Québec met en avant les avantages d’accueillir plus d’immigrants

2016/03/09 Leave a comment

Express Entry, the Quebec version:

La nouvelle politique de l’immigration, présentée lundi par la ministre de l’Immigration, de la Diversité et de l’Inclusion, Kathleen Weil, fait miroiter les avantages de hausser de 50 000 à 60 000 le nombre d’immigrants reçus annuellement au Québec.

« Selon les perspectives démographiques, à partir d’un niveau de 60000 personnes immigrantes admises annuellement, le Québec éviterait un recul de sa population en âge de travailler en dessous de son niveau de 2011 » alors qu’avec le maintien du seuil d’immigration actuel de 50000 nouveaux arrivants par année, « la taille de la population en âge de travailler connaîtrait un recul marqué entre 2016 et 2031, entraînant une rareté de main-d’oeuvre, particulièrement dans certaines régions et secteurs d’activité », peut-on lire dans le document de 61 pages décrivant la nouvelle politique d’immigration du Québec et accompagné d’une stratégie d’action 2016-2021. Dévoilé en mars 2015, le Plan économique du gouvernement Couillard prévoyait consacrer 42,5 millions de dollars en cinq ans à cette stratégie.

En février, lors de la consultation en commission parlementaire portant sur le projet de loi 77 qui refonde la Loi sur l’immigration adoptée en 1991, des participants, notamment l’économiste Pierre Fortin, mettaient en garde le gouvernement contre une hausse des seuils d’immigration qui pourrait s’avérer « destructive » pour la cohésion sociale, tout en ne présentant pas d’avantages économiques pour la population d’accueil. La politique d’immigration dévoilée lundi insiste plutôt sur le « rôle important[de l’immigration] pour accroître la prospérité du Québec ».

Distincte de la politique, la consultation sur les seuils d’immigration triennaux doit se tenir plus tard cette année.

Entre sélection et besoins

La nouvelle politique préconise de mettre en place « un système d’immigration novateur qui permettra une adéquation optimale entre la sélection et les besoins du marché du travail », a déclaré la ministre Kathleen Weil en conférence de presse à Montréal.

Le projet de loi 77 permet l’implantation de ce nouveau système reposant sur une déclaration d’intérêt de la part des candidats à l’immigration dite « économique », c’est-à-dire les candidats choisis par Québec. « Il mettra fin au principe du premier arrivé, premier servi », a souligné la ministre. Les délais imposés au candidat avant son arrivée au pays, variant de un à quatre ans à l’heure actuelle, passeront de trois à six mois, a promis Kathleen Weil.

Le gouvernement Couillard entend accentuer ses efforts pour recruter des immigrants parmi les étudiants étrangers et les travailleurs temporaires. Un peu moins du quart de ces étudiants et travailleurs décident de s’établir au Québec, une proportion que la ministre souhaite augmenter substantiellement. La moitié des étudiants étrangers souhaitent immigrer au Québec, a signalé la ministre, citant un sondage commandé par Montréal International.

Kathleen Weil a présenté la connaissance du français comme « la clef de voûte de la réussite de la participation économique et sociale des personnes immigrantes ». Le Québec sélectionne une majorité d’immigrants qui connaissent le français. Entre 1990 et 1994, ils étaient 35,1 % de l’ensemble des immigrants reçus contre 61,3 % entre 2010 et 2014, a-t-elle mentionné. L’immigration est « une contribution à la vitalité du français » au Québec. Les cours de français destinés aux immigrants seront mieux adaptés aux besoins particuliers des immigrants. Tout immigrant, quelle que soit sa date d’admission au Québec, aura droit à des cours à temps partiel.

