et dont l’objectif était de lui donner « les moyens d’affirmer et de protéger son identité », notamment en lui accordant la « prépondérance en matière d’immigration et de langue ».

Au cours des six dernières années, le gouvernement Legault a plutôt subi le choc de cette réalité. Le gouvernement fédéral lui a refusé de façon catégorique les nouveaux pouvoirs qu’il réclamait et rien n’indique que cela est à la veille de changer, peu importe qui remportera les prochaines élections.

Il est vrai qu’en 2022, il a réussi à faire inscrire dans la Constitution canadienne que le français est la seule langue officielle du Québec, de même que la langue commune de la nation québécoise. Dans les faits, cela ne change cependant rien à la progression de l’anglais et à la consolidation du multiculturalisme.

Celui qui vient de succéder à M. Roberge comme ministre responsable des Relations canadiennes, Simon Jolin-Barrette, présentera d’ici la fin du présent mandat un projet de Constitution propre au Québec, mais cela ne modifiera pas les dispositions de la Constitution canadienne.

*****

Que la fermeture des classes de francisation soit le résultat de compressions budgétaires ou de dépenses excessives faites par les centres de services scolaires, le Québec n’avait pas la capacité de répondre à la récente explosion de l’immigration temporaire.

Malgré le coup de frein qu’entend donner le gouvernement, il ne faut pas se faire d’illusion : le flot des migrants qui frapperont à la porte ou la défonceront au cours des prochaines décennies va s’amplifier, qu’il soit provoqué par la faim, par les changements climatiques ou par Donald Trump. Il est douteux que la loi-cadre élaborée par M. Roberge puisse renforcer la capacité d’intégration du Québec suffisamment pour y faire face sans un changement de paradigme qui lui permettrait d’échapper aux contraintes que lui impose son appartenance à la fédération canadienne.

Il y a sans doute à la CAQ des gens qui ont réellement cru, et d’autres qui ont voulu croire ou faire croire, qu’une « troisième voie » entre le fédéralisme et l’indépendance était encore possible, malgré les nombreux échecs du passé, mais l’aveuglement a des limites.

On peut toujours débattre des avantages et des inconvénients de l’indépendance sur le plan économique, mais personne ne peut sérieusement prétendre que l’appartenance au Canada offre la meilleure protection pour l’identité québécoise.

Source: Chronique | Le pays flou

Dave Snow: As the U.S. abandons DEI, Canada doubles down 

On some of the excesses. Likely that a future conservative government would eliminate granting council requirements among other programs:

While the U.S. government, corporations, and universities begin to abandon Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies, Canada has instead doubled down, continuing to make them an integral part of both government and academia.

This trend has become increasingly apparent in federal granting agencies, the main source of Canada’s research funding, whose combined budget is nearly $4 billion.

In my new Macdonald-Laurier Institute report—“Promoting Excellence—Or Activism? Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion at Canada’s Federal Granting Agencies”—I find DEI has now become fully infused into all three of Canada’s granting agencies: the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).1

Their DEI initiatives range from specialized race, gender, and diversity grants to revised definitions of “research excellence” to mandatory bias training for most peer reviewers. As a result, a growing proportion of grants are awarded to projects with explicitly activist subject matter. All this adds to the idea that Canada’s research funding process has become politicized, further undermining the public’s faith in universities.

The colours of the DEI rainbow

My report identifies three categories of DEI (or “EDI,” as typically fashioned by the federal government) at Canada’s granting agencies.

Mild DEI uses the language of DEI in vague, unobjectionable terms to push for greater institutional diversity.

Moderate DEI uses DEI as a substitute for affirmative action. Under the guise of “equity targets” or “equalization” of grants through preferential awarding processes, Moderate DEI seeks to increase the number of awards given to those who identify as Indigenous, women, visible minorities, LGBTQ+, and persons with disabilities.

Finally, Activist DEI uses the language of DEI to advance the goals of critical social justice activism. This category is broadly consistent with what many call “wokeness.” Activist DEI views society, in the words of University of Buckingham professor of politics Eric Kaufmann, “as structured by power hierarchies of white supremacy, patriarchy, and cis-heteronormativity.” It aims to “overthrow systems of structural racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia.” Activist DEI is utterly incompatible with the creation of objective, falsifiable academic research—yet it is increasingly creeping into granting agencies’ guidelines, definitions, and reports. CIHR has even embedded Activist DEI into how it evaluates success, updating its Research Excellence Framework to say, “Research is excellent when it is inclusive, equitable, diverse, anti-racist, anti-ableist, and anti-colonial in approach and impact.”

The ambiguous meaning of DEI enables scholars and institutions to hide behind Mild DEI language while advancing Activist DEI research agendas. Canada’s granting agencies claim that equity merely means the “removal of systemic barriers.” But in practice, SSHRC-administered Canada Research Chair positions often exclude applicants who are white and male.

The agencies claim diversity is only “about the variety of unique dimensions, identities, qualities and characteristics individuals possess.” But SSHRC’s Guide to Including Diversity Considerations includes eleven sources about intersectionality.

The agencies insist that inclusion merely ensures “all individuals are valued and respected for their contributions and are supported equitably in a culturally safe environment.” Meanwhile, CIHR funds and promotes a workshop whose participants envision a day where “Public health is no longer run by nauseating Whiteness [sic].”

The result is a confusing mélange of DEI terminology that inevitably nudges students and scholars towards activism in their grant and scholarship applications. Unsurprisingly, many prestigious grants are ultimately awarded to Activist DEI projects. Building directly off preliminary research I completed for The Hub, my new report assessed more than 2,600 individual SSHRC awards between 2022 and 2024. As expected, Activist DEI language was present in as many as 63 percent of project titles for the federal government’s specialized identity-focused “Future Challenge” grants.

More troublingly, Activist DEI language was present in many of the titles of SSHRC’s prestigious Insight Grants (10 percent) and Insight Development Grants (14 percent). These grants are supposed to promote research excellence; instead, they are funding projects with titles such as “Just Kids: Children and White Supremacy” and “Reclaiming the Outdoors: Structures of Resistance to Historical Marginalization in Outdoor Culture,” with the latter costing taxpayers more than $250,000.

Seeking solutions

What can be done to fix this? My report makes several recommendations for reform. Amend the granting agencies’ legislation to enshrine a commitment to political and ideological neutrality. Remove all references to DEI from agency guidelines. Eliminate DEI-themed grants. End the practice of “equity targets” and preferential awards.

But also, avoid the instinct to “ban” DEI-driven research from award consideration. Such bans are antithetical to academic freedom. Instead, let Activist DEI scholars make the case that their research deserves scarce taxpayer resources—resources that will be awarded on objectively meritorious criteria related to research excellence and knowledge production, rather than adherence to fashionable political activism.

Canadian universities are in need of substantial reform, and removing DEI considerations from federal granting agencies will not be a catch-all fix to the problems of ideological diversity, intolerance, and bloated bureaucracies that plague our higher education. But it would be a good start. The granting agencies remain committed (in principle) to research excellence and objective knowledge creation, which is more than can be said of much of the Canadian academy. They continue to fund indispensable research in health, hard sciences, and social sciences. Thankfully, the proportion of prestigious grants given to Activist DEI research remains small. But, while a DEI fixation has not yet caused irreparable harm to the agencies, it runs the risk of permanently damaging their reputations.

The first step in fixing higher education in Canada should come from the top. It is time for the federal government to depoliticize grant agency funding and remove DEI from the agencies’ domain.

Source: Dave Snow: As the U.S. abandons DEI, Canada doubles down

How corporate America got DEI wrong

More on corporate DEI post-Trump:

The “ethical case for diversity” is stronger

Still, Bermiss and others point out that DEI policies can have significant business impacts, even if they’re not apparent in short-term financial results. Having a more diverse team can help create products that appeal to more consumers, or help employees feel more satisfied with their jobs.

Costco, for example, recently told investors that its DEI efforts “help bring originality and creativity to our merchandise offerings” and “enhance our capacity to attract and retain employees who will help our business succeed,” among other benefits.

The massive retailer, which also calls DEI part of its “code of ethics,” successfully brushed off an anti-DEI shareholder proposal last month. Meanwhile, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, who runs the nation’s largest bank, has called DEI “good for business; it’s morally right; we’re quite good at it; we’re successful.”

It probably helps that both JPMorgan Chase and Costco are financial powerhouses, whose profits and share prices keep their investors happy. But both companies are also framing their DEI policies as a matter of morality or ethics, rather than just profits.

That’s exactly how more companies should be thinking about DEI, according to Bermiss — if (and only if) they see it as valuable. Bermiss acknowledges that not all companies will want to continue pursuing greater diversity, equity, and inclusion. But he argues that if business leaders decide that pursuing such workplace goals is morally right and aligned with a company’s values, then they’ll be better able to stand up to criticisms or attacks.

And, as he adds, that’s firmer ground than hoping that “if we get two more Latinos on the board, our stock price will go up.”

Some DEI work will continue — by any other name

Despite the ongoing pressures, Costco and JPMorgan aren’t the only employers still spending money on DEI. In fact, some companies are ramping up: Paradigm, a tech consultancy that advises employers on diversity and inclusion, says it saw a 12 percentage-point increase last year in how many of its customers had dedicated DEI budgets.

Paradigm CEO Joelle Emerson says that even companies that are ending DEI programs may rebrand the work rather than abandoning it altogether. Corporate America’s diversity results have been “a mixed bag,” she adds, “in part because companies often spent too much time and energy on initiatives that didn’t have a measurable impact.”

Now she’s hoping that employers are taking the time to create more thoughtful — and effective — programs to increase fairness.

“I see this less as a rollback of DEI and more as sort of an evolution to the next phase of this work,” Emerson says.

Many of the companies ending DEI programs are scrubbing the now-politically-toxic acronym from their websites and corporate statements. But their public statements insist that they still want to make everyone feel included.

That could be a tricky balance, especially as the Trump Administration continues ramping up attacks on DEI — including efforts to uncover rebranded diversity efforts inside of federal agencies.

And it remains to be seen whether corporate America can really be more effective while softening its language — and goals — around diversity, equity, and inclusion. But Emerson, at least, is bullish.

“I’m actually pretty optimistic about the future of this work,” she says. “I’m not optimistic about the acronym DEI — nor do I particularly care.

Source: How corporate America got DEI wrong

Le Devoir editorial: Gare aux contradictions 

More on Quebec’s CAQ identity and integration policies:

Nouvelle année, nouvelle offensive nationaliste caquiste. François Legault avait prévenu qu’il mettrait le cap sur le dossier de l’identité. Ce fut chose faite dès les premiers jours de la rentrée parlementaire à Québec, avec le dépôt de son projet de loi-cadre enchâssant le modèle choisi de l’interculturalisme comme meilleur rempart pour assurer la vitalité et la pérennité de la langue française et de la culture francophone.

Le projet de « loi sur l’intégration nationale » énonce les grands principes auxquels adhère la société québécoise — être démocratique, laïque, guidée par sa Charte des droits et libertés et l’égalité hommes-femmes, et évoluer dans une langue commune, le français. L’affirmation nationale de consensus établis au Québec, qui guideront au travers de l’appareil de l’État québécois l’intégration de nouveaux arrivants dans un esprit de mixité.

Sur papier, la proposition caquiste s’en tient aux terrains d’entente et aux doctrines orthodoxes du modèle d’intégration québécois à une société et à une culture communes. L’adhésion et la participation de tous, la contribution de chacun.

Une nouvelle proposition législative qui se veut consensuelle, afin d’apporter une nouvelle pierre à l’édification d’un cadre constitutionnel proprement québécois. De grands pans de la mise en œuvre de cette loi-cadre restent toutefois à définir.

Une politique nationale viendra régir son champ d’application dans l’appareil gouvernemental et parapublic 18 mois après son adoption. Un règlement balisera par ailleurs les nouvelles règles de financement d’activités et d’organismes soutenus par l’État, qui devront à l’avenir respecter ce nouveau cadre d’intégration, dans les deux années suivant sa promulgation.

Le ministre de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration, Jean-François Roberge, a laissé entendre, à la suite du dépôt de son projet de loi jeudi, que son gouvernement pourrait ainsi forcer un pressant ménage dans l’attribution de places dans les garderies subventionnées, où le religieux s’est immiscé. Il a en outre laissé planer la possibilité que le financement public versé aux écoles à vocation religieuse puisse être revu à son tour. Un revirement pour le gouvernement, qui choisirait alors judicieusement la voie de la cohérence.

Bien qu’il prépare sa loi depuis 18 mois, le ministre Roberge s’est montré tout aussi vague quant aux nouvelles balises qui encadreront le financement étatique d’événements communautaires ou d’activités culturelles. Au-delà de la microgestion du moindre rassemblement, l’adoption d’une culture commune passe par la découverte d’artistes et d’œuvres du Québec. Et pas seulement forcée.

Pour un gouvernement qui souhaite rassembler tous les Québécois autour d’une culture commune,dont les acteurs crient leur détresse, la fin de la gratuité universelle dans les musées le premier dimanche du mois est difficile à expliquer.

Tout comme la fermeture de classes de francisation. Le ministre et son gouvernement ont beau nier les « coupures budgétaires » en prétextant plutôt « le respect budgétaire », le résultat est le même. Les immigrants, de qui il exige une maîtrise du français pour en assurer la vitalité devant la menace, sont privés des cours espérés.

Prétendre que la demande rejoindra l’offre en francisation puisque le gouvernement resserre l’accueil d’immigrants temporaires relève de l’illusion. L’arriéré de nouveaux arrivants désireux d’apprendre la langue commune du Québec (bien qu’il découle d’abord de l’accueil pléthorique fédéral) ne disparaîtra pas pour autant. Et ceux qui fuient la guerre, les dérèglements climatiques ou la dureté du président américain, Donald Trump, ne seront pas moins nombreux.

Les contradictions du gouvernement de François Legault ne s’expliqueront pas aussi facilement.

D’autant que son propre projet de loi-cadre prône une nécessaire approche de réciprocité des responsabilités partagées entre l’État québécois et les nouveaux arrivants.

Il est attendu que ces derniers apprennent le français et participent ainsi à la vitalité de la culture québécoise. Encore faut-il leur donner les moyens de respecter ce contrat social qui leur est présenté.

Le gouvernement s’engage, noir sur blanc, à prendre des mesures pour contribuer à leur intégration, « par exemple en créant et en maintenant les conditions favorisant l’apprentissage du français ». De même qu’à « facilite[r] l’accès aux œuvres et aux contenus culturels ». Les échos sur le terrain — qu’ils découlent d’une rigueur ou d’une responsabilité budgétaires — laissent croire que le gouvernement n’y met pas tout à fait les ressources prescrites.

François Legault mise sur la carte de l’identité pour faire oublier les défis auxquels il fait face. Au-delà des intentions, c’est sur les résultats concrets qu’il sera jugé.

Source: Gare aux contradictions

New year, new Caquist nationalist offensive. François Legault had warned that he would set course for the identity file. This was done in the first days of the parliamentary return to school in Quebec City, with the tabled of its draft framework law enshrining the chosen model of interculturalism as the best bulwark to ensure the vitality and sustainability of the French language and Francophone culture.

The draft “law on national integration” sets out the main principles to which Quebec society adheres – to be democratic, secular, guided by its Charter of Rights and Freedoms and gender equality, and to evolve in a common language, French. The national affirmation of consensus established in Quebec, which will guide through the apparatus of the Quebec State the integration of newcomers in a spirit of diversity.

On paper, the Caquist proposal sticks to the common grounds and orthodox doctrines of the Quebec model of integration into a common society and culture. The support and participation of all, the contribution of each.

A new legislative proposal that aims to be consensual, in order to bring a new stone to the construction of a properly Quebec constitutional framework. However, major parts of the implementation of this framework law remain to be defined.

A national policy will govern its scope in the government and parapublic apparatus 18 months after its adoption. A regulation will also set out the new rules for financing activities and organizations supported by the State, which will have to comply with this new integration framework in the future, within two years of its promulgation.

The Minister of Immigration, Francisation and Integration, Jean-François Roberge, suggested, following the tabling of his bill on Thursday, that his government could thus force a pressing budget in the allocation of places in subsidized daycare centers, where the religious have interfered. He also left it possible that public funding for religious schools could be reviewed in turn. A turnaround for the government, which would then wisely choose the path of coherence.

Although he has been preparing his law for 18 months, Minister Roberge has been equally vague about the new beacons that will govern the state financing of community events or cultural activities. Beyond the micromanagement of the slightest gathering, the adoption of a common culture requires the discovery of Quebec artists and works. And not just forced.

For a government that wants to bring together all Quebecers around a common culture, whose actors shout their distress, the end of universal gratuity in museums on the first Sunday of the month is difficult to explain.

Just like the closure of francization classes. The minister and his government may deny “budget cuts” on the pretext of “budgetary respect”, the result is the same. Immigrants, from whom he requires a mastery of French to ensure their vitality in the face of the threat, are deprived of the hoped-for courses.

To claim that demand will join the supply in francization since the government is tightening the reception of temporary immigrants is a matter of illusion. The backlog of newcomers wishing to learn the common language of Quebec (although it first stems from the federal full reception) will not disappear. And those fleeing war, climate change or the harshness of American President Donald Trump will not be less numerous.

The contradictions of François Legault’s government will not be so easily explained.

Especially since his own draft framework law advocates a necessary approach to reciprocity of shared responsibilities between the Quebec State and newcomers.

They are expected to learn French and thus participate in the vitality of Quebec culture. They must still be given the means to respect this social contract that is presented to them.

The government undertakes, in black and white, to take measures to contribute to their integration, “for example by creating and maintaining conditions conducive to learning French”. As well as “facilitates access to cultural works and content”. The echoes on the ground — whether they stem from budgetary rigour or responsibility — suggest that the government is not quite putting the prescribed resources into it.

François Legault relies on the identity card to make people forget the challenges he faces. Beyond the intentions, it is on the concrete results that he will be judged.

FIRST READING: Inside Quebec’s new plan to kill multiculturalism

NP on Bill 84. Lots of nuance given different understandings of multiculturalism which, in the Canadian context, has always been about integration, not separation, with accommodation aimed at integration, not separation. Implementation and behaviours of course are not perfect:

In what may yet prove to be a model for the rest of the country, Quebec is rolling out a comprehensive plan to kill Canadian multiculturalism in favour of “interculturalism.”

Bill 84, An Act respecting national integration, which was tabled Thursday, lays out an “integration model” under which immigrants to Quebec are expected to both learn French and adhere to a “common culture.”

“For the first time in our history, we’re going to define who we are and how we want to evolve as a nation,” said Jean-François Roberge, Quebec’s immigration minister, in a French-language web video promoting the bill that was posted on Monday.

“This model will let us build a society where the Francophone majority invites all Quebecers to adhere and contribute to the common culture of our nation,” he said.

In an English-language defence of the bill delivered at a press availability on Tuesday, Roberge said people coming to Quebec “must accept” its democratic values, such as the equality of men and women. “We don’t want ghettoes, we want one society.”

In an English-language defence of the bill delivered at a press availability on Tuesday, Roberge said people coming to Quebec “must accept” its democratic values, such as the equality of men and women. “We don’t want ghettoes, we want one society.”

The bill’s text states that Quebecers are “expected to … collaborate in the welcoming of immigrants and foster their integration into the Québec nation.”

Conversely, immigrants are expected to “participate fully, in French, in Québec society” and “participate in the vitality of Québec culture by enriching it.”

Quebec’s forays into cultural protection are often conspicuously out of step with the rest of Canada. That’s most obviously been the case when it comes to another piece of CAQ legislation, Bill 21. Passed in 2019, it forbids Quebec government employees — including nurses and teachers — from wearing religious garb at work such as hijabs, kippas, dastaars or Catholic pendants.

Bill 21 inspired widespread condemnation from across English Canada, including from the Conservatives.

But on the issue of integrating immigrants, nationwide polls show that Canadians are increasingly supportive of a system in which newcomers must adhere to certain “shared values.”

A Leger poll from November 2023 found 55 per cent of respondents agreeing with the notion that the Canadian government should be “encouraging newcomers to embrace broad mainstream values and traditions and leave behind elements of their cultural identity that may be incompatible with that.”

That same poll also found that a majority of non-white respondents did not automatically agree with the nostrum “diversity is our strength.”

Instead, 56 per cent agreed with the notion that “some elements of diversity can provide strength, but some elements of diversity can cause problems / conflict” — slightly higher than the share of Caucasian respondents (55 per cent) who said the same thing.

Source: FIRST READING: Inside Quebec’s new plan to kill multiculturalism