Liberals vow to review Canada’s poor record jailing Islamist fighters returning to country

Reasonable approach as part of the overall review under-way:

Canada’s poor record at jailing Islamist fighters returning from Syria and Iraq will be scrutinized as part of the government’s overhaul of the nation’s security apparatus.

The commitment Tuesday by Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, responsible for Canada’s chief spy agency and the RCMP, follows news that about 60 individuals in Canada are suspected to have returned from foreign battlefields and the ranks of the Islamic State, al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.

None have been charged, though Parliament in 2013 created four new criminal laws against leaving the country or attempting to leave to engage in terrorist activities. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) believes about 180 others from Canada are currently fighting with, or aiding, extremist movements overseas.

The numbers were revealed Monday by CSIS Director Michel Coulombe, testifying before the Senate’s committee on national security. The principal concern is that some of those who survive and return to Canada could use their combat skills to launch attacks here or become terrorist recruiters, fund-raisers and domestic organizers.

Goodale and RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson, appearing before the Commons public safety committee Tuesday, said the paucity of foreign fighter prosecutions — there has been just one — reflects the high evidentiary standards in Canada’s criminal courts. (Five other men have been charged in absentia, but two have reportedly been killed fighting in Syria.)

Gathering incriminating intelligence in a far-flung combat zone, then turning it into evidence to satisfy guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is tough. What’s more, CSIS has no law enforcement powers and terrorism-related criminal charges are up to the RCMP.

“It’s a challenge to be able to get the evidence that’s required to prove our cases to our standards here in Canada,” Paulson told reporters. “We have been improving collecting that evidence, but it is fundamentally an evidence-collection issue.”

Increasingly, police and other authorities are using heavy surveillance, immigration law, detentions, peace bonds and disruption tactics to watch, remove, control and thwart the activities of those who have returned.

Both Goodale and Paulson flatly rejected the notion of lowering criminal law thresholds.

Instead, Goodale said the issue will be included in the government’s promised review of Canada’s national security framework.

“How do you make that important transition from intelligence information to prosecutorial evidence? All of that is part of what we will be examining,” he said.

Source: Liberals vow to review Canada’s poor record jailing Islamist fighters returning to country | National Post

Today’s feminist problem? Black women are still invisible: Anderson

More than an element of truth in this critique by Septembre Anderson:

A few weeks ago, I got a press release about the 100th anniversary of women getting the vote in Canada. The e-mail goes on about women’s suffrage and the commemoration of that fight for a few hundred words and then begins to catalogue when women got the right to vote throughout the country – women in Manitoba in 1916, those in Newfoundland in 1925 and so on and so on – and then, in brackets, near the end, “Unfortunately, the right to vote was withheld from indigenous women, as well as those of Asian and African descent, for years longer.”

Nowhere in the press release was there any mention of how anti-black many suffragettes were; how much of these women’s activism was about gaining the vote for white women only; and how championing eugenics for racialized women was also part of their politics. Heck, there wasn’t even a mention of when indigenous, Asian and African women got the vote in Canada.

And this is the problem with feminism as it exists today. Black women and other women of colour are continuously rendered invisible beneath the “women” banner. The default definition for women is white women – those with the most systemic power – and the issues of the most privileged of us take precedence over the trials and tribulations of the least privileged of us.

We saw this clearly during the Academy Awards. While white women used the hashtag #AskHerMore to bring awareness to and combat sexist reporting on the red carpet, women of colour were bringing attention to #OscarsSoWhite, created by movie critic April Reign, to protest the lack of racial diversity in Oscar nominees.

We saw this with the celebration of Justin Trudeau’s recent cabinet – that boasted gender parity “because it’s 2015” but not racial parity. We see this with continuing discussions about the gender pay gap – but there’s a greater disparity between race than gender.

While white women experience the repercussions of sexism, racism isn’t one of the barriers that they have to come up against. It’s actually one that benefits them. The unique issues that black women have to deal with are far too often overshadowed by the issues that white women deal with, leaving those of us with less institutional power to wait and hope for a trickle-down equity that history has shown us will never come.

Black women exist at the intersection of blackness and womanhood and, therefore, our feminism isn’t a single issue struggle. Our battle for equity and inclusion is with both misogyny and systemic anti-blackness, from within and without feminist circles. Feminism, as it is popularly practised, whitewashes the experience of racialized women and does not acknowledge the intersectionalities within womanhood. It does not acknowledge the distinctive ways different women experience sexism.

Through this myopic definition of womanhood, mainstream feminism is embroiled in elevating the women closest to the top rather than those struggling and suffering on the margins.

In Canada, black women and other women of colour find themselves missing not only from movements for gender diversity, but also from seats of power. Bank boards, newsrooms, hospital boards and executive positions are all spaces where white women see themselves better represented.

Source: Today’s feminist problem? Black women are still invisible – The Globe and Mail

Canada has more women in cabinet, but fewer sit on Commons committees

The Globe picks up on the same issues I raised earlier in Diversity on parliamentary committees: Does it matter? | My piece in The Hill Times with interesting commentary from a variety of parliamentarians, but only focuses on gender:

Diversity on committees is important; women believe they bring a different view to issues.

“It’s not that it’s a right or a wrong perspective. It’s just different,” said Pam Damoff, the newly elected Liberal MP for Oakville North-Burlington and the only woman on the public safety and national security committee. “It’s early going so far, but I do think it [female membership] gives a slightly different lens to look at things.”

There are 10 members on each committee – six Liberals, three Conservatives and one New Democrat. The numbers for each party are based on their representation in the House.

Mr. Trudeau’s promise to make committees more independent has also added to the dearth of female representation. There was criticism among opposition during the past government about having parliamentary secretaries, who are considered junior cabinet ministers, on their respective committees. The view was that the Harper government was using parliamentary secretaries to do the bidding of their minister, hijacking the committee’s independence.

Mr. Leslie said his government was “determined not to repeat that.”

And so, parliamentary secretaries are not on committees, giving Mr. Leslie even fewer female MPs to work with (the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers, opposition leaders, and the Speaker are also not appointed to committees).

“Do we need more women in caucus? Absolutely,” Mr. Leslie said.

And not just in the Liberal caucus, but in the entire Commons, where there are a total of 88 female MPs and 250 male MPs; women account for 26 per cent of the 338 seats.

The Conservatives elected 99 MPs – 17 are women. They are allowed to appoint three MPs to each committee. The third-party NDP has 44 MPs, 18 of whom are women. They are allowed one MP on each committee.

“We made a decision to put women on key committees,” Ms. Mathyssen said. Her party purposely put women on the foreign affairs committee and also on international trade, given that the massive trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, is one of the most important issues facing the Commons for the NDP.

Ms. Mathyssen suggested that women are more pragmatic and work harder than their male counterparts. “We go in prepared … We’ve always had to be very efficient in terms of time management because of all the things women do.”

For Ms. Damoff, being the only woman on the public safety committee was a surprise. She had asked to be on the infrastructure committee. “When I first got appointed, I thought, ‘Wow, I’m the only woman on here.’” she said. But she quickly realized she could play an important role.

“I do bring a different perspective,” she said. Recently, RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson appeared before her committee on issues around sexual harassment in the police force. She asked him what he was doing to promote women into leadership roles.

“The only way you change the culture in any organization, whether it is business or politics … is to have women in leadership roles,” she said about why she asked that question. “Not that men may not have thought of it. But it was just a different perspective I was bringing to the issue.”

Government House Leader Dominic LeBlanc recognizes that there are too few women on committees, but says the Prime Minister made the commitment to put women in leadership roles in government. “One objective is to encourage more women to run for nominations and get elected to Parliament,” he said. “This would be a direct way to increase the number of women serving on committees of the House.”

Nancy Peckford of Equal Voice, the non-partisan organization advocating for more elected women, says it’s important to have gender parity in cabinet, but the trick now is not to be complacent and think that women have somehow won.

“What this points to is that you have a House that is only 26-per-cent women … so, really, it comes down to electing more women,” she said.

The print edition also has a neat graphical representation.

Source: Canada has more women in cabinet, but fewer sit on Commons committees – The Globe and Mail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 |

Vision Vancouver pushes gender parity motion

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

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

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

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

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