ICYMI: Trudeau’s plan to reduce temporary immigration risks economic harm: business groups

Could hardly expect her to welcome any restrictions, even if all the evidence points to the need:

Canada’s independent business advocate says Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s plan to reduce temporary immigration risks dire economic consequences, underscoring the pressures the government is facing as it tries to slow population growth.

Nancy Healey, who holds a government post knows as commissioner for employers, penned a letter to three of Trudeau’s cabinet ministers warning that a plan to cut temporary residents by 20% over three years is likely to make it harder for firms to grow.

“In the context of the current and future labor shortages that Canada will experience, it is crucial not to reduce the labor pool,” she said in the Aug. 1 letter, which was signed by business groups including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and Canadian Federation of Independent Business. “Such a reduction would have catastrophic economic consequences for companies and limit their growth potential.”

A surge in temporary residents — including international students, foreign workers and asylum seekers — pushed Canada’s population growth rate to 3.2%, one of the world’s fastest. The influx of new arrivals exacerbated a housing shortage and helped sink Trudeau’s popularity.

The government is already implementing a cap on student visas, and businesses fear the government will next shrink the program that allows them to bring in temporary employees, said Healey.

Indeed, Employment Minister Randy Boissonnault told business groups on Tuesday he intends to limit their use of temp workers — a program that has drawn mounting criticism for allowing fraud and abuse.

The number of temporary foreign workers in Canada has continued to grow even as the unemployment rate rises — it reached 6.4% in June, 13.5% for the youngest workers. Temporary foreign workers have increasingly been recruited for low-wage, unskilled jobs, including in retail stores and restaurants.

Healey defended the program in the letter, calling it “much maligned despite the rigor that has characterized it for many years,” driven by “unsubstantiated anecdotes.” The system requires employers to advertise jobs to Canadians before seeking a foreign worker, to pay market wages and to take part in a compliance regime that protects against abuse, she said.

She urged the government to maintain the number of workers admitted under the program, speed up approval times and avoid increasing the C$1,000 ($727.5) fee for permit applications, already costly for small businesses.

Business groups have long raised alarm about Canada’s aging population and low birth rates, a phenomenon experienced by many advanced economies. Healey pointed to a Royal Bank of Canada report that said 46% of projected structural labor shortages are in occupations that don’t need a university or college education, but instead require “occupation-specific” or on-the-job training.

“We need better paths for newcomers to come and stay in Canada,” Healey said in the letter. “It is clear that immigration streams that attach a job offer to the application result in improved outcomes.”

While business groups have a right to lobby the government, what’s good for businesses isn’t necessarily good for the economy, said Mikal Skuterud, a labor economist at the University of Waterloo.

Labor shortages are challenging for firms, but they can spur competitive wages and investments in equipment and technology — which is particularly important as Canada grapples with poor productivity, he said.

“I’m not saying it’s not difficult for businesses sometimes — for sure it is,” he said. “But the idea that this is some kind of an economic crisis the government has to respond to is really economic nonsense.”

Source: Trudeau’s plan to reduce temporary immigration risks economic harm: business groups

Deborah Lipstadt slams progressive definition of antisemitism

Of note:

Deborah Lipstadt, the U.S. special envoy for monitoring antisemitism, defended a controversial definition of antisemitism Wednesday and slammed a progressive alternative as having been endorsed by “some renowned antisemites.”

In a conversation with reporters at the State Department, Lipstadt said that International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, which describes anti-Zionism as a form of antisemitism, represented the best language for addressing antisemitism overseas because foreign governments are most familiar with it.

“You need a definition,” Lipstadt said.

How the federal government should define antisemitism in relation to Israel has been a contentious topic since the Trump administration, and even more so as President Joe Biden has sought to make combating antisemitism a cornerstone of his administration.

The release of the landmark national strategy to counter antisemitism last year was delayed for several weeks amid a frantic lobbying campaign between proponents of the IHRA definition, including most major American Jewish groups, and critics who say that it has a chilling effect on legitimate criticism of Israel.

The White House ultimately mentioned in the strategy both the IHRA definition and the Nexus Document, which is meant to complement the IHRA definition and soften some of its positions on Israel. But Lipstadt said on Wednesday that Nexus was not appropriate for international use.

“You say ‘Nexus’ to most Europeans, they have no idea what you’re talking about,” Lipstadt said. “It’s not applicable.”

Jonathan Jacoby, who founded the task force behind Nexus, said that he hoped the group could work with Lipstadt to raise its profile internationally. “Nexus has only been used in the U.S. context, but the principles apply whenever and wherever issues related to Israel and antisemitism intersect,” he said.

Endorsed by ‘renowned antisemites,’ Lipstadt claims

But Lipstadt, a Holocaust historian, reserved her harshest criticism for the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, which was released in 2021 as an alternative to IHRAand alluded to, but not mentioned, in the White House strategy.

“A group of academics signed it, including some renowned antisemites like Richard Falk,” Lipstadt said. “So I don’t know that I’d want to go with that definition of antisemitism.”

Falk, a retired Princeton professor and longtime critic of Israel, has been embroiled in several controversies involving allegations of antisemitism and conspiracy theories, including posting a cartoon on his blog that featured a dog wearing a yarmulke while urinating on Lady Justice. 

Falk, who is Jewish, has consistently denied that he is antisemitic.

The Jerusalem Declaration was drafted by a group of mostly Jewish academics and has been signed by more than 300 other scholars.

Source: Deborah Lipstadt slams progressive definition of antisemitism

Chris Selley: Gaza makes strange bedfellows — and maybe that’s a good thing

Of interest. Interesting type of intersectionality:

…Barely veiled threats aside, there’s nothing surprising about any of the foregoing. Few religions are bullish on things like homosexuality and gender fluidity, and Islam is no exception. When the Environics Institute last surveyed Canadian Muslims’ attitudes about the country, in 2016, it found just 36 per cent of Muslims felt “homosexuality should be accepted by society,” versus 80 per cent of Canadians overall. Just 26 per cent of Muslims felt it “should … be possible to be both an observant Muslim and live openly in a … same-sex relationship.”

And they’re allowed to think that. We put freedom of religion in the Charter and everything.

In some ways this just highlights the absurdity of left-versus-right thinking. Your opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict really should have no bearing on your opinions about same-sex marriage or the appropriate age, if any, for gender-reassignment surgery — or indeed vice versa. They are entirely unrelated issues.

I don’t consider myself especially conservative or right wing, so I’m not here to rep “my side” or score any points. But I will note that people on the left are often obsessed with bedfellows: If someone nasty agrees with you on something, that’s somehow a reflection on you. It’s a reason to reconsider your position.

It’s not a judgment progressives would want to invite on themselves, in this case. But if they’re capable of locking arms with social-conservatives to advance a common cause, I’m tempted to see it as a good thing more than a bad thing. We should all be able to look past our differences, even visceral ones, to make a better country.

Source: Chris Selley: Gaza makes strange bedfellows — and maybe that’s a good thing

Jena: As an immigrant, I’ve experienced Canada’s promise — a promise now at risk

Another legitimate warning:

…Despite these mounting crises, the federal government fixates on arbitrary immigration targets. It’s clear that the government needs to invest more in its health-care system, and in getting more homes built to meet the needs of a growing population. But it should also slow immigration growth until these investments take hold. Each year, more than half a million new permanent residents and hundreds of thousands of temporary workers and students arrive. This relentless, poorly planned surge deepens our crises. With 97 per cent of Canada’s population growth driven by newcomers. In 2023, Canada’s population growth rate was higher than the average of the world’s top 38 economies, the OECD countries….

Dr. Debakant Jena is a first-generation immigrant, an Orthopaedic Surgeon in Medicine Hat, Alberta, and an assistant professor at the University of Calgary. 

Source: As an immigrant, I’ve experienced Canada’s promise — a promise now at risk

Aziz: The Canadian dream is on life support

One of the articles attracting considerable and merited attention:

….To make matters worse, immigration − an exclusively federal jurisdiction − has gone unchecked, which is a disservice to both the country and the legal immigrants who have been here for years. Canada’s immigration system used to be the envy of the world − focusing on merit, on the needs of the labour force, and on a generosity of spirit that was practically unrivalled. Canada will always be pro-immigration, but there needs to be a responsible conversation on the subject, not using it to divide people or sing one’s own moral praises.

In Canada, the social contract for years allowed more immigration to grow the economy, but this came with stringent criteria for who should be admitted. Today, there are more than 900,000 international students in Canada, a 170-per-cent increase over the past decade. Some of these students have been scammed by for-profit colleges. Others have been affiliated with fake schools, using their student visas as loopholes in the immigration system. The social system was unprepared for such an influx, though certain institutions benefited: colleges and universities got more fees; politicians touted rising immigration numbers; the landlord class got an endless supply of perpetual renters. Without any housing available, this has left the country unprepared to deal with multiple, overlapping economic and social crises.

Whether for immigrants or those born in Canada, the same reality unfolds. We have created an entire generation of permanent renters, people who will work and struggle and maybe build some limited wealth, but will never be able to own property. Keep in mind that more than half of Canadians are living paycheque-to-paycheque. Many in my generation have been entirely shut out of prosperity − betraying the promise of progress for millions….

The social situation deteriorates. The housing shortage is chronic. Economic stagnation is severe. The political crisis may be even worse. At this moment, there is a backlash building. Evidence for this is everywhere − most recently in the riding of Toronto-St. Paul’s, which just elected a Conservative MP for the first time since 1988 − and it would be wise for leaders in office to take notice. They should admit something went wrong, re-examine old assumptions and pivot. There must be a positive vision for Canadians, bringing in new voices and faces, and grounded in a common purpose that unites all people around the shared values of hard work and equal opportunity. Most importantly, politicians should dispense with their scripts and level with Canadians about the challenges ahead.

Canada is not broken; it is wounded. But the potential inherent in this country is enormous. Its future must be reclaimed and won soon, or lost for good.

Source: The Canadian dream is on life support

Sweden’s ‘snitch law’ immigration plan prompts alarm across society

Of note:

Doctors, social workers and librarians are among those in Sweden who have sounded the alarm over a proposal being explored by a government-appointed committee that would force public sector workers to report undocumented people to authorities.

The proposal – which has been referred to as the “snitch law” by some – was among the many measures included in a 2022 agreement struck between four rightwing parties in the country. The deal paved the way for a coalition government involving three centre-right parties with parliamentary support from the far-right anti-immigration Sweden Democrats (SD).

Nearly two years after the SD, a party whose manifesto seeks to create one of Europe’s most-hostile environments for non-Europeans, became Sweden’s second-biggest party, work is under way to turn the proposal regarding public sector workers into law. The committee has been instructed by the government to present proposals on how this could be drafted into law, with plans to present their findings to the government by the end of November.

Despite being in the early stages, the idea, which could result in up to a million workers, from dentists to teachers, being forced to report any contact with undocumented patients, students and authorities, has faced widespread opposition from rights campaigners and professional associations.

“This proposal is utterly inhumane,” said Michele LeVoy of the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants. The impacts could be far-reaching, with people potentially hesitating to send children to school and more reluctant to access healthcare or report crimes committed against them.

“People will be, in a sense, terrified. Why would anyone want to go somewhere when they know that the main thing that will happen is not that they can get care, not that they can go to school, not that they can go to the library – they’ll just be turned in,” she said.

Professional associations have said the proposal could erode the trust they have worked to build and instead fuel racism and amplify stigmatisation.

LeVoy described the measures as part of a growing trend across Europe to criminalise solidarity with people who were undocumented. The Finnish government is also considering expanding obligations to report undocumented people, while in Germany, social welfare offices have for two decades wrestled with reporting obligations.

Another example lay in the measures introduced in the UK by Theresa May in 2012, said LeVoy, citing the “hostile environment” policies that sought to limit access to work, benefits, bank accounts, driving licences and other essential services for those who could not prove they had the legal right to live in Britain.

It later emerged that many who were in the UK legally were unable to prove their status and that the Home Office was frequently misclassifying legal residents as immigration offenders, leading the National Audit Office to conclude in 2018 that hostile environment policies did not provide value for money for taxpayers.

If the Swedish proposal were to become law, Sweden could end up grappling with similar consequences, said LeVoy. “Everywhere where obligations to denounce undocumented people have been applied, the result has been more discrimination, suffering and fear.”

Jacob Lind, a postdoctoral researcher in international migration at Malmö University, said the Swedish proposal was likely to have little impact when it came to reducing the number of people without papers in the country.

“A lot of people are not going to leave,” he said. “They’re just going to end up in further misery. You’ll end up with the opposite effect; society will have even less contact with people who are in this situation, further increasing their vulnerability and making them even more exploitable.”

It is a view that could explain the broad-based opposition to the plan; as of December 2023, more than 150 Swedish regions, municipalities, trade unions and other civil society groups had come out against the idea. “There’s a unique alliance right now around this issue and it’s become a key issue,” said Lind.

Among the groups that have spoken out is the Swedish Medical Association (SMA). “I became a doctor to help people, not monitor and report them,” said Sofia Rydgren Stale, the SMA chair.

For months, the association has argued that reporting requirements would run contrary to the professional ethics rules and principles that state that care must be provided as needed and that patients must not be discriminated against. “We see it as very likely that it will lead to people not daring to seek care for fear of being reported,” Rydgren Stale added.

The Swedish government said the committee looking into how this could become law was also examining whether the duty to provide information would conflict with professional values, such as within healthcare. “To ensure that the regulation is legally sound and does not result in unreasonable consequences for individuals, certain situations may need to be exempted from the duty to provide information,” the minister of migration, Maria Malmer Stenergard, said.

She described the reporting requirements as playing a key role in supporting legal migration by allowing the state to more efficiently deport individuals who are denied asylum. “Unfortunately, many remain and become part of a growing shadow society,” she said. “In such situations the duty to provide information helps in upholding government decisions and does not erode trust, quite the contrary.”

The government’s stance has seemingly done little to quell concerns. In May, the professional ethics council founded by two Swedish unions representing teachers said the obligation to report would put them in an impossible situation. “If the proposal were to become reality, it could lead to such serious ethical problems for teachers that our conclusion is that civil disobedience would probably be the only reasonable way out,” it said on its website.

The idea was also opposed by more than 90% of librarians, said Anna Troberg of the trade union DIK. “Many say they would rather lose their jobs than report those in need,” she said. “If the Swedish government advances this law, the librarians will come out on the right side of history. Ultimately, this is a question of trust, humanity and democracy.”

Source: Sweden’s ‘snitch law’ immigration plan prompts alarm across society

Canadian Immigration Tracker: June 2024 Update

Half-year highlights, January to June year over year increase. Study permit applications and issues most notable change, highlighting impact of caps on international post-secondary students.

Summary tables of impact on international students (permits issued, applications and web interest), all showing a significant decline for the April-June quarter:

—–

Permanent residents: Slight decrease of 2.9 percent (likely to be made up in subsequent quarters)

TRs-IMP: Overall increase of 8.9 percent but April-June shows a decline of 8.5 percent compared to the 27.7 percent increase January-March

TRs-TFWs: Overall decrease of 3 percent, 1.4 percent in April-June

Students: Number of applications have decreased by 32 percent, but April-June highlights the impact of the cap announcement with a decline of 47.2 percent. With respect to post-secondary study permits issued, while the overall number decreased only by 1.7 percent, April-June declined by 21.4 percent, a sharp contrast with an increase of 34.3 percent January-March. 

Asylum Claimants: Increase of 55.4 percent, quarterly numbers largely the same

Citizenship: Increase of 16.2 percent, quarterly numbers largely the same

Visitor Visas: Decrease of 10.2 percent, with a greater decrease in the second quarter of 24 percent.

https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/canadian-immigration-tracker-key-slides-june-2024/270924210

Haan et al: What Does Integration Mean in a Multicultural Country like Canada?

Interesting discussion on integration definitions. But I think this relationship model, while important, neglects socioeconomic outcomes (income, employment, scolarity etc). Valid to question whether integration into the “mainstream” remains valid but looking at the data indicates still is relevant.

And there is a risk of dismissing pre-existing norms as it suggests an approach of “anything goes” rather than conforming with Canadian laws and regulations, which of course evolve and change as the population and social norms change:

…Although there is evidence to support both segmented and new assimilation theories, it is also becoming obvious that researchers should pay more attention to the demographic realities in immigrant-receiving countries such as Canada. As some native-born populations shrink in proportion to the whole, it becomes increasingly difficult to pinpoint where exactly the process of integration might occur. The sociologist Richard Alba recommends expanding the definition of the mainstream to include more groups. While this is obviously an important step, it maintains an underlying assumption that there exists a core population group. What happens when a city increasingly does not have a majority group? 

To this end, sociologist Maurice Crul recommends moving beyond thinking about integration as a minority group’s merging into a majority population and having little to no effect on the mainstream itself. His “integration into diversity” theory posits that the notion of a mainstream is becoming less useful and should be replaced with one of a population marked by diversity.

Drawing on results from the Becoming a Minority project, which collected data from several European cities, he provides a matrix to describe nine outcomes of individuals, each focused on different integration attitudes (see Figure 2). The most integrated individuals will exist in a diverse social network that believes immigration-related diversity is enriching, while the least integrated will be at the opposite end of the spectrum, feeling threatened by immigration and favoring a homogenous social circle.

Figure 2. Integration into Diversity Theory Matrix

Source: Maurice Crul, “Integration into Diversity Theory Renewing–Once Again–Assimilation Theory,” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 50, no. 1 (2024): 257-71, available online.

The strength of this approach is that it does not take into consideration individual characteristics such as skin color or first language spoken. According to this theory, these factors do not really matter because there is no expectation of comparing individual characteristics to that of a mainstream population; neither the characteristics of the community nor the person matter. What matters instead is individual actions and attitudes towards diversity. The more tolerant a person is, the more integrated they are into their heterogenous society.    

This approach is still rather new and, as such, does not yet explain which identity position a person will take. It is, in fact, only beginning to be used to predict characteristics such as feelings of belonging and perceptions of neighborhood security. Crul is clear in that he does not want his theory to replace new or segmented assimilation theory as an explanation of the integration process (he instead refers to it as an update), but the idea shifts the focus away from that of an individual melding into the mainstream. By positing the existence of nine subgroups, it becomes possible to envision multiple mainstreams with multiple attitudes towards integration. In a country such as Canada, this approach seems rather prescient.

Nonetheless, the utility of a new theoretical framework is best assessed empirically. Canada’s General Social Survey asks individuals how many of their friends are of the same immigrant group, although not about attitudes towards diversity. It would be interesting to add this question and find other ways to analyze integration into diversity theory.

Moving forward, immigration to Canada is only increasing. With extensive efforts to bring in more new arrivals every year, immigrants’ influence on the Canadian population is growing—and appears on course to continue doing so even as public disquiet has caused the government to seek to trim some immigration. Traditional notions of integration are becoming increasingly irrelevant in a country where nearly all population growth stems from immigration. New arrivals find their place in society not by assuming pre-existing norms, but by finding their people and their place and creating their own norms. In this way, Canada’s diversity will only continue to grow over time.

Source: What Does Integration Mean in a Multicultural Country like Canada?

Gee: It’s time to bring John A. Macdonald out of his confinement

Yes. And charge people for any defacing or vandalism along with a plaque or display on his role in residential schools. Same should be done for Ryerson:

…If it’s wrong to lionize our national champions, glossing over their failures and their crimes, it is equally wrong to villainize them. Most of them are neither complete heroes nor utter rogues. A true understanding of history demands we view them in the round, considering all their human complexity.

John A. Macdonald expressed some vile – and, sadly widespread – opinions about Indigenous peoples. He had many other flaws and made many mistakes in his long tenure as Canada’s dominant political leader. But as one of his leading biographers, Richard Gwyn, argued, all of this must be set against his accomplishments, among them the creation of the transcontinental railway and the North-West Mounted Police. Before he died, said Mr. Gwyn, Macdonald made sure that “Canada had outpaced the challenge of survival and had begun to take the shape of a true country.”

Here is how the Canadian Encyclopedia summarizes him: “Macdonald helped unite the British North American colonies in Confederation and was a key figure in the writing of the British North America Act – the foundation of Canada’s Constitution. He oversaw the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) and the addition of Manitoba, the North-West Territories, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island to Confederation. However, his legacy also includes the creation of the residential school system for Indigenous children, the policies that contributed to the starvation of Plains Indigenous peoples, and the ‘head tax’ on Chinese immigrants.”

The past few years have seen an overdue reckoning with the tremendous and lasting harms done to Indigenous peoples during European colonization. But there are other remedies than erasing names and pulling down statues. One is to raise memorials to the victims of those times. Mount Vernon has a slave memorial close to the tombs of George and Martha Washington. Another is to explain and educate. A few years ago the foundation that runs Thomas Jefferson’s plantation at Monticello, Va., unveiled a series of nuanced exhibits about Sally Hemings, the enslaved woman who bore several children by the man who drafted the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

Instead of hiding Macdonald away, why not install a display at Queen’s Park about residential schools and his role in their story? Putting the statue of our first prime minister in a wooden box achieves nothing and satisfies no one. It is time to bring Sir John A. into the light.

Source: It’s time to bring John A. Macdonald out of his confinement

Globe editorial: Fraud in the temporary worker program isn’t the problem. The rules that rig the labour market are

Indeed. Not seeing much impact yet in numbers in government rolling back some of the earlier ill-advised facilitation under former immigration minister Fraser and his DMs:

…As is the case with much of the immigration file, the Liberals have moved only slowly to undo what have become clearly damaging changes. Last October, the government decreased the validity period for labour market impact assessments to 12 months, when the national unemployment rate had hit 5.7 per cent, up from 5.1 per cent in the spring of 2022.

In March, the validity period was reduced to six months, a belated recognition of the realities of the labour market. At the same time, the government said only two sectors would still be allowed to use foreign workers for up to 30 per cent of their workforce. But it kept in place the 20-per-cent rule for all other sectors, despite rising unemployment.

On Tuesday, Employment Minister Randy Boissonnault hinted that further tightening may be on the way, as he announced several anti-fraud measures. Of course, companies who abuse the rules and their workers should be punished.

But the real problem with the low-wage temporary foreign worker program is not abuse of the rules – it’s the rules themselves. The press release from Mr. Boisonnault’s office boldly stated that the temporary foreign worker program “is designed as an extraordinary measure to be used when a qualified Canadian is not able to fill a job vacancy.”

That may have been the case once. But now that is demonstrably untrue – and a slap in the face to unemployed workers struggling to find a job while the Liberal government allows businesses to continue to import cheap labour.

Source: Fraud in the temporary worker program isn’t the problem. The rules that rig the labour market are