Source: Québec met en avant les avantages d’accueillir plus d’immigrants | Le Devoir

Filed under Multiculturalism

My secret debate with Sam Harris: A revealing 4-hour dialogue on Islam, racism & free-speech hypocrisy – Salon.com

2016/03/09 Leave a comment

A very good long-read and effective take down of Sam Harris, a major figure in the anti-Muslim cottage industry, by Omer Aziz:

On that same podcast, Harris reflected with astonishment that I “didn’t even seem to be religious!” When I heard him say this, I burst out laughing. Unlike the charlatan Maajid Nawaz, I forthrightly admit that I am a skeptic and make no claims to being a “reformer”—such titles are for self-anointed prophets, not writers. Harris referred to me as a “young Muslim writer,” echoing his remarks during our debate where he referred to the same Middle Easterners he considers backward subhumans as “your fellow Muslims.” Imagine the grotesque stench of anti-Semitism if I called Sam Harris a “Jewish neuroscientist” or referred to Jewish terrorists in the West Bank as Harris’s “fellow Jews.” This is what white supremacy does: It reduces another person’s complex humanity to a two-dimensional stick-figure and allows the objectifier to remain so ignorant of how other people actually live that this ignorance becomes a privileged badge of honor rather than a mark of impoverishment. One should pity individuals like Harris, so blinded by arrogance that they live in a world removed from the struggles of every day people who they assume to be knaves and fools.

Harris ought to retire from the Islam industry altogether, or at least take a long vacation from spouting bile for a living. If this is too much to ask, he should at least have the integrity to admit that his attempted ambush on the “young Muslim writer” who “didn’t even seem to be religious” backfired and so he deprived his customers out of the truth.

For all of its shortcomings, this unpublished debate was not a waste of time. It illuminated one thing for certain: that Harris and his brigade of  reactionary pseudo-liberals are not at all interested in the questions they raise. It is about power for them, and maintaining a belief in their own superiority. No debate will rob Harris and his ilk of such a satisfying elixir, that they are civilized, while those people over there, in their ghettos and their mosques, they are barbaric, they are criminals, they are animals. Why escape Plato’s cave if you are the one holding the chains?

Source: My secret debate with Sam Harris: A revealing 4-hour dialogue on Islam, racism & free-speech hypocrisy – Salon.com

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with ,

Nova Scotia celebrates 100th anniversary of all-black unit: ‘Fighting to fight’

2016/03/09 Leave a comment

Anthony Sherwood continues to tell needed stories:

Despite making an award-winning docudrama on Canada’s only all-black military unit in 2001, director Anthony Sherwood says he’s still amazed how little is known nationally about the No. 2 Construction Battalion.

Sherwood will present a special screening of his film Honour Before Glory, at the new Halifax Central Library on Tuesday as part of celebrations marking the 100th anniversary of the formation of the battalion in 1916.

“Nova Scotia is one of the provinces where the story has flourished and has been told several times,” said Sherwood. “But I’m amazed that there is still a lot of people who don’t know this story.”

The military unit formed during the First World War was the only predominantly African-Canadian battalion since Confederation. The segregated battalion allowed black men who had previously been turned away by recruiters to enlist in the military.

Sherwood said the unique story of the battalion is an important piece of Canadian history because it shows that there were black Canadians who served their country during the first great global conflict.

“I think that participation and that service should be recognized,” said Sherwood.

Sherwood, a Halifax native, said he came to be interested in the battalion through the diary of his great uncle, Reverend William White, who served as the unit’s chaplain. That diary became the basis for the film, which won a Gemini Award in 2002.

“I strongly believe he wanted somebody to read this (diary) and tell this story,” said Sherwood.

Source: Nova Scotia celebrates 100th anniversary of all-black unit: ‘Fighting to fight’ – Macleans.ca

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Nine new MPs came to Canada as refugees or from current or past war zones |

2016/03/08 Leave a comment

Good profile of the backgrounds of this group of MPs:

Nine newly-elected MPs in the 42nd Parliament, which is considered the most diverse crop of MPs in Parliament’s history, came to Canada either as refugees or fled from war-torn countries.

Out of the nine, according to research conducted by John Chenier, former editor of <em>The Lobby Monitor</em> and now editor of ARC Publications, four came to Canada as refugees from war zones or suffered persecution and five immigrated to Canada from current and past troubled zones such as the Middle East or Pakistan.

The four MPs who came to Canada as refugees are: Liberals Arif Virani (Parkdale-High Park, Ont.) from Uganda; Gary Anandasangaree (Scarborough-Rouge Park, Ont.) from Sri Lanka; Maryam Monsef (Peterborough-Kawartha, Ont.) from Afghanistan and Ahmed Hussen (York South-Weston, Ont.) from Somalia.

The five first-generation immigrants from current and past danger zones include: Liberal MP Faycal El-Khoury (Laval-Les Iles, Que.) from Lebanon; Liberal MP Iqra Khalid (Mississauga-Erin Mills, Ont.) from Pakistan; Liberal MP Salma Zahid (Scarborough Centre, Ont.) from Pakistan; Liberal MP Eva Nassif (Vimy, Que.) from Lebanon, and Conservative MP Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, Alta.) from Lebanon.

In total, there are 40 MPs from all parties who were born outside of Canada, according to Parliament of Canada website and research conducted by <em>The Hill Times</em>. Of these, 29 are Liberal, eight are Conservatives, two are NDP, and one from the Green Party.

Source: Nine new MPs came to Canada as refugees or from current or past war zones |

Filed under Government, Multiculturalism, Refugees Tagged with ,

Vision Vancouver pushes gender parity motion

2016/03/08 Leave a comment

One aspect of diversity but as the DiverseCityonBoard initiative makes clear, this challenge goes beyond gender given the increased (and increasing) ethnic diversity in our larger cities:

All City of Vancouver advisory committees could soon be required to have 50-per-cent female representation.

To mark International Women’s Day on Tuesday, Vision Vancouver Coun. Andrea Reimer plans to introduce a motion that would create a formal policy ensuring that at least half of all committee members are women.

Mayor Gregor Robertson indicated he’ll be supporting the motion, and hopes it will pass unanimously.

Reimer’s motion also calls for a review of how the city funds subsidized housing and social policy grants to make sure that women and girls are getting an equal share of services.

“While we often think of Vancouver as a progressive city, there’s more we could be doing to remove barriers to women and ensure that we are providing an equitable delivery of services,” Robertson said in a press release. “We continue to see women underrepresented in public life and in 2016 there’s no reason that should be acceptable.”

But unanimous support may not be possible. NPA Coun. Melissa De Genova said she has yet to decide which way she’ll vote on the motion, but she does have concerns about the 50-per-cent standard.

“We all would like to see more women become involved in our city and in our community, but I think perhaps we don’t agree on how we should get there,” she said.

Source: Vision Vancouver pushes gender parity motion

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

How do we fill the pipeline with board-ready women?

2016/03/08 Leave a comment

While the issues facing women are different, there may be some parallels with respect to increasing visible minority and indigenous representation:

On Tuesday, countries around the globe join in celebrating International Women’s Day, honouring the achievements of women and mobilizing with programs to close the gender gap. This year’s theme, Pledge for Parity, is a call to accelerate equality, with a special emphasis on shrinking the gender gap in leadership positions.

It’s time to consider what this means for Canada’s leadership landscape. We need to take a close examination of who our CEOs are and who is seated in our boardrooms.

It has been just over a year since new regulations required companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange to annually disclose the percentage of women on their boards of directors and in executive officer positions. Now companies must report their goals and the actions being taken to increase their figures, or provide reasons when no such targets exist.

Proponents of the legislation hope that the guidelines will raise the percentage of board seats held by women to 30 per cent – but even they acknowledge that progress beyond that level will require a more robust pipeline of female executive candidates. To truly achieve gender-balanced boards, we need to examine some of the root causes of the imbalance. While tremendous energy is being exerted on quick fixes, how do we take a long-term approach?

As someone who works closely with boards and CEOs to identify and develop the next generation of business leaders, I believe that we need to closely examine women in mid- to senior-leadership positions today to build a more robust executive pipeline – particularly since many companies are inadvertently hampering their own progress.

Consider what happens when a high-potential female executive returns from family leave, seeking a position that allows her to ease back into the workforce. Often, companies respond supportively by transitioning her from an operational role into a functional support role, allowing for career development that builds functional expertise and deepens her contribution and seniority without the time and travel demands of operational leadership.

At face value, this seems to be a win for all parties. But there’s a catch. These women with exceptional potential wind up in positions where they get overlooked for future growth or profit-and-loss leadership opportunities. Their steady success in transitional and functional roles limits their potential for future CEO or board roles.

As board positions become available and nominating committees seek new director candidates, they invariably prefer those who have been CEOs or heads of business units, bringing effective P&L management.

Our research shows that 21 per cent of the direct reports to the CEO of TSX 250 companies are women, while two-thirds of those women are leading support functions. Of the direct reports who have operating leadership roles, just 7 per cent are women. The pipeline of board-ready women doesn’t flow.

While we work to make the number of women in the boardroom rise above 30 per cent, both corporate Canada and female executives need to focus on building operational excellence. We must have more female contenders for CEO succession, and in order for this to happen, must collectively consider and thoughtfully engage in career-path decision-making.

Only by addressing these root issues can we hope to move toward full gender equality at the top of the corporate pyramid.

Source: How do we fill the pipeline with board-ready women? – The Globe and Mail

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Annual Report on the operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act: Building a diverse and inclusive society

2016/03/07 Leave a comment

The 2014-15 report was released discretely (no press release, no announcement), given that it covers the period of the previous government. The only changes that could be made were largely cosmetic in nature.

The sub-title changes to Building a diverse and inclusive society, and Minister Joly picks up on the now standard language:

In Canada, we are recognized worldwide for our successful approach to multiculturalism, which focuses on building a diverse and inclusive society by promoting and encouraging awareness, understanding and respect for the many different cultures that contribute to the economic and social wealth of our country. While the Government of Canada sets the stage through the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, it is thanks to the full participation of our provincial and territorial partners, stakeholders and the Canadian public that we are able to find unity in our diversity and to learn from one another.

…As Canadians, we know that our country is made stronger because of our diversity, not in spite of it. By working together, we are advancing respect and appreciation for multiculturalism across the country while fostering a sense of inclusion and belonging in all Canadians.

In contrast, the previous report, consigned to Former Minister Kenney, reflects a different tone:

Our government is committed to promoting integration, intercultural understanding, peaceful pluralism as well as religious freedom—in Canada and abroad. I have been pleased to meet with many community organizations and international partners over the past year to advance our values and goals.

…By working together, we are making strides in celebrating our multicultural heritage, strengthening the value of citizenship and ensuring the successful integration of newcomers to Canada.

One of the disconnects or ironies is of course that the period under question, and thus the report, reflects the language, approach and activities for that period, with only really the Minister’s message reflecting the change. I was in a similar position when Minister Kenney had to sign-off on a report that largely reflected the priorities and language of the previous government.

No where is this more apparent than in the report’s vaunting of the changes to citizenship, both legislative and administration, many of which are being undone by the current government.

The other striking aspect is what appears to be under-spending in multiculturalism grants and contributions, $3.9 million, compared to the $8.5 million indicated in the DPR. This may reflect ongoing financial commitments in multi-year projects (which next year’s DPR will indicate).

Annual Report on the operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act: Building a diverse and inclusive society

 

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Abolish office of religious freedom: Anthony Furey

2016/03/07 Leave a comment

Interesting that the call to disband the office is coming from the Toronto Sun which generally supported the previous government:

It really does look like the office is just multicultural pandering, letting various religious groups – and they’re well-represented on the office’s 23 member advisory committee – feel the government is going to bat for them around the world.

It’s not exactly a “Canada first” endeavour, is it? I’m rather uncomfortable with us encouraging religious leaders into thinking their priorities are automatically Canadian policy priorities.

It’s even in the mandate: “The office will promote freedom of religion or belief as a Canadian foreign policy priority.”

A good and true sentiment, but a priority? No thanks. Canada’s foreign priorities should be about geopolitical stability with a view to our economy and security interests. If religious freedom becomes a secondary goal in these ventures then fine, but it shouldn’t be a standalone one.

However Garnett Genuis, Conservative MP for Sherwood Park-Fort Saskatchewan, believes the office is doing good work and hopes the Liberals keep it.

“Religious persecution is increasing and there are religious undertones to a lot of conflicts that exist in the world today,” he told me in a phone interview.

“If you believe the government should be involved in development assistance to some point, this is a very effective way for the government to be contributing to global harmony,” Genuis adds. “It helps to elevate our reputation as a country that takes human rights seriously and is willing to put its money where its mouth is.”

If these activities are priorities for the government, they shouldn’t be undertaken by a secondary office, but directly championed by the foreign affairs minister. And if they’re not that important, then leave them to the NGOs. There’s really no compelling reason for the Liberals to maintain this office.

Source: Abolish office of religious freedom | Furey | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with ,

Why stripping citizenship is a weak tool to fight terrorism: Roach and Forces

2016/03/07 Leave a comment

Usual good analysis and assessment:

First, even assuming that citizenship revocations produced the removal of dangerous people from Canada, that strategy would amount to anti-terrorism NIMBYism. More concretely, Canada would embark of a policy of catch and release – setting up today’s convicts as tomorrow’s foreign fighters, with travel to foreign locales facilitated by the Canadian government. It seems unlikely other countries would embrace the “return” of people converted to violence in Canada, and deposited on their doorstep because of a potentially tenuous residual link of nationality.

Nor would it be sensible to assume that deported former Canadians would thereafter be unable or uninterested in engineering acts dangerous to Canada and Canadians. Operating far from Canada and its security services, they would enjoy a greater freedom to do so than would those kept closer to home, under watch and potentially more invasive strictures, such as peace bonds.

Second, the provisions only applied to dual nationals. The rationale for this focus was simple – making someone stateless would violate Canada’s international obligations. But this focus on a small subset of Canadians encouraged the dangerous delusion that terrorism is (or can be made into) a foreign threat and problem. The so-called Toronto 18 plot, the terrorist attacks of October, 2014, and the 1985 Air India bombing underline the fact that terrorism is a Canadian phenomenon. Some of those plotters were dual nationals, others were not. In almost all of the recent terrorism cases, the violent radicalization of plotters was made-in-Canada, not the product of residence in some foreign locale.

Citizenship revocation for dual nationals is at best a capricious and close to arbitrary tool, focused not on a class of people who are the most objectively dangerous, but on a population most legally vulnerable to the extraordinary revocation power.

Third, the law now being repealed would in most cases commit Canada to long and costly battles about whether it can deport a convicted terrorist to countries such as Iran without the person running the risk of torture. This is a path we have been down before, with the infamous (and to date fruitless) security certificate disputes – legal proceedings that have consumed millions of taxpayer dollars and have yet to result in the removal of any of the five foreign-born men accused of terrorism and subjected to removal orders after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The costs here stem not only from the extensive litigation but also from the reputational hit Canada incurs when it risks complicity with torture. The O’Connor and Iacobucci inquiries into the role of Canadian authorities in contributing to the maltreatment of Canadians in foreign jails are now a decade old, but their lessons remain acute. Stripping someone’s nationality before sending him to a foreign jail in a torturing country does not change in the least the ethical or legal implications of such conduct.

Fourth, the prospect of deporting terrorists who have served their prison terms provides Canada with another excuse not to dedicate resources to problems of prison disengagement from terrorism and rehabilitation. The Western world is slowly awakening to the reality that many people convicted under broad, post-9/11 laws enacted to prevent terrorism before it happens will eventually be released. The idea of citizenship stripping encourages the illusion that Canada can displace the risk of terrorism, rather than take responsibility for fighting it through programs that counter violent extremism, including for people convicted of terrorist plots.

All of these points condemn citizenship revocation even without considering questions of constitutional law and principle. But those, too, are ripe – not least, the issue of whether our courts would have followed their U.S. counterparts and condemned citizenship revocation as an underhanded supplemental punishment for things a citizen did, while still a citizen.

Source: Why stripping citizenship is a weak tool to fight terrorism – The Globe and Mail

Filed under Citizenship, Radicalization, Revocation Tagged with ,

Big Shift or Big Return? Visible Minority Representation in the 2015 Election

2016/03/05 Leave a comment

My presentation at the Metropolis 2016, analyzing the election results and the record level of visible minority representation, 14 percent of all MPs, close to the percentage of visible minority Canadian citizens. This presentation also reviews how this representation is reflected in Cabinet, Parliamentary Secretaries, Opposition critics, and parliamentary committees.

Big Shift or Big Return? Visible Minority Representation in the 2015 Election

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →