‘You are a very bad minister,’ Conservative immigration critic says at tense committee meeting

2025/12/05 2 Comments

Watched this brutal exchange. Her name comes up periodically as someone who may be shuffled and her appearance yesterday may increase speculation. That being said, MP Rempel Garner is somewhat of a bulldog in her questioning.

As to DM Kochhar’s letter asking MPs to be more respectful of public servants in their questioning, and to be mindful of the risks of posting edited clips that target them, I recall former DM Fadden having the same concerns some 15 years ago or so, albeit in a safer social media environment:

Immigration Minister Lena Diab sparred with her Conservative critic at a tense House of Commons committee meeting Thursday as the two disagreed on everything from immigration levels and deporting non-citizen criminals to what kind of salad they prefer.

Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner put Diab in the hot seat throughout her two-hour committee appearance, grilling Diab about her file and accusing her of being “a very bad minister” when she struggled to give a clear answer on whether she will use powers under the government’s pending C-12 legislation to mass extend temporary visas.

A section in that bill gives the government the ability to stop accepting applications or cancel, suspend or change documents for an entire immigration class — something critics on both sides of the issue say could be abused either to turbocharge the number of newcomers or cancel visas en masse.

Asked if she plans to use that power to keep more people in Canada rather than expelling them when their visas expire, Diab said “that’s not the purpose” of the legislation but wouldn’t say how it would be used.

A frustrated Rempel Garner interrupted Diab.

“When you ask a question I think you should be able to have decency to let someone respond,” Diab said.

“I don’t like your word salad, it’s true. You are a very bad minister,” Rempel Garner said.

“You know what, I prefer fattoush and tabouleh to your salad, at any time,” Diab said.

“That is the oddest thing any immigration minister has said at this committee. It’s very weak and will likely be added to your performance reviews,” Rempel Garner said.

“It’s my culture,” said Diab, who is Lebanese Canadian.

At one point, another Liberal MP, Peter Fragiskatos, stepped in as the two exchanged words.

Rempel Garner said she wasn’t speaking to him about these issues.

“He’s going to have your job,” she said to Diab of Fragiskatos, suggesting the minister was about to be shuffled out of cabinet. “I’ll likely be having this conversation with him in a couple of months.”

Rempel Garner also asked Diab about some recent non-citizen criminals getting more lenient sentences so they can avoid deportation.

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a permanent resident or foreign national can be deemed inadmissible if they engage in “serious criminality,” which includes any crime that results in being sentenced to prison for more than six months.

In one recent case an Indian national paid for sex with what he thought was a teenager at a Mississauga, Ont., hotel. That teenage girl was actually an undercover cop.

The man was ultimately sentenced to a conditional discharge for committing an indecent act and was sentenced to 12 months of probation, including three months of house arrest. Rempel Garner said the man should have been dealt with more harshly by the courts and ultimately deported.

Asked if she will send a message to judges that are letting non-citizen criminals off easy to avoid being forced out of Canada, Diab said that’s not her role.

“Sentencing decisions are made independently by the courts,” she said, while assuring the Conservative critic the government will remove foreign criminals when appropriate.

“So, you’re pro-raper,” Rempel Garner asked provocatively.

“The courts have already indicated that serious offences will be dealt with seriously,” Diab said, while adding she wasn’t familiar with the case Rempel Garner raised.

“Can’t you just say it’s wrong and we’ll look into it?” Rempel Garner asked in return. “You just defended a guy who sexually assaulted somebody. It’s rampant in our justice system.”

“A wise person once told me you debate the issues and the policy and you don’t debase the individual,” he said, urging his colleagues to follow that mantra.

Deputy minister cites cases of bullying

The meeting started with the committee chair, Julie Dzerowicz, reading a letter from Diab’s deputy minister — the top bureaucrat in the department — saying some public servants have been subjected to bullying and intimidation after appearing before the committee.

That letter, written by Harpreet Kochhar, relayed that some unnamed politicians have posted videos of the public servants testifying at the committee, and they have been targeted online and in person as a result.

Dzerowicz said Kochhar was concerned about the “well-being” of these government workers who he said have endured “significant harassment and abuse” and “hostile emails.”

The letter, shared with CBC News, relays Kochhar’s fear that MPs posting “short, decontextualized clips of committee appearances” by bureaucrats could lead to violence.

“One of our colleagues was recently confronted in a public space by an angry individual referencing material shared online,” Kochhar wrote.

“I want to implore all committee members from all parties to be very cognizant of how we use the information from this committee, whether it’s online or offline,” Dzerowicz said, adding she doesn’t want appearing before a committee to be a “security risk.”

Rempel Garner said Kochhar was trying to “censor” Conservatives and stop them from questioning the department about what she described as a failed immigration policy.

“I will not be silenced,” she said, saying she will fight to get the government to “do the right thing” on this file.

“Giddy up,” she said.

Diab was ostensibly before the committee to talk about the government’s immigration targets for the coming years — figures that were included in the recent federal budget, an unusual move given they are generally delivered publicly by the minister….

Source: ‘You are a very bad minister,’ Conservative immigration critic says at tense committee meeting

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

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

2025/12/05 2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Chris Selley: Marc Miller, renegade heritage minister

Michel David in Le Devoir:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Filed under Interculturalisme, Language, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Immigration Minister warns foreign nationals to not abuse asylum system as U.S., U.K. tighten rules

2025/12/05 Leave a comment

Right message but unlikely to have much impact, just as the impact of former PM Trudeau’s 2017 infamous ‘To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada,’ was overstated:

…Asked about the implications for Canada, Ms. Metlege Diab warned asylum seekers against trying to take advantage of the Canadian system.

“If you’re coming just because you think it’s a way to side-step our system, don’t do that,” she said in her first major interview since taking on the role.

“We are telling people, no matter who you are, where you are, the asylum system in Canada is here to protect those that desperately are [in need], not for everyone,” she said. 

She said the borders bill, also known as Bill C-12, which is now going through Parliament, would “tighten up” the asylum system and “ensure that those that are not eligible to apply are weeded out earlier.” 

The bill, which would ban those who have been in the country for more than a year from claiming asylum, will “signal to the global community that Canada is not here for people to take advantage of,” she said.

Canada is known for its humanitarian efforts, and should “protect those that really need protection,” she said. But the country is also dealing with “capacity issues,” such as the availability of housing and health care. 

In this year’s immigration targets, Ottawa dramatically cut the number of international students it plans to admit and effectively froze the numbers of permanent residents over the next three years. The cuts followed waning support among Canadians for increasing immigration in recent years. 

Ms. Metlege Diab said “the mood of the country, going door to door,” has changed….

 Source: Immigration Minister warns foreign nationals to not abuse asylum system as U.S., U.K. tighten rules

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with ,

Levitt: At a time of widespread antisemitism, thoughtful conversations are vital

2025/12/05 Leave a comment

More such conversations needed.

…Recently, I had the pleasure, along with 1,600 people, of listening to two leading commentators share their insight on current issues. NYU’s Scott Galloway and CNN’s Van Jones were the keynote speakers at an event in Toronto hosted by Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, the human rights organization I head. At a time of widespread antisemitism, high-profile pundits — non-Jewish and Jewish, like these respected American observers — addressing this scourge is more vital than ever.

In this limited space, it’s hard to do full justice to the hour-long discussion, moderated by Canadian journalist Steve Paikin, but the following two excerpts give a sense of the thought-provoking conversation.

Responding to Paikin’s question about whether the U.S. is facing the prospect of a civil war, Jones, a prominent Black political analyst, gave a sobering perspective.

“We are being torn apart by a couple of different factors,” he said. “The most important one is that social media companies have decided to make a bunch of money off of dividing people and now they’re waging a shadow war, a grey war, against the West, primarily on TikTok, and they’ve come up with a novel strategy, never before heard of, called ‘Blame the Jews.’

“This is brand new,” he added caustically, “and unfortunately people are stupid enough to fall for it. I keep telling people that blaming the Jews isn’t the oldest trick in the book, blaming the Jews is literally older than books … Whenever they attack Jews, it’s never about the Jews. It’s always some other thing going on. Why are they picking on the Jews? It’s always because it’s another agenda. And so there’s this very nefarious agenda to divide the West, to divide us, to have us turn on each other rather than turn to each other and one of the ramifications of that is this uncivil war in our country.”

For his part, Galloway, a bestselling Jewish author, professor and entrepreneur, was equally astute. Asked why so many U.S. universities had become cauldrons of hate, targeting especially Jewish students, he didn’t mince words.

“A lot of the fault lies with campus leadership,” he said. “In trying to come to grips with American history, unfortunately, we’ve created the very reductive construct of the oppressed and the oppressor. Figure out who you are based on your identity and that categorizes you as the oppressor or the oppressed. What we’ve done is we’ve basically trained a generation [to think] that you’re one or the other. The most reductive or lazy way of thinking for identifying an oppressor, which we’ve taught kids on campus, is that your level of oppression is directly correlated to how rich and white you are. And unfortunately, Jews have been conflated with the richest, whitest people in the world.”

Referring to the anti-Israel encampments on campus, which often openly and enthusiastically embraced antisemitism, he added:

“If I went down to the square at NYU and I said, ‘Burn the gays!” or ‘Lynch the Blacks!’ my academic career would be over by the close of business that day. There would be no need for [discussing] ‘context.’ We wouldn’t be talking about the First Amendment. My career would be over. It became clear to me that on campuses through a series of well-intentioned teachings that went too far, it ended up where free speech never became freer as long as it was hate speech against Jews.”

Long may the insightful voices of Jones and Galloway resonate far and wide. We need more like them speaking out candidly and people giving them the attention they deserve.

Source: At a time of widespread antisemitism, thoughtful conversations are vital

Filed under Antisemitism, Interculturalisme, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

StatsCan: Racialized Persons with Disabilities

2025/12/05 2 Comments

Good infographic highlighting the similarities and differences between visible minorities and not visible minorities.

Findings that I found of interest:

  • Racialized minorities more likely to have sensory disabilities and less likely to have mental health-related disabilities than their non-racialized counterparts;
  • Racialized persons with disabilities were less likely to live alone than their non-racialized counterparts;
  • Racialized persons with disabilities aged 65 years and over were more likely to receive help with daily activities than their non-racialized counterparts;
  • Similar proportions of racialized and non-racialized persons with disabilities reported feeling lonely

Infographic like: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2025051-eng.pdf?st=-P0yrkeu

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Conservatives call for end to ‘one-click citizenship,’ return to in-person ceremonies

2025/12/04 Leave a comment

The last public data, from the Minister’s transition briefing book, indicated 45 percent of ceremonies were in person. A significant increase from earlier years but agree, as readers will know, the default should be an in-person ceremony, as citizenship ceremonies are not just about convenience but mark and celebrate becoming a citizen with others joining the “Canadian family:”

The Conservatives are asking the Liberal government to end “one-click citizenship” and return all citizenship ceremonies to in-person events. 

“Last year over half of the people who became Canadian citizens did so by clicking a box online. That’s crazy,” Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner said Wednesday. 

“There is no way to justify this practice,” she said. “With support for immigration at an all-time low, returning to inclusive, nation-building ceremonies is a no brainer.”

Describing the in-person citizenship ceremony as the “essential unifying bedrock of Canada’s civic life,” Rempel Garner said the move would restore the ceremony’s “community significance.” 

New Canadians began taking their citizenship oaths through virtual ceremonies in April 2020 in order to adhere to social-distancing guidelines. 

In July 2022 the federal government resumed holding in-person ceremonies but kept the virtual option to help get more people through the system.

The federal government said the option took off in popularity; less than 10 per cent of new Canadians availed themselves of in-person ceremonies in the last six months of 2022.

Cutting down wait times

Virtual ceremonies are not exactly “one-click” affairs. According to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), they require a number of steps. 

IRCC provides a videoconference link where the person seeking citizenship meets with an official to have their identity verified and watch them cut their permanent resident card up with scissors.

Once that’s done, the person joins a virtual ceremony where they take the oath of citizenship, sign a document affirming they took the oath and send it to IRCC.

In 2023, the federal government floated the idea of having people self-affirm their citizenship oath. But when that idea went out for public consultation, 61 per cent of respondents were against it, and only 36 per cent supportive. 

Conservative MP Tom Kmiec endorsed a petition calling for IRCC to revert to in-person citizenship ceremonies as the default.

The parliamentary secretary to the minister of immigration, refugees and citizenship, Paul Chiang, responded to the petition saying virtual ceremonies have helped IRCC cut down wait times for citizenship ceremonies.  

Source: Conservatives call for end to ‘one-click citizenship,’ return to in-person ceremonies

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

Khan: The notwithstanding clause has unleashed a runaway train

2025/12/04 Leave a comment

Valid issue but nuclear option more theoretical than practical:

…Is it time for the nuclear option to be met by a thermonuclear one? Some have urged the federal government to see the provinces’ notwithstanding clause and raise them disallowance – the federal power to nullify a provincial law deemed unjust. And Senator Peter Harder has tabled Bill S-218, which places guardrails on the use of the notwithstanding clause at the federal level, including prohibiting pre-emptive use. 

A Charter statement must accompany an infringing bill which indicates which rights are infringed, the potential effects of the bill, and why Section 1 of the Charter cannot be used instead. Section 1 allows for reasonable limits on rights. There must be full debate. Finally, a super-majority in the House is required for passage.

Bill S-218 has sparked interest at the provincial level. Manitoba’s government has tabled legislation that would require full judicial scrutiny of any future government use of the clause, making sure the public is fully informed of a court’s inquiry. Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew vows his government will never use it: “The reason is simple – because we respect human rights as they are articulated in the Charter.” 

If only other premiers were so respectful of Canadians’ rights.

Source: The notwithstanding clause has unleashed a runaway train

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Trump’s halting of asylum claims prompts fresh calls to suspend Safe Third Country Agreement

2025/12/04 Leave a comment

No surprise. Reactions below:

…But some experts have warned that suspending the agreement could open the door to an unknown number of asylum claimants who are currently ineligible for protection in Canada, at a time when the federal government is striving to reduce immigration because of pressure on housing.

Fen Hampson, president of the World Refugee & Migration Council and a professor of international affairs at Carleton University, said Mr. Trump’s decision “puts our government on the horns of a real dilemma.”

“The U.S is no longer providing equivalent protection and Canada faces a significant moral and potentially legal obligation to offer asylum to those who cannot get protection in the U.S.,” he said.

“The Canadian government must now decide whether it wishes to exercise its authority to suspend the agreement, create a broader exemption or stick with the status quo,” he said in an e-mail. “With tens of thousands of asylum claims still pending in Canada and fears that suspending the [agreement] could lead to increased irregular border crossing, the government may prefer to do nothing.” …

The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario have launched a judicial review of the Safe Third Country Agreement, seeking to declare it invalid. Maureen Silcoff, a lawyer who is representing plaintiffs in that case with lawyer Sujit Choudhry, said the agreement requires countries to follow the UN Refugee Convention, but the U.S. has chosen to stop adjudicating asylum claims. 

“The agreement itself anticipated that a situation may arise that requires a suspension,” Ms. Silcoff said.

“That day has arrived. The basis for the agreement has evaporated. It was predicated on the U.S. having a functional asylum system. The U.S. suspension of asylum determination means that the very foundation of the agreement has disappeared.”…

Lawyer James Yousif, who was policy director to former immigration minister Jason Kenney, said the U.S. government’s decision to halt all refugee claims would likely lead the Federal Court to strike down the Safe Third Country Agreement, which requires what he describes as a “functioning” asylum system.

“The extent of a President’s ability to halt asylum without legislation is unclear. But if asylum is halted and deportations begin, the consequences for Canada will be immediate,” he wrote in an e-mail.

If the pact is struck down, Mr. Yousif said, that would allow millions of people currently in the U.S. who are covered by the Safe Third Country Agreement to apply for asylum here.

“That would represent an existential threat to Canada’s immigration system,” he said.

Sharry Aiken, a professor at Queen’s University specializing in immigration and refugee law, said Mr. Trump’s latest edict on halting asylum claims is “the nail in the coffin” of the Safe Third Country Agreement.

She said other anti-migrant policies he has enacted should have already prompted the Canadian government to revisit whether it is still valid.

“If we had any doubts before, we shouldn’t now,” she said. “The agreement is predicated on responsibility sharing and that people have access to asylum in the U.S.”

Prof. Aiken predicted suspending the agreement is not going to lead to Mr. Trump being “upset with Canada” or a big influx of asylum seekers coming from the U.S.

“If necessary, we need to ensure that the IRB [Immigration and Refugee Board] is adequately resourced to deal with a potential increase in the number of claims,” she said.

Source: Trump’s halting of asylum claims prompts fresh calls to suspend Safe Third Country Agreement

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Chris Selley: Upset about the state of Canada? Why not pretend it’s better? [non-deportation of immigrants accused of sexual abuse]

2025/12/04 Leave a comment

Agree, risk of losing immigration status should not be a “get out of jail” card except in extremely rare circumstances:

Again in theory, that should include a 47-year-old non-citizen, living in Bradford, Ont., who recently pleaded guilty to various charges with respect to sexually abusing a young girl — including once when he was on bail for charges of sexually abusing the same girl, whom he reportedly impregnated twice when she was no older than 13. News outlet BarrieToday reports the accused was at one point during his trial “permitted an adjournment to explore the effect his eventual guilty pleas would have on his immigration status.”

Which is, obviously, insane.

Because this is Canada, however, and we can’t ever let anything be simple, the 47-year-old’s immigration status has become something of a controversy in Ottawa.

I don’t have empirical data before me, but I suspect deportation would not strike most Canadians as an intemperate or unjust punishment for Mr. 47-year-old Child-Impregnator from Bradford. It’s neither lenient nor draconian; it’s just common sense. It’s pretty hard to get a six-month sentence in this country, after all. The absolutely vast majority of Canadians, regardless of where they’re born, manage to avoid imprisonment for their entire lives, and they hardly even have to break a sweat avoiding it. I think that’s a reasonable expectation of immigrants as well.

Alas, some of us don’t like this rule, or at least we feel honour-bound not to like it. It’s just so terribly unfancy, if not downright American-style. Judges and Liberals seem to suffer from this disproportionately. So what judges have been doing, in certain cases, is discounting the sentences non-permanent residents are handed, rather than bringing those immigration consequences down upon an offender’s and his family’s heads.

This has been widely reported. It’s not some kind of conspiracy theory. But some of us seem to have great trouble admitting it (perhaps because it’s so obviously inappropriate). In August, Radio-Canada ran an article headlined “Conservatives say the justice system favours non-citizens. Experts disagree.” Only Radio-Canada’s experts didn’t actually disagree; they mostly just seemed to object to the notion that one sentence might be compared to another to begin with, as opposed to each being considered a standalone, perfectly honed diamond of wisdom.

When (a judge) is considering a sentence, they can’t be blind to the fact that this person is not a naturalized Canadian, is still an immigrant and therefore will have additional consequences as a result of the sentence,” a Toronto immigration lawyer told Radio-Canada — which was, of course, the whole question, and it’s not a rhetorical one. Can judges be blind to that? Should they?

The Conservatives, led by immigration critic Michelle Rempel Garner, want to make a law that says no: Judges wouldn’t be allowed to consider immigration consequences in handing down sentences, such as against that creep from Bradford, Ont. In the unlikely event I were advising the Liberals, I would suggest agreeing to support that law as quickly and enthusiastically as possible….

Source: Chris Selley: Upset about the state of Canada? Why not pretend it’s better?

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Meggs – Immigration : Les vies brisées par un système brisé

2025/12/04 Leave a comment

Good insights into Quebec’s cancellation of PEQ (equivalent to TR2PR) and the similar impact of changes to those who were applying given their expectations as at the federal level:

Les personnes ayant un statut temporaire au Québec ont-elles le droit de prétendre qu’on leur a fait croire qu’elles pouvaient obtenir la résidence permanente? Oui, absolument.

Avons-nous toujours besoin du Programme d’expérience québécoise (PEQ) pour atteindre l’objectif de transition du statut temporaire au statut permanent? Non.

Avons-nous une obligation morale d’accorder un statut permanent aux personnes à statut temporaire déjà établies au Québec? Peut-être, jusqu’à un certain point, mais… Bonne chance!

Ce sont toutes des questions légitimes découlant de la réaction très négative récente à l’annulation de ce programme. Le PEQ a été lancé en 2010, et il est possible que, au fil des changements de gouvernements, de ministres et de fonctionnaires, son contexte historique ait été oublié. Tentons d’éclaircir la situation.

L’histoire du PEQ comme voie rapide de traitement d’une demande d’immigration

Demande d’immigration permanente — faite avant ou après l’arrivée?

Pendant les 25 dernières années du 20e siècle, la règle générale au Canada était qu’une personne qui désirait immigrer de façon permanente fasse sa demande avant son arrivée au Québec. Les demandes faites sur place n’étaient acceptées que dans des circonstances exceptionnelles. Cela est même stipulé dans l’Accord Canada-Québec sur l’immigration signé en 1991.

Les dossiers étaient traités et la sélection était effectuée selon une grille de points attribués en fonction des caractéristiques recherchées pour les besoins du Québec et de l’intégration rapide de la personne qui arrive. Ces critères comprennent notamment l’âge, les compétences linguistiques, le niveau d’éducation, l’expérience professionnelle, le domaine d’études, un emploi prévu dans le pays et un lien antérieur avec le Québec.

Si le dossier recueillait le seuil minimum de points, un certificat de sélection du Québec (CSQ) était délivré, ce qui garantissait, même aujourd’hui, le statut de résidence permanente du gouvernement canadien. Seules des raisons de sécurité ou de santé publique pouvaient empêcher l’obtention du statut permanent.

Les personnes arrivaient donc avec leur résidence permanente. Fin du parcours d’immigration. Porte ouverte à une demande de citoyenneté après trois ans. Une immigration permanente en une étape.

Au début du siècle, le Canada et ensuite le Québec ont changé de politique en décidant d’accepter des demandes des personnes déjà au pays. C’est à partir de ce moment que l’immigration en deux étapes est devenue de plus en plus courante.

Problème de délai de traitement

Un autre facteur important de cette histoire est le temps de traitement des demandes d’immigration. En effet, ces dernières se faisaient encore sur papier et le calcul du nombre de points se faisait manuellement. De plus, la loi exigeait que toutes les demandes reçues soient traitées par ordre chronologique. Énormément de temps était perdu à analyser des demandes, qui se voyaient refusées parce que le dossier ne comptait pas le seuil minimal de points. C’était le cas pour près de la moitié des demandes traitées.

Le délai de traitement des demandes en 2011 variait entre 8 et 44 mois [1]. En 2016-2017, l’année avant la mise en œuvre d’Arrima, le système informatisé de traitement, le délai moyen de traitement d’une demande d’immigration permanente était de 32 mois. Les demandes des personnes déjà au Québec s’ajoutaient à la pile.

Trois solutions au problème de productivité

Trois « solutions » s’offraient pour résoudre ce défi de productivité :

  1. L’informatisation : La première, évidemment, était l’informatisation du système de traitement. On y reviendra.
  2. Le PEQ : La deuxième était le PEQ. Ce programme était conçu comme une voie rapide de traitement uniquement pour les demandes présentées par des personnes à statut temporaire déjà au Québec. Il y avait un volet pour des détenteurs d’un diplôme postsecondaire obtenu au Québec et un deuxième pour des personnes qui occupaient le même emploi au Québec depuis au moins deux ans. Mais pas n’importe quel emploi. Il fallait que celui-ci exige l’équivalent d’au moins un diplôme collégial, voire universitaire. Auquel s’ajoutaient les exigences linguistiques. Compte tenu de ces conditions d’admissibilité, ces demandes ne passaient pas par la grille de sélection et pouvaient donc être approuvées beaucoup plus rapidement. Le ministère s’engageait à rendre une décision en 20 jours.
  3. L’immigration temporaire : La troisième solution, qui existait déjà, consistait à contourner les délais de traitement d’une demande d’immigration permanente en recrutant des personnes avec un permis temporaire d’études ou de travail. À l’époque, cette procédure était plus rapide que celle pour les demandes d’immigration permanente. De plus, il y avait plusieurs avantages à court terme à accroître le nombre d’étudiantes et étudiants étrangers, ainsi que le recours à une main-d’œuvre souvent à bas salaire, autorisée par le Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires (PTET).

Le PTET est particulièrement utile en matière de régionalisation. Les personnes recrutées par ce biais sont liées à leur employeur. Le gouvernement utilise même ce programme pour recruter du personnel de la santé, y compris des médecins et des infirmières, justement pour cette raison.

Ils pourraient facilement être recrutés via le programme d’immigration permanente, ce qui leur garantirait la résidence permanente à leur arrivée, mais pour les lier à un établissement situé en région, le PTET est plus sûr, même si cela les laisse dans la précarité pendant quelques années.

Mais attention! Contrairement à l’immigration permanente, il n’y avait pas de planification du nombre de personnes à recruter par l’immigration temporaire. Alors que le nombre de personnes obtenant la résidence permanente est resté relativement stable au Québec, grâce aux limites imposées chaque année dans les plans annuels, aucun plafond n’a été fixé pour le nombre de personnes arrivant avec un statut temporaire. Par conséquent, le nombre de permis temporaires délivrés a explosé, notamment dans les deux programmes contrôlés par le gouvernement du Québec.

La promesse implicite de la résidence permanente

Beaucoup de personnes à statut temporaire qui réclament le maintien du PEQ affirment qu’on leur avait promis la résidence permanente, particulièrement par le PEQ. Est-ce vrai?

Il est logique qu’elles aient eu cette impression. Dès son lancement, ce programme a bénéficié d’une promotion active auprès des étudiantes et étudiants étrangers, que ce soit lors des sessions de recrutement à l’étranger ou lors des séances d’information organisées dans des établissements d’enseignement supérieur.

Des dépliants ont été distribués à ces jeunes par l’équipe du ministère à leur arrivée à l’aéroport, tandis que des lettres leur ont été envoyées après l’obtention de leur diplôme. Des ententes lucratives ont été signées avec Montréal International pour en faire la promotion auprès des travailleurs étrangers spécialisés. Il y avait même, pendant quelque temps, une mention du programme dans la lettre accompagnant la délivrance d’un Certificat d’acceptation du Québec (CAQ), document requis pour obtenir un permis d’études ou de travail dans le cadre du PTET.

L’appât de la résidence permanente a toujours bien servi les agences de recrutement, les établissements d’enseignement postsecondaires et les employeurs dans le recrutement de l’immigration temporaire. D’autres mesures concrètes renforçaient le même message. Certains titulaires de permis avaient désormais le droit de faire venir toute leur famille, les permis de travail étaient délivrés aux conjoints ou aux conjointes, des permis étaient souvent renouvelables à répétition. Tout laissait croire que « temporaire » voulait dire « jusqu’à la résidence permanente », plutôt que « jusqu’à l’expiration du permis ».

Cette carotte se révélait efficace, mais malhonnête, pour deux raisons. D’abord, la majorité des personnes à statut temporaire ne rempliront pas les conditions des programmes d’immigration permanente, que ce soit le PEQ ou le défunt Programme régulier de travailleurs qualifiés (PRTQ) ou le nouveau Programme de sélection des travailleurs qualifiés (PSTQ). Deuxièmement, comme on le verra plus loin, les volumes annuels établis pour l’immigration permanente ne pourront jamais accueillir sur le territoire toutes les personnes à statut temporaire.

Le PEQ comme « voie rapide »

En 2019-2020, le délai moyen de traitement d’une demande d’immigration permanente régulière était de 127 jours, ce qui représente une nette amélioration par rapport aux 32 mois qui étaient la norme trois ans plus tôt.

Comment est-ce possible? Grâce à l’implantation du système de gestion informatisé Arrima au cours de l’été 2018. Avec ce système, les personnes sur place ou à l’étranger qui sont intéressées à immigrer, à obtenir un CSQ, remplissent un formulaire en ligne dans la plateforme Arrima fournissant presque toute l’information qui anciennement était fournie sur papier, créant ainsi un bassin de candidatures possibles.

Ensuite, un algorithme permet au ministère de repérer des profils correspondant aux critères souhaités, puis à inviter ces individus à soumettre une demande d’immigration en bonne et due forme. Le ministère peut aussi gérer le nombre d’invitations tout au long de l’année. Un système similaire, appelé Entrée Express, avait été mis en place par le fédéral en 2015 pour les demandes d’immigration au reste du Canada.

Dès l’implantation du système, le besoin d’une « voie rapide » comme le PEQ n’était plus vraiment nécessaire. En 2024-2025, on constate même que le délai moyen de traitement d’une demande dans le PEQ (127,2 jours) était devenu plus long que pour le PRTQ (82,2 jours). Pourquoi? Sûrement parce que, tout comme dans l’ancien système, toutes les demandes reçues dans le PEQ étaient traitées, et ce, dans l’ordre chronologique. Le taux de refus des demandes d’immigration permanente avait également chuté en 2019, pour atteindre moins de 1 %.

En ce qui concerne les permis de travail PTET, le délai de traitement semble avoir disparu comme enjeu pour les employeurs. Ils ont même pris goût au programme. Aujourd’hui, ils sont prêts à payer plus cher et à vivre avec des mois de bureaucratie afin d’embaucher des effectifs de l’étranger, captifs et obligés d’accepter des conditions de travail inacceptables à la main-d’œuvre locale.

Le système Arrima peut donc inviter des personnes qui séjournent au Québec, c’est-à-dire des personnes à statut temporaire. En fait, depuis le lancement en juillet du nouveau programme, le PSTQ, 1 038 invitations ont été envoyées à des personnes ayant déclaré leur intérêt d’immigrer sur la plateforme Arrima. Parmi ce nombre, 991 résidaient au Québec (95,5 %), incluant 273 hors de la Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal. Il peut aussi privilégier facilement des jeunes d’ailleurs diplômés au Québec.

On peut en conclure que la majorité des personnes qui auraient pu bénéficier du PEQ présentent les caractéristiques nécessaires pour recevoir une invitation dans le cadre du PSTQ. Même certaines personnes à statut temporaire actuellement, qui n’étaient pas admissibles au PEQ, le seront au nouveau programme, c’est-à-dire celles qui occupent un emploi moins bien rémunéré exigeant un niveau de scolarité un peu plus bas.

La plus grande déception pour les personnes qui comptaient sur le PEQ est de ne plus pouvoir compter sur le fait que leur demande d’immigration sera traitée, car elles ne savent pas si elles seront invitées par le système Arrima.

Leur avenir au Québec, déjà fragile en raison de la date d’expiration de leur séjour, est maintenant encore plus incertain. Cet enjeu est moins grave pour les personnes toujours à l’étranger, puisqu’elles ne feront pas des démarches de déménagement et de déracinement avant d’avoir reçu leur CSQ.

Une clause de droit acquis ou au moins une obligation morale

Après avoir accordé des permis temporaires à des individus en les attirant avec la carotte de la résidence permanente, en leur fournissant des services d’intégration et de francisation, en leur assurant souvent un emploi, en leur facilitant l’arrivée et l’établissement de toute leur famille chez nous, avons-nous une obligation morale de leur délivrer le billet doré que représente le CSQ?

C’est la revendication générale qu’on entend et c’est une des propositions de la pétition lancée par Québec solidaire sur le site de l’Assemblée nationale. [2]

Il n’est pas surprenant qu’il y en ait plusieurs qui répondent spontanément, « oui! ». Cela reflète l’ouverture connue du peuple québécois.

Mais examinons le contexte créé par la gestion de l’immigration au cours des dix dernières années, ainsi que le virage vers l’immigration temporaire.

Au 31 décembre 2024, les données du ministère révèlent qu’il y avait 200 495 titulaires de permis dans les deux programmes contrôlés par le Québec, et 299 685 avec un permis de travail dans le programme où le Québec n’intervient pas. Ça veut dire 500 180 en tout. Il y a fort à parier qu’il y a plus de 200 000 personnes sur le territoire québécois dont le permis temporaire a expiré, si on se fie aux estimations canadiennes de la CIBC. Ces personnes remplissaient des conditions pour un permis temporaire, mais aucune n’a été sélectionnée selon les critères appliqués pour l’obtention d’un CSQ.

En outre, le plan annuel d’immigration pour 2026 prévoit un plafond de 35 600 CSQ pour la sous-catégorie des travailleurs qualifiés (PSTQ) et un maximum de 29 500 personnes admises avec un statut de résident permanent dans la même catégorie.

L’explosion non planifiée et non sélectionnée de l’immigration temporaire fait en sorte qu’on se trouve face à des centaines de milliers de personnes, devenues nos voisins et voisines, qui ont cru au rêve de s’établir durablement au Québec, mais qui ne seront toutefois jamais sélectionnées pour y rester. Pourquoi? Soit parce qu’elles ne satisfont pas aux critères établis pour l’immigration permanente, basés sur l’analyse des besoins socio-économiques et linguistiques du Québec. Soit parce que, par un drôle de raisonnement, elles sont trop nombreuses pour notre « capacité d’accueil », alors que plusieurs contribuent à l’économie et au développement de la société québécoise depuis quelques années.

Une planification qui ne répond pas au plus grand enjeu

La réaction à la décision de mettre fin au PEQ montre bien l’ampleur de la rupture dans notre système d’immigration causée par le virage non réfléchi vers l’immigration temporaire et les conséquences sur les vies des personnes, maintenant parmi nous, les plus concernées.

Rappelons-nous qu’on n’est pas en Europe. Notre frontière terrestre est avec un pays qui, malgré tout ce qui se passe sous Trump, demeure un aimant pour les gens du monde entier. Autrement, l’entrée se fait par avion, ce qui exige un document d’entrée. Les personnes venues du reste du monde au Québec sont arrivées légalement. Ce sont les gouvernements fédéral et québécois qui ont créé et facilité la situation dans laquelle nous nous trouvons aujourd’hui. Le PEQ n’en est qu’un exemple.

Malheureusement, les orientations pluriannuelles en matière d’immigration pour les quatre prochaines années, déposées par le ministre Roberge, le 6 novembre dernier, ne contiennent aucune proposition sérieuse pour résoudre ce problème. Elles incluent une baisse minimale sur quatre ans du nombre de personnes détenant un permis de travail PTET ou d’études, et le gouvernement adopte un discours contradictoire face au fédéral, qui propose quant à lui des coupures plus rapides dans le nombre de nouveaux permis de travail.

Il reste l’épineuse question des personnes à statut temporaire qui n’auront pas droit au renouvellement de leur permis et qui ne seront pas approuvées pour la résidence permanente. L’élan spontané de solidarité envers les personnes qui comptaient sur le PEQ démontre aussi que les Québécoises et Québécois n’appuieront pas facilement des départs forcés. Même aux États-Unis, les méthodes agressives de Trump ont fait considérablement augmenter le sentiment positif à l’égard de l’immigration.[3]

2026 est une année électorale. Ce contexte ne sera pas propice à une réflexion commune et sereine sur les mesures à prendre pour résoudre cette impasse. Cela pourrait être une année marquée par l’inquiétude et les perturbations pour de nombreuses personnes qui souhaitent simplement poursuivre leur vie avec leurs nouveaux amis et amies québécois. Essayons de faire notre part, même à notre niveau personnel, pour les aider dans leur parcours. Il est crucial de trouver des solutions pour éviter d’accroître le nombre de personnes non documentées. C’est le pire résultat, tant pour la société d’accueil que pour les individus concernés et leurs enfants.

Source: Immigration : Les vies brisées par un système brisé

Do people with temporary status in Quebec have the right to claim that they were made to believe that they could obtain permanent residence? Yes, absolutely.
Do we still need the Quebec Experience Program (QEP) to achieve the goal of transitioning from temporary to permanent status? No.
Do we have a moral obligation to grant permanent status to people with temporary status already established in Quebec? Maybe, up to a certain point, but… Good luck!
These are all legitimate questions arising from the recent very negative reaction to the cancellation of this program. The EQP was launched in 2010, and it is possible that, as the changes of governments, ministers and officials, its historical context has been forgotten. Let’s try to clarify the situation.
The history of the EQP as a quick route to process an immigration application
Application for permanent immigration – made before or after arrival?
During the last 25 years of the 20th century, the general rule in Canada was that a person who wished to immigrate permanently should apply before arriving in Quebec. On-site applications were only accepted in exceptional circumstances. This is even stipulated in the Canada-Quebec Immigration Agreement signed in 1991.
The files were processed and the selection was made according to a grid of points awarded according to the characteristics sought for the needs of Quebec and the rapid integration of the person who arrives. These criteria include age, language skills, level of education, professional experience, field of study, planned employment in the country and a previous link with Quebec.
If the file collected the minimum threshold of points, a Quebec Selection Certificate (CSQ) was issued, which guaranteed, even today, the permanent residence status of the Canadian government. Only safety or public health reasons could prevent permanent status from being obtained.
People therefore arrived with their permanent residence. End of the immigration journey. Door open to an application for citizenship after three years. Permanent immigration in one step.
At the beginning of the century, Canada and then Quebec changed their policy by deciding to accept applications from people already in the country. It was from this moment that two-stage immigration became more and more common.
Processing time issue
Another important factor in this story is the processing time for immigration applications. Indeed, the latter were still done on paper and the calculation of the number of points was done manually. In addition, the law required that all applications received be processed in chronological order. A lot of time was lost analyzing applications, which were refused because the file did not have the minimum points threshold. This was the case for almost half of the applications processed.
The processing time for applications in 2011 varied between 8 and 44 months [1]. In 2016-2017, the year before the implementation of Arrima, the computerized processing system, the average processing time for a permanent immigration application was 32 months. The requests of people already in Quebec were added to the pile.
Three solutions to the productivity problem
Three “solutions” were available to solve this productivity challenge:
Computerization: The first, of course, was the computerization of the processing system. We’ll come back.
The EQP: The second was the PEQ. This program was designed as a quick route of processing only for applications submitted by people with temporary status already in Quebec. There was a component for holders of a post-secondary diploma obtained in Quebec and a second for people who had held the same job in Quebec for at least two years. But not just any job. It had to require the equivalent of at least a college degree, or even a university degree. To which were added the linguistic requirements. Given these eligibility requirements, these applications did not pass through the selection grid and could therefore be approved much faster. The ministry committed to making a decision within 20 days.
Temporary immigration: The third solution, which already existed, was to circumvent the processing times of a permanent immigration application by recruiting people with a temporary study or work permit. At the time, this procedure was faster than that for permanent immigration applications. In addition, there were several short-term benefits to increasing the number of international students, as well as the use of an often low-pay workforce, authorized by the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TETP).
The PTET is particularly useful in terms of regionalization. People recruited through this channel are linked to their employer. The government is even using this program to recruit health personnel, including doctors and nurses, for this very reason.
They could easily be recruited through the permanent immigration program, which would guarantee them permanent residence upon arrival, but to link them to an establishment located in the region, the PTET is safer, even if it leaves them precarious for a few years.
But be careful! Unlike permanent immigration, there was no planning of the number of people to be recruited by temporary immigration. While the number of people obtaining permanent residence remained relatively stable in Quebec, thanks to the limits imposed each year in the annual plans, no ceiling was set for the number of people arriving with temporary status. As a result, the number of temporary permits issued has exploded, especially in the two programs controlled by the Government of Quebec.
The implicit promise of permanent residence
Many people with temporary status who claim to maintain the PEQ say that they were promised permanent residence, particularly by the PEQ. Is it true?
It is logical that they had this impression. Since its launch, this program has benefited from an active promotion to foreign students, whether during recruitment sessions abroad or during information sessions organized in higher education institutions.
Leaflets were distributed to these young people by the ministry’s team upon their arrival at the airport, while letters were sent to them after they graduated. Gainful agreements have been signed with Montréal International to promote it to specialized foreign workers. There was even, for some time, a mention of the program in the letter accompanying the issuance of a Quebec Certificate of Acceptance (CAQ), a document required to obtain a study or work permit under the PTET.
The permanent residence bait has always served well for recruitment agencies, post-secondary education institutions and employers in the recruitment of temporary immigration. Other concrete measures reinforced the same message. Some permit holders now had the right to bring their entire family, work permits were issued to spouses, permits were often renewable repeatedly. Everything suggested that “temporary” meant “until permanent residence”, rather than “until the expiration of the permit”.
This carrot proved to be effective, but dishonest, for two reasons. First, the majority of people with temporary status will not meet the requirements of the permanent immigration programs, whether it is the EQP or the defunct Regular Skilled Worker Program (PRTQ) or the new Skilled Worker Selection Program (PSTQ). Secondly, as will be seen later, the annual volumes established for permanent immigration will never be able to accommodate all people with temporary status on the territory.
The PEQ as a “fast track”
In 2019-2020, the average processing time for a regular permanent immigration application was 127 days, which represents a significant improvement over the 32 months that were the norm three years earlier.
How is this possible? Thanks to the implementation of the Arrima computerized management system during the summer of 2018. With this system, people on site or abroad who are interested in immigrating, in obtaining a CSQ, fill out an online form in the Arrima platform providing almost all the information that was previously provided on paper, thus creating a pool of possible applications.
Then, an algorithm allows the ministry to identify profiles corresponding to the desired criteria, then to invite these individuals to submit a formal immigration application. The department can also manage the number of invitations throughout the year. A similar system, called Express Entry, was put in place by the federal government in 2015 for immigration applications to the rest of Canada.
From the implementation of the system, the need for a “fast track” like the PEQ was no longer really necessary. In 2024-2025, we even see that the average processing time for an application in the PEQ (127.2 days) had become longer than for the PRTQ (82.2 days). Why? Probably because, just like in the old system, all applications received in the PEQ were processed, in chronological order. The refusal rate of permanent immigration applications had also fallen in…

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →