Critic calls out border bill’s proposed new cabinet powers on immigration

2025/06/07 1 Comment

As expected. Suspect that the over-reach of the Bill with respect to civil liberties will over shadow concerns of immigration and refugee advocates:

An NDP critic says a provision in the federal government’s border security bill that would give cabinet the power to cancel immigration documents looks like an attempt to “mimic” measures deployed by the Trump administration in the U.S.

“It seems to me … this piece of legislation is Canada’s attempt to mimic some of those measures that the United States is adopting. I actually never thought that this day would come where Canada would go down that road,” B.C. NDP MP Jenny Kwan told The Canadian Press.

“However, it is here, and meanwhile the government is saying, ‘Don’t worry, trust us.’”

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree said that the immigration minister would only be able to exercise the power to cancel, suspend or alter immigration documents in an “emergency” and after being granted the authority through an order-in-council.

“The tools are in place to ensure the minister of immigration has additional tools to ensure that in a modern era, for example, whether it’s a pandemic or issues around cybersecurity, she will have the tools to make those decisions,” Anandasangaree said during debate on the bill Thursday.

Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel Garner said the legislation contains several “poison pills” that threaten people’s civil liberties. 

This includes the ability for Canadian Security Intelligence Service and police to access customer information from online service providers in certain circumstances.

“The government has not shown Canadians any specific situation, any specific evidence or circumstance in granular detail about why we should be giving up our civil liberties to a government that unlawfully used the Emergencies Act,” Rempel Garner said during Thursday’s debate.

This is in reference to to a 2024 Federal Court ruling that found the government’s use of the Emergencies Act was unreasonable to breakup the 2022 “Freedom Convoy” protests against COVID-19 public health measures.

The government has appealed this ruling. 

Bloc Québécois MP Claude DeBellefeuille said that her party plans to support the bill at second reading so it can be studied by the public safety committee.

Speaking in French, she said the bill needs to be examined closely because it looks to give new powers to government ministers, law enforcement and even Canada Post.

Immigration Minister Lena Diab said Wednesday the legislation is designed to address “one-off” situations like a pandemic or some other “exceptional circumstance.”

“I think people, Canadians should feel safe that we are putting in all these safeguards, but again, as I said, it’s all part of protecting our country and protecting our system that we value and protecting people that come here because we want to ensure that they are successful as well,” Diab said.

Bill C-2 also proposes giving the immigration minister the power to pause the acceptance of new immigration applications and cancel or pause processing of the current inventory of applications in the event of an emergency.

Julia Sande, a human rights lawyer with Amnesty International Canada, said immigration applicants could lose a lot of money because the legislation doesn’t oblige the government to refund affected people.

“People give up their entire lives, in some cases, their life savings or their family’s life savings. People go into debt just to be able to come here,” she said. “And so to have the government be able to pull the rug out from under wide groups of people is concerning.”

Kwan said the proposed new powers are problematic because cabinet decisions are made in secret and there’s no firm definition of an “emergency” in the legislation.

“I don’t accept that the Liberals say, ‘Don’t worry, we’re the good guys, so trust us.’ I’m sorry, that is just not acceptable,” she said, adding there’s no way to know what a future government might do with this power.

The text of the legislation says that if the minister “is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so,” they may trigger the power to cancel, suspend or alter immigration documents through a cabinet order.

“They’re saying in an emergency, but that’s not what’s written. They said if they’re in the opinion that it’s in the public interest … that could really be anything,” Sande said.

“In the fall, we saw migrants and refugees being scapegoated for the housing crisis. And so, you know, what’s in the public interest?”

Last year, then-immigration minister Marc Miller said plans to reduce the number of permanent and temporary visas issued would help stabilize the housing market.

U.S. President Donald Trump has used national security as justification for a host of immigration measures that involve detaining and deporting people, including university students who have condemned the war in Gaza.

Sande said the proposed bill “attacks” the right to seek asylum by making it harder for migrants to make a claim if they are entering Canada from the U.S., or have been in the country for more than a year.

“They’re talking about fentanyl, they’re talking about guns and then all of a sudden they’re attacking the right to asylum,” Sande said.

“They are completely different things and it’s difficult for civil society, for experts to respond when there’s so many things going on.”

Source: Critic calls out border bill’s proposed new cabinet powers on immigration

Filed under C-3, Citizenship Tagged with , , , , ,

Urback: Is the U.S. still a ‘safe’ country for refugees? 

2025/06/07 Leave a comment

Valid question:

…Canada is now trying to make the process a little bit harder. This week, the Liberals tabled an omnibus bill that, among many other things, would render ineligible for asylum those who have been in Canada for more than a year (which addresses the spike in applications from international students who filed refugee claims after the government changed student visa rules in 2024), and would prohibit those who entered Canada via an irregular border crossing to file for refugee protection after 14 days. These are necessary changes that may help to bring Canada’s current four-year-backlog for refugee hearings down to manageable levels. But some people will still try….

But now, those without legal status in the U.S. are being picked up off the streets, thrown into detention centres and, in many cases, deported to third countries without a hearing. The Trump administration is doing that in defiance of court orders, as in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and resisting even the U.S. Supreme Court, which said that the government must “facilitate” the return of those deported in error. 

This matters for Canada because of the principle of non-refoulement under international law, which holds that refugees should not forcibly be returned to countries where they are likely to face cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. 

It used to be hard to argue that migrants sent back under the STCA would face that, but the case seems much easier to make now. Canada should prepare for another challenge to the STCA – and possibly, a different result. 

Source: Is the U.S. still a ‘safe’ country for refugees?

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with ,

Québec songe à réduire les services donnés aux demandeurs d’asile

2025/06/07 Leave a comment

Ongoing positioning, not without legitimate concerns:

Québec menace de réduire graduellement les services offerts aux demandeurs d’asile si leur nombre n’est pas radicalement abaissé par Ottawa.

Le ministre de l’Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, qui déposait jeudi ses scénarios potentiels d’accueil des nouveaux arrivants pour la période 2026-2029, a révélé en conférence de presse qu’il n’excluait pas cette possibilité. « Si on est obligés de faire ces choix difficiles, nous les ferons », a-t-il dit, avant de convenir qu’il n’en était « pas là aujourd’hui ». « On ne veut pas se rendre là. »

Il y avait toujours plus de 180 000 demandeurs d’asile en territoire québécois au 1er janvier 2025, selon Statistique Canada. Et le gouvernement Legault commence à s’impatienter devant l’incapacité du fédéral à réduire ce nombre de moitié, comme il le demande depuis belle lurette.

« Je ne peux pas exclure que, éventuellement, si Ottawa ne fait pas le travail, bien, on soit obligés de revoir le panier de services », a-t-il soulevé. « Le statu quo n’est pas tenable, ni pour les services publics ni pour les finances publiques. »


Selon M. Roberge, « la balle est dans la cour d’Ottawa ».

Une « stratégie de négociation » ?

Au Québec, les demandeurs d’asile ont notamment accès à une série de services de santé, d’accès au logement et d’éducation. Le Programme régional d’accueil et d’intégration des demandeurs d’asile, le PRAIDA, leur permet par exemple d’accéder à des professionnels de santé et d’être suivis régulièrement. Certains d’entre eux touchent également une aide financière de dernier recours. L’an dernier, François Legault avait d’ailleurs exclu de leur couper ces prestations.

En 2024, les gouvernements Legault et Trudeau s’étaient entendus pour que 750 millions de dollars soient transférés dans les coffres du Québec afin d’accueillir les demandeurs d’asile en sol québécois.

Aux yeux du directeur général de la Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes, Stephan Reichhold, le ministre Roberge a adopté une nouvelle « stratégie de négociation » en ouvrant cette porte jeudi. « Ça n’a aucun sens », a-t-il souligné à l’autre bout du fil. « S’ils coupaient l’aide sociale aux demandeurs d’asile, ça veut dire qu’on se retrouve avec des campements sous la Métropolitaine. »

Ça me choque, cette sortie-là. Puis même [que le gouvernement] considère cette possibilité-là », a enchaîné la présidente de l’Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration, Stéphanie Valois, qui craint une « démonisation » des immigrants temporaires. « Ce ne sont pas les demandeurs d’asile qui sont responsables de la pénurie d’enseignants, il faut arrêter de les blâmer pour tout. »

Faible réduction des temporaires sous contrôle québécois

En matinée, le ministre de l’Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, avait soumis à consultation trois scénarios de seuils d’immigration à la baisse : un à 25 000 nouveaux arrivants permanents par année, un à 35 000 et un à 45 000.

Dans son cahier de consultation, le ministre prévoit par ailleurs une réduction graduelle sur quatre ans du nombre d’immigrants temporaires sous le contrôle de Québec. Si ces cibles sont respectées, le nombre d’étudiants étrangers et de participants au Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires passerait de 200 000 en 2024 à environ 175 000 en 2029, une réduction d’environ 13 % qui est bien plus limitée que celle qu’exige le gouvernement Legault du fédéral (50 %).

Jean-François Roberge a tenu à se justifier jeudi : les immigrants temporaires sous contrôle fédéral, comme les demandeurs d’asile, n’ont pas la même valeur pour le Québec que les travailleurs temporaires et les étudiants étrangers qu’il contrôle, a-t-il laissé entendre.

« C’est comme si [quelqu’un] disait : “on doit tous les deux couper quelque chose. Moi, je vais me couper les cheveux, puis vous, coupez-vous un bras. Mais c’est égal : on coupe chacun de notre bord.” C’est un peu ça quand on dit qu’on va comparer des travailleurs étrangers temporaires qui sont ici depuis trois ans, qui gardent une entreprise dans certains cas, puis un demandeur d’asile arrivé il y a quelque temps », a-t-il affirmé.

« Je m’excuse, mais ça n’a rien à voir, et je ne suis pas gêné de dire qu’on a des demandes beaucoup plus exigeantes en termes de réduction pour Ottawa », a indiqué M. Roberge.

Le gouvernement Legault soumettra ses orientations en immigration au test d’une consultation l’automne prochain, afin de décider quel scénario il priorisera d’ici 2029.

Source: Québec songe à réduire les services donnés aux demandeurs d’asile

Quebec threatens to gradually reduce the services offered to asylum seekers if their number is not radically reduced by Ottawa.

The Minister of Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, who on Thursday submitted his potential scenarios for welcoming newcomers for the period 2026-2029, revealed at a press conference that he did not rule out this possibility. “If we are forced to make these difficult choices, we will make them,” he said, before agreeing that he was “not there today”. “We don’t want to go there. ”

There were still more than 180,000 asylum seekers in Quebec territory as of January 1, 2025, according to Statistics Canada. And the Legault government is beginning to get impatient with the federal government’s inability to reduce this number by half, as it has been asking for a long time.

“I cannot rule out that, eventually, if Ottawa does not do the job, well, we will be forced to review the basket of services,” he said. “The status quo is not tenable, neither for public services nor for public finances. ”

According to Mr. Roberge, “the ball is in Ottawa’s courtyard”.

A “negotiation strategy”?

In Quebec, asylum seekers have access to a range of health services, access to housing and education. The Regional Program for the Reception and Integration of Asylum Seekers, PRAIDA, for example, allows them to access health professionals and to be monitored regularly. Some of them also receive financial assistance as a last resort. Last year, François Legault had also ruled out cutting off these services.

In 2024, the Legault and Trudeau governments agreed that $750 million would be transferred to Quebec’s coffers to welcome asylum seekers on Quebec soil.

In the eyes of the Director General of the Concertation Table of Organizations Serving Refugees and Immigrants, Stephan Reichhold, Minister Roberge adopted a new “negotiation strategy” by opening this door on Thursday. “It doesn’t make any sense,” he stressed on the other end of the line. “If they cut off social assistance to asylum seekers, it means that we end up with camps under the Metropolitan. ”

It shocks me, this exit. Then even [that the government] considers this possibility, “said the president of the Quebec Association of Immigration Lawyers, Stéphanie Valois, who fears a “demonization” of temporary immigrants. “It is not the asylum seekers who are responsible for the shortage of teachers, we must stop blaming them for everything. ”

Low reduction of temporary under Quebec control

In the morning, the Minister of Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, had submitted for consultation three scenarios of downward immigration thresholds: one at 25,000 permanent newcomers per year, one at 35,000 and one at 45,000.

In his consultation book, the Minister also provides for a gradual reduction over four years of the number of temporary immigrants under the control of Quebec. If these targets are met, the number of international students and participants in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program would increase from 200,000 in 2024 to about 175,000 in 2029, a reduction of about 13% that is much more limited than that required by the federal government (50%).

Jean-François Roberge wanted to justify himself on Thursday: temporary immigrants under federal control, such as asylum seekers, do not have the same value for Quebec as the temporary workers and foreign students it controls, he suggested.

“It’s like [someone] is saying, “we both have to cut something. I’m going to cut my hair, then you, cut off your arm. But it doesn’t matter: we cut each of our edge.” It’s a bit like that when we say that we’re going to compare temporary foreign workers who have been here for three years, who keep a company in some cases, then an asylum seeker who arrived some time ago,” he said.

“I’m sorry, but it has nothing to do with it, and I’m not embarrassed to say that we have much more demanding requests in terms of reduction for Ottawa,” said Roberge.

The Legault government will submit its immigration guidelines to the test of a consultation next fall, in order to decide which scenario it will prioritize by 2029.

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with

Bill C-3: An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), same as previous C-71

2025/06/06 Leave a comment

Appears unchanged from the former C-71, with the same failings. See my earlier Bill C-71 opens up a possible never-ending chain of citizenship:

Canada’s Citizenship Act contains a first-generation limit to citizenship by descent for individuals born abroad, which generally means that a Canadian citizen parent can only pass on citizenship to a child born outside Canada if the parent was either born or naturalized in Canada before the birth of the child. Canadians born or naturalized in Canada before adopting a child abroad can apply for a direct grant of citizenship for the adopted child.

As a result of the first-generation limit, in general, Canadian citizens who were born outside Canada and obtained their citizenship through descent cannot pass on citizenship to their child born outside Canada, and cannot apply for a direct grant of citizenship for a child adopted outside Canada.

On December 19, 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declared that key provisions of the first-generation limit for those born abroad are unconstitutional. The Government of Canada did not appeal the ruling because we agree that the current law has unacceptable consequences for Canadians whose children were born outside the country.

The government is introducing legislation to make the citizenship process as fair and transparent as possible. Bill C-3 would 

  • automatically remedy the status of any person who would be a citizen today were it not for the first-generation limit or certain outdated provisions of former citizenship legislation
  • establish a new framework for citizenship by descent going forward that would allow for access to citizenship beyond the first generation based on a Canadian parent’s substantial connection to Canada

An interim measure will continue to be available for those affected by the first-generation limit while both Houses of Parliament consider amendments to the Citizenship Act. More information about the interim measure is available on IRCC’s web site.

Substantial connection test

Bill C-3 would allow a Canadian parent born abroad who has a substantial connection to Canada to pass on citizenship to their child born abroad beyond the first generation. It would also provide them with access to the direct grant of citizenship for their child adopted abroad beyond the first generation.

To demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada, a Canadian parent who was born abroad would need to have a cumulative 1,095 days (i.e., three years) of physical presence in Canada before the birth or adoption of the child.

Lost Canadians

The term “Lost Canadians” has generally been used to describe those who lost or never acquired citizenship due to certain outdated provisions of former citizenship legislation.

Most cases were remedied by changes to the law in 2009 and 2015. These changes allowed people to gain Canadian citizenship or get back the citizenship they lost. Despite this, additional amendments are needed to include other categories of “Lost Canadians” and their descendants who did not benefit from the 2009 and 2015 changes.

Bill C-3 will restore citizenship to remaining “Lost Canadians,” their descendants and anyone who was born abroad to a Canadian parent in the second or subsequent generations before the legislation comes into force. This includes people who lost their citizenship as a result of requirements under the former section 8 of the Citizenship Act.

Source: Bill C-3: An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)

Filed under C-3, C-71, Citizenship

More visible minority candidates ran — and won — in Canada’s federal election. The Conservatives boosted the numbers

2025/06/06 2 Comments

Coverage of our study:

More visible minorities ran and were elected in the spring federal election compared to the previous election, an increase that a new report found was driven by representation in parties on the right.

There were 315 visible minorities representing the six major parties, according to the report published by the Institute for Research on Public Policy. The candidates accounted for 20.1 per cent of the 1,568 candidates in the April 28 election. This was an increase from 18.2 per cent in 2021, 16.8 per cent in 2019 and 13.4 per cent in 2015.

While the Liberals, New Democrats and Greens all reported a drop in their visible minority representation from the 2021 race — by 0.9, 3.2 and 1.3 percentage points respectively — Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives and Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada saw their numbers up by 5.9 percentage points and seven points, with the Bloc Québécois up 1.3 points. (The People’s Party failed to win a seat.)

The report refers to “visible minorities” as persons, other than Indigenous people, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour, as defined by Statistics Canada. 

“The Liberals almost seemed to have dropped the ball in terms of candidate recruitment compared to the Conservatives, who obviously were making a fairly concerted effort to recruit a larger number of visible minority candidates,” said Andrew Griffith, who co-authored the report with retired McGill University political science professor Jerome Black.

“They were still building off the Jason Kenney legacy that visible minorities are our natural conservatives,” added Griffith, referring to the former Conservative immigration minister tasked with building bridges with minority communities under the Harper government.

And the deliberate recruitment efforts seemed to yield results, with the proportion of elected visible minority MPs up by 2.4 percentage points, accounting for 17.8 per cent or 61 of the 343 MPs in the new Parliament.

While the number of Liberal MPs who are visible minorities fell by 2.2 percentage points, the Conservatives boosted their visible minority MPs in the House of Commons by 7.5 percentage points. 

The MP breakdown, by ethnicity, was South Asian, 29 seats, Black, 11 seats; Chinese and Arab/West Asian, both seven; Latin American, two; Filipino and Southeast Asian, each with one; and three listed under “other/multiple” backgrounds.

University of Toronto professor Emine Fidan Elcioglu said she was not surprised by the shift as the Conservatives rebranded the party under prime minister Stephen Harper to cultivate support from ethnic communities.

“They wanted to seem like the new party of diversity, so they were very intentional in their ethnic outreach,” said the sociologist, who studies migration politics.

“They were (previously) pushing forward policies that alienated immigrant visible minority communities. They were also reframing themselves as pro-good immigrant, anti-bad immigrant.”

Over the years, she said, visible minority groups have also started to embrace that thinking as shown in recent public debates about the impacts of immigration on the housing and affordability crisis.

Poilievre is “very much looking at these groups as a potential part of his base,” Elcioglu noted. “But I think we need to be really careful to not assume that just because there is more visible minority candidates in the party, that is necessarily going to be fundamental in voter motivation.”

Having more racialized candidates doesn’t necessarily translate to more inclusion, she said, and it could just be a cover for more stringent immigration policies, more austerity measures and more gutting of the social security safety net that affect the society’s most marginalized and vulnerable.

“So, great, you recruit people who are not white men, but what are you doing with that?” asked Elcioglu. 

The report also found the number of women running in the April election down from the 2021 election by 2.4 per cent to 553, and Indigenous candidates by 0.9 per cent to 48. In total, 104 women and 12 Indigenous people were elected.

“It seems like there’s almost a glass ceiling of about 30 per cent for women,” said Griffith. “For Indigenous MPs, it’s a bit different just because of how the population is distributed across the country, but that also has stalled.” 

Candidate profiles and assessments in the analysis are based upon candidate photos, names and biographies, general web searches, and ethnic and other media that focused on particular groups.

Source: More visible minority candidates ran — and won — in Canada’s federal election. The Conservatives boosted the numbers

Filed under Aboriginal, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Québec pourrait choisir un seuil d’immigration de 25 000 par année

2025/06/06 Leave a comment

Sharp contrast with the l’Institut du Québec recommendation of 90,000:

Le gouvernement Legault évaluera la possibilité d’accueillir 25 000, 35 000 ou 45 000 nouveaux arrivants par année à partir de l’an prochain. Des seuils d’immigration réduits qui s’accompagneraient d’une baisse du nombre de travailleurs temporaires à Montréal et à Laval.

Ces informations, d’abord rapportées mercredi après-midi par TVA Nouvelles et par Le Journal de Québec, ont été confirmées au Devoir de source sûre. Le gouvernement doit consulter des experts à ce sujet l’automne prochain, dans le cadre de la planification pluriannuelle de l’immigration, un processus prévu dans la loi.

En octobre, le ministre de l’Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, avait déjà laissé présager des scénarios de cibles à la baisse. En 2025, le gouvernement évalue qu’il accueillera autour de 67 000 nouveaux résidents permanents. Québec pourrait donc réduire de plus de moitié ses seuils 2026-2029.

Pendant la campagne électorale de 2022, le premier ministre François Legault, qui cherchait alors à se faire réélire, avait dit qu’il serait « un peu suicidaire » pour le statut du français au Québec d’accueillir annuellement plus de 50 000 immigrants, la cible de son parti à l’époque. Depuis, le Québec a systématiquement dépassé ce nombre. L’an dernier, le ministre Roberge avait justifié ce surnombre en affirmant devoir réduire les listes d’attente en immigration — composées de personnes déjà établies au Québec en attente d’un statut permanent.

Dans un rapport paru mercredi, l’Institut du Québec a pour sa part plaidé pour une augmentation des seuils à 90 000. Cette hausse permettrait, selon le document, à plus d’immigrants temporaires d’obtenir un statut permanent, pour que les seuils soient réduits graduellement ensuite….

Source: Québec pourrait choisir un seuil d’immigration de 25 000 par année

The Legault government will assess the possibility of welcoming 25,000, 35,000 or 45,000 newcomers per year starting next year. Reduced immigration thresholds that would be accompanied by a decrease in the number of temporary workers in Montreal and Laval.

This information, first reported on Wednesday afternoon by TVA Nouvelles and Le Journal de Québec, was confirmed at the Devoir de source sûre. The government is due to consult with experts on this subject next fall, as part of the multi-year immigration planning, a process provided for in the law.

In October, the Minister of Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, had already suggested downward target scenarios. In 2025, the government estimates that it will welcome around 67,000 new permanent residents. Quebec could therefore reduce its 2026-2029 thresholds by more than half.

During the 2022 election campaign, Prime Minister François Legault, who was then seeking re-election, said that it would be “a little suicidal” for the status of the French in Quebec to welcome more than 50,000 immigrants annually, the target of his party at the time. Since then, Quebec has systematically exceeded this number. Last year, Minister Roberge justified this surplus by saying he had to reduce immigration waiting lists — made up of people already established in Quebec waiting for permanent status.

In a report on Wednesday, the Institut du Québec called for an increase in thresholds to 90,000. This increase would allow, according to the document, more temporary immigrants to obtain permanent status, so that the thresholds would then be gradually reduced….

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Chris Selley: Liberals wrap much-needed refugee reform in a terrible privacy-invading package

2025/06/06 Leave a comment

Another commentary arguing C-2 asylum provisions are reasonable:

…This sure looks like an attempt to leverage Trumpian mayhem for the same purposes. It will and should be fought on those grounds.

It’s especially unfortunate because Bill C-2 also proposes to inject some relatively hardhearted sanity into our perennially out-of-control refugee system — changes that by rights would be debated on their own, without invoking Donald Trump’s name every 30 seconds, because these problems are not at all of the president’s making. For example, Bill C-2 proposes a one-year deadline for being in Canada, after which you won’t be able to apply for asylum, which is a clear response to the number of temporary residents trying to hang on in Canada using the refugee system. And it proposes expanding the Safe Third Country Agreement such that anyone crossing illegally from the U.S. would be ineligible to claim asylum, no matter how long they lie low upon arrival.

These are reasonable measures, completely in keeping with countries with far better human-rights records than Canada’s. Someone doesn’t just suddenly remember being persecuted after a year of not mentioning it. The principle of seeking asylum in the first technically safe country you arrive in may be unrealistic: no one willing to risk their lives for a better life in the United States or Canada is likely to settle on Mexico, considering the ordeals most refugees from Central America have already been through. But when a country like Canada accepts hundreds of refugee claims a year from the U.S and Europe, you know things have been taken to an extreme….

…Refugee advocates will argue, reasonably enough, that the solution for a self-styled humanitarian beacon like Canada would be to devote enough resources to the refugee-determination system such that we could adjudicate them quickly and efficiently. But no government ever, ever does that. We have a backlog of 280,825 asylum claims — roughly 0.7 per cent of the Canadian population.

Something has to give. And that something has absolutely nothing to do with Canadians’ IP addresses.

Source: Chris Selley: Liberals wrap much-needed refugee reform in a terrible privacy-invading package

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Barutciski: The tightening of Canada’s asylum laws was an inevitability

2025/06/06 Leave a comment

Indeed, and overdue:

…This is a reasonable response that partially harmonizes the Canadian system with the U.S. system. As controversial as this may seem to some, harmonization is the only way Western countries such as Canada will be able to bring migration under control. 

Democratic governments are continuing to bleed support because they are unable to assuage populations that are justifiably anxious about uncontrolled migration; the Netherlands is just the latest example. 

Whether the asylum-related provisions in Bill C-2 become the law of the land will ultimately show how serious the new Liberal government is in correcting immigration policy mistakes made by and acknowledged by the previous prime minister and then-immigration minister.

Yet it is one thing to amend laws to restore Canada’s seriousness on the immigration file; it is another to actually enforce them. If Ottawa cannot incentivize the large population of overstayers to leave by themselves, it will need to enforce its own laws, potentially with large-scale removals of foreigners who are unlawfully present in Canada. 

The government could propose a humane yet realistic carrot-and-stick approach involving financial aid to help migrants return home combined with future eligibility for legal residence if they do return.

Even assuming the government can resolve this dilemma, it will then have to propose new amendments to address the unmanageable backlogs that remain for the country’s largest administrative tribunal. 

Indeed, the gravity of the challenge is illustrated by the fact that the IRB had already seen both its operating budget and number of employees more than double between 2015 and 2023. 

Deep reform of Canada’s asylum law will have to come sooner rather than later. Bill C-2 is a solid start.

Source: The tightening of Canada’s asylum laws was an inevitability

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

How DOGE’s push to amass data could hurt the reliability of future U.S. statistics

2025/06/05 Leave a comment

Part of the destruction of government institutions under the Trump administration:

Falling public participation in surveys and trust in government have plagued the U.S. Census Bureau for decades.

And some of the agency’s current and former workers say there’s a new complication to gathering enough survey responses to produce key statistics for the country.

The Trump administration’s murky handling of data, which has sparked investigations and lawsuits alleging privacy violations, has become one of the reasons people cite when declining to share their information for the federal government’s ongoing surveys, these workers say.

“I got more people asking me how I know information isn’t going to be sold or given away,” says a former field representative, who says they were met with “a lot of suspicion” and specific mentions of Elon Musk, President Trump’s billionaire adviser who set up the DOGE team, from some households they tried to interview earlier this year. The former bureau employee, who was let go as part of the Trump administration’s downsizing of the federal government, asked not to be named because they fear retaliation.

A current field representative says they don’t “feel as comfortable” in their role as they felt asking questions for surveys last year — and neither do some people who had previously shared their information. One person specifically mentioned DOGE when declining a follow-up interview, says the current representative, who asked NPR not to name them because they are not authorized to speak publicly.

“It’s a system that runs on trust, and the trust, I would say, has been declining,” the current field representative says. “It makes me sad as an American that distrust is at that level. But I do understand it. I fear for the data I’m collecting. Is it going to be misused? And the privacy guarantees that I describe to people — are those going to be respected?”

These questions don’t surprise Nancy Bates, a former senior researcher for survey methodology at the bureau. Bates has tracked declining public participation in the census going back to the 1990 tally.

Federal law prohibits the bureau from releasing information that would identify a person or business to anyone, including other federal agencies and law enforcement. But a report Bates helped prepare during the first Trump administration found 28% of people surveyed in 2018 said they were very or extremely concerned the bureau would not keep their 2020 census answers confidential.

“Even prior to DOGE, the Census Bureau was always dealing with a level of mistrust about privacy and confidentiality,” says Bates, who, after retiring from the agency in 2020, helped lead its 2030 census advisory committee before the Trump administration disbanded it. “I absolutely can see why the public concern would be increased following these unauthorized and illegal access to data.”…

Source: How DOGE’s push to amass data could hurt the reliability of future U.S. statistics

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

Immigration au Québec | Un rapport propose d’accueillir 90 000 résidents permanents par année

2025/06/05 Leave a comment

Of note:

La cible proposée dans ce rapport, publié ce mercredi, contraste fortement avec les intentions de Québec, qui examine trois scénarios pour l’immigration permanente, tous sous la barre des 50 000 par année, selon des informations obtenues par La Presse1.

Le Québec compte aujourd’hui plus de 615 000 personnes à statut temporaire, un record. Travailleurs étrangers, étudiants internationaux, demandeurs d’asile : leur présence a soutenu la croissance, mais a aussi mis sous pression les services publics, le logement et les capacités d’intégration.

Parmi eux, les travailleurs étrangers temporaires (TET), notamment ceux recrutés par les employeurs à l’international, s’installent majoritairement en région. Selon le rapport de l’IDQ, 81 % des TET vivent à l’extérieur de Montréal, où leur apport a permis à plusieurs localités de freiner le déclin démographique et de maintenir certains services essentiels.

Face à cette situation, l’IDQ propose une solution de transition : réduire progressivement les admissions temporaires, tout en offrant la résidence permanente à un plus grand nombre de personnes déjà sur le territoire.

Le rapport recommande d’admettre temporairement 90 000 immigrants permanents par an. Il s’agirait en grande partie de personnes qualifiées, diplômées, bien intégrées, qui vivent déjà au Québec.

Le but est de réduire le roulement de main-d’œuvre précaire et d’offrir une trajectoire claire à ceux qui ont démontré leur capacité d’intégration.

Deux vitesses

Le recours massif aux statuts temporaires, qui ne mènent pas automatiquement à la résidence permanente, a créé un système à deux vitesses. Les employeurs recrutent rapidement, parfois en dehors des filières économiques prévues, tandis que les personnes admises temporairement restent dans l’incertitude, souvent confinées à des emplois peu qualifiés et à bas salaire.

« Ces dernières années, on a vu un peu les limites de ce modèle. Accueillir beaucoup d’immigrants, s’ils ont de la difficulté à trouver un emploi ou s’ils occupent des emplois moins bien rémunérés ou qui ne répondent pas à leurs aspirations, ça fait grossir la taille de l’économie, mais ça ne crée pas nécessairement de la richesse », affirme Emna Braham, directrice générale de l’IDQ….

Source: Immigration au Québec | Un rapport propose d’accueillir 90 000 résidents permanents par année

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →