‘Our current government hasn’t been heeding national security advice’: Former immigration minister Chris Alexander on how Canada vets immigrants—and how ISIS operatives may have slipped through the cracks 

Worth reading, both as an explainer as well as the political commentary:

Significant questions are being asked of Canada’s security and immigrant vetting processes following the arrests last month of Ahmed Fouad Mostafa Eldidi, 62, and Mostafa Eldidi, 26, a father and son facing charges that include conspiracy to commit murder for the benefit or at the direction of a terrorist group—in this case, ISIS.

Reports have emerged that the pair were able to immigrate to Canada despite the elder Eldidi having participated in violence, including torture and dismemberment, against an ISIS prisoner. The assault was recorded on video and released by ISIS prior to the pair’s immigration to Canada.

Ahmed Fouad Mostafa Eldidi is a Canadian citizen while his son, Mostafa, is not.

Police claimed the father and son were “in the advanced stages of planning a serious, violent attack in Toronto,” before their arrest.

To better understand Canada’s immigration vetting process, Sean Speer, The Hub’s editor-at-large, exchanged with Chris Alexander, Canada’s minister of Citizenship and Immigration from 2013 to 2015, who offered his expert insight on how the pair may have slipped through the cracks without raising alarm.

SEAN SPEER: How does the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship draw on intelligence and national security analysis when judging the admissibility of an immigration applicant? Does the department have its own capacity or does it draw on the capacity concentrated in CSIS and other national security agencies? If the latter, what’s the mechanism or process for such analysis to be pulled into the department’s decision-making?

CHRIS ALEXANDER: The Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship uses national security-related information to make decisions, but this information invariably originates with CSIS, the RCMP, or our trusted allies and partners that share such information with us. When an applicant has never before been flagged for national security-related concerns, then IRCC is relying on CSIS, relevant police services, and their international partners to ensure nothing new has come to light. Timelines are often short; resources are invariably stretched; and matching applicants to data generated by national security review across languages, alphabets, and administrative systems can pose challenges.

SEAN SPEER: What type of national security review is typically used for immigration applicants compared to more extraordinary cases? What’s the triage process for determining the level of national security review?

CHRIS ALEXANDER: Applicants for permanent residence receive a more thorough review than say, international students or temporary workers. Anyone with a background in police, the military, or security services will receive additional vetting, especially if they come from a country with a less-than-stellar human rights record. The country of origin and any other places where the applicant lived, studied, or worked are also taken into account: if any of these countries are theatres where significant terrorist or extremist groups operate, where wars, civil wars or other armed conflicts are underway, or where hostile intelligence services may be recruiting assets, then there will be additional vetting as well. The parameters for Canada’s national security vetting are always shifting as the threat environment evolves, and our assessments catch up (or fail to catch up) to fast-changing realities on the ground around the world.

SEAN SPEER: Based on what we know about this particular case, what might have happened such that this individual’s participation in an ISIS-related execution was not factored into his admissibility?

CHRIS ALEXANDER: The information on the file might have been incomplete. For sound operational reasons, those monitoring ISIS comms and participants in ISIS war crimes may not have made their information fully available to national security databases. Stove-piping still happens; delays happen. Names also get garbled: “credible” sources may have claimed this was not the same person. Mistakes are human nature. In addition, our national security machinery has shifted gears in recent years away from terrorist threats to focus more on China, Russia, and homegrown extremism—the flames of which are often fanned online by state actors that engage in large-scale disinformation and active measures, such as Russia.i

SEAN SPEER: Is this a widespread problem in your view? To what extent does it suggest that there are others—perhaps many others—in the country with broadly similar backgrounds or past actions?

CHRIS ALEXANDER: Our system is not prone to widespread, systemic failures—it’s quite solid. But over the decades we have failed on several fronts. One example is the number of Iranian and Syrian regime officials—some with allegations of having committed terrible crimes in those countries—who somehow slipped through our vetting system. But the main challenge today is that the number of threats—from terrorist and criminal groups, as well as hostile foreign states—has grown significantly while our national security capabilities have failed to keep pace.

Add to this tension the unprecedented numbers of immigrants, temporary workers, international students, asylum claimants, and other visitors flowing into Canada over the past two years—roughly double the usual levels, with asylum backlogs rising rapidly—and you have a recipe for more frequent failures. For instance, over the period when Mexicans were coming to Canada visa-free, how many drug cartel operatives eager to open new routes into the U.S. came to Canada? We may never know. The same may be true for ISIS, representatives of China’s United Front Work Department, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) or Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), and even Hamas or Hezbollah, which have historically had quite robust networks in Canada.

As we have all observed to our dismay, our current government has not been heeding national security advice and, to put it very mildly, has not been vigilant on these issues over the past nine years. Our allies (particularly in the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing community) have noticed, and our reputation has been tarnished as a result.

SEAN SPEER: What, if any reforms, do you think should be undertaken to strengthen the process for assessing immigration applicants through an intelligence and national security lens?

CHRIS ALEXANDER: The key to successful national security review is rapid, continuous, skillful integration of available information. The right insights are out there, but they only shape immigration outcomes in the right ways when the data is well-organized, easily accessible, and properly brought to bear on decision-making. My guess is that those responsible for these issues have been run ragged in recent years: they need backup, a full review of our procedures, and (where necessary) modernization and integration of the relevant secure communication systems and databases.

We need to put sound national security practices back at the centre of our immigration policy—as well as our policy across government. In a world where all categories of threat actors are looking for the line of least resistance worldwide to launder money, move operatives, recruit new supporters, and disrupt democracy, Canada has become an easy mark in recent years. We need to restore our reputation for a best-in-class immigration and refugee programmes rooted in sound, reliable national security vetting. We also need to harden our defences, increase our military spending, and upgrade and broaden our national security capabilities to protect Canadians in general as well as the integrity of our immigration and refugee determination system at a time when hostile state and non-state actors have become more hostile almost across the board.

Source: ‘Our current government hasn’t been heeding national security advice’: Former immigration minister Chris Alexander on how Canada vets immigrants—and how ISIS operatives may have slipped through the cracks 


Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre would be OK with permanent resident status for foreign workers, with conditions

Not exactly a bankable commitment. The devil will be in the details:

…Poilievre said he will consider permanent status for migrant workers under some specific conditions.

“I am open to it for people who have come legally, who have worked the entire time that they have been here (and) who have, or are learning one of the two official languages,” he said.

“In principle I have no problem with the idea of temporary foreign workers who have proven themselves to be strong, net contributors to our country staying permanently and becoming members of the Canadian family,” he added.

Source: Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre would be OK with permanent resident status for foreign workers, with conditions

International Students Numbers Starting to Decline

Given some of the simplistic analysis of the number of study permits issued in a number of publications, I thought the following table would be instructive. There is always a time lag in policy implementation and the caps on international students were introduced in January of this year as shown in the table below.

So while there was a slight increase for the first half of this year, the quarterly number highlights the shift: Q1 showed a year-to-year increase of 34.3 percent whereas Q2 showed a decrease of 21.4 percent.

So a plea to journalists writing about international students and other immigration numbers, look at both the totals and trends for a more accurate picture. Always happy to respond to any questions.

Gov’t Shelves Click-Box Oath

While I will never know what role the petition I launched against the self-administered citizenship oath played, nice to see that Minister Miller has shelved this idiotic proposal. Article behind paywall so if anyone has access please share:

Immigration Minister Marc Miller’s department has shelved a proposal for click-box citizenship following a public outcry. The department in a briefing note said it accepted Canadians attached profound meaning to publicly swearing allegiance to Canada in person, a legal requirement for new citizens since 1947: “I do not agree with this interpretation where the oath of citizenship is only a formality.”

Source: Gov’t Shelves Click-Box Oath

Kutty: Canada is putting too many Black Canadians behind bars. Here is what we can do about it

As always, the challenge is in the determining what is feasible and has an evidence-base regarding effectiveness, and ultimately in the doing and implementing. Writing a report and making recommendations is relatively easy and consultations have to include diverse views:

…Despite these strengths, the report has notable weaknesses that need to be addressed for effective and meaningful reform.

One problem is the lack of concrete action plans and timelines. Without specific implementation strategies and deadlines, the recommendations risk remaining mere aspirations. To drive real change, the government must outline clear, actionable steps and hold relevant agencies accountable for meeting these targets. Many such reports, including the 445-page Report of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System (1995), which I also wrote about, have gone into the dustbins of history without significant action. The evidence is in the numerous subsequent reports since then that also accumulated dust.

Another weakness is that while the report calls for major overhauls like pouring more resources into jobs, housing, health, and education, and eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, it does not provide robust strategies to address these underlying factors. Comprehensive socio-economic policies ensuring access to quality education, health care, housing, and employment opportunities are essential for a holistic approach to justice reform. Furthermore, the report’s recommendations for training and education of justice system professionals are not adequately detailed. Cultural competency and anti-racism training must be rigorous, ongoing, and integrated into all aspects of professional development. The report should specify the content, frequency, and evaluation methods for such training to ensure it effectively transforms attitudes and behaviours within the justice system.

While the report emphasizes the importance of community engagement, it falls short in outlining mechanisms for meaningful and sustained community involvement in the reform process.

True transformative justice requires continuous dialogue and partnership with affected communities. Establishing advisory councils, conducting regular town hall meetings, and creating platforms for community feedback are ways to ensure reforms are responsive to the needs and experiences of those most impacted by systemic racism.

It is well past the time to start dismantling systemic racism and build a criminal justice system that truly serves all members of our diverse nation.

Faisal Kutty is a lawyer and law professor. @themuslimlawyer

Source: Canada is putting too many Black Canadians behind bars. Here is what we can do about it

ICYMI – Israel Palestine: Australian multiculturalism was never a licence for ‘anything goes’

As in Canada:

Australians have been rightly proud of our largely harmonious and tolerant society, rooted in our unique model of multiculturalism.

This model is centred on celebrating cultural diversity, maintaining shared core values – such as the rule of law, mutual respect and tolerance – and a framework of laws aimed at ensuring good intercommunal relations and deterring and marginalising racial vilification, hate speech and incitement to violence.

Yet, in the past year, the notion that the different peoples and faiths that comprise modern Australia can co-exist in mutual harmony has been repeatedly challenged.

There is no denying we are experiencing an extended period of intercommunal tension, hatred, incitement and violence, which represents a direct challenge to ongoing Australian multiculturalism and our stable, cohesive democratic society.

Since Hamas’ barbaric attack against Israel on October 7 and the subsequent war, a day has seldom passed without examples of hate speech and incitement to violence and worse against Jews and non-Jews who dare express support for Israel or fail to condemn Israel for defending itself against Hamas.

These appalling incidents have included defacing war memorials and tagging Jewish day schools, synagogues and communal buildings with offensive graffiti and banners. The wider community has not been immune from these attacks either.

Protesters have glorified Hamas – a banned terrorist group – and chanted hateful slogans including: “There is only one solution, intifada revolution”.

Some Muslim leaders have seemingly supported Hamas’ massacre as legitimate resistance against Israel. One Australian Islamic scholar said there were no “innocent victims” on October 7; another Muslim cleric sermonised recently that Jews are “descendants of pigs and monkeys”; another sermonised on December 22 in Sydney that, “The most important characteristic of the Jews is that they are bloodthirsty … another is betrayal and treachery,” adding Jews are “monsters” who “love to shed blood”.

Antisemitic tropes – such as allegations that “Jewish power” works to undermine our institutions and national interests – have migrated from the fringes into the mainstream with claims from members of parliament about the supposed tentacles of the Jewish lobby and the alleged veto of Jewish politicians over the government’s Middle East policies.

Unfortunately, a vocal minority have seized on these incidents as proof that multiculturalism is not only a failed experiment but the catalyst for many of our problems.

Yes, we should be concerned, but we need to focus on the right targets.

Australian multiculturalism was never a licence for “anything goes”, that whatever your background or values – be they embedded in extremism, violence, terrorism, racism or whatever – they’ll fit into diverse Australia.

Rather, our multicultural, democratic model has succeeded only by emphasising the need to accept and practise one’s responsibilities and not just exercise one’s rights. It relies on a non-negotiable commitment to certain shared core values and responsibilities, including parliamentary democracy and the rule of law; freedom of speech and religion; the equality of the sexes; and mutual respect and tolerance.

If the values and principles embedded in your ethnicity, religious or national background violate those core multicultural, democratic values, they are unacceptable in multicultural, democratic Australia.

These are the principles underpinning the fabric of Australian multiculturalism, which so much of the current discord, hatred and antisemitism profoundly challenges and undermines.

The fundamental issue is the failure of our leaders to emphatically stress these core values and forcefully condemn behaviour breaching them, and the relative inaction of legal authorities in enforcing the law.

During the infamous October 9 anti-Israel demonstration at the Sydney Opera House, which included chants of “f— the Jews” and “Where’s the Jews?”, NSW Police failed to act against protesters.

Instead, Jews and pro-Israel supporters were told to avoid Sydney’s CBD. Law enforcement’s practice of managing conflict by shifting responsibility from would-be perpetrators to the targets of hate has been on repeat since October 7.

On November 10, when anti-Israel demonstrators descended on Melbourne’s Jewish community, the police evacuated congregants from a nearby synagogue service.

Continuing the pattern, visiting families of Israeli hostages kidnapped by Hamas were further traumatised when anti-Israel agitators took over their hotel lobby. Instead of dispersing those disturbing the peace, the police moved the Israeli guests to a nearby police station for their protection.

Police investigations into some of the sermons cited above concluded that none appeared to “meet the threshold of any criminal offence” covered by our laws against racial vilification and incitement.

Something is clearly amiss. At a time of escalating tensions, it’s crucial our leaders and law enforcement take a strong stand against hateful and threatening behaviour.

No one would argue that from time to time policies and legislation don’t need tweaking to meet today’s challenges and circumstances, and indeed reviews are under way, including on ways “for government and the community to work together to support a cohesive multicultural society” with the federal government just releasing the report of the multicultural framework review and its response.

Yet, we need more rigour and vigour in enunciating and implementing both our policy and legal frameworks to prevent further damage to Australian democracy and our multiculturalism upon which the harmony and security of our society crucially depend.

Colin Rubenstein is the executive director of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council and was a member of the initial Council for Multicultural Australia (2000-06).

Source: Israel Palestine: Australian multiculturalism was never a licence for ‘anything goes’

Ottawa signals tougher rules for Temporary Foreign Worker Program

Waiting for the details of this needed corrective action:

…The federal government said these moves were aimed at easing labour shortages, although many economists criticized the policies over the potential for wage suppression and exploitation of foreign workers, who have weaker labour rights than permanent residents and Canadians.

Employers have subsequently ramped up their recruitment of foreign labour, particularly in the low-wage stream. Cooks, food counter attendants and construction workers are among the low-wage employees in high demand.

At the end of 2023, nearly 190,000 people held valid work permits through the TFW program, an increase of 157 per cent from 2019. The program accounts for a small portion of temporary foreign labour in the country; for example, international students and people with postgraduate work permits are a large and growing cohort of workers in the Canadian economy.

The country’s soaring population growth – largely fuelled by temporary immigration – is colliding with a weakening labour market. The unemployment rate has risen to 6.4 per cent, and it’s taking longer for recent immigrants and young people to find jobs.

Tuesday’s news release said the government is applying “a stricter and more rigorous oversight” of employer applications to use the TFW program and when conducting inspections of companies using such labour.

Source: Ottawa signals tougher rules for Temporary Foreign Worker Program

Meggs: Despite moving to limit temporary immigrants, Canada’s policy lacks vision

Good critique of the lack of an overall vision and direction. In addition, any such vision and plan needs to include the impacts of immigration, permanent and temporary, on housing, healthcare, infrastructure etc., along with related plans to address these impacts:

…The government’s move is part of its plan to reverse many decisions that have led to the serious negative consequences of the mismanagement of the immigration system over the last 10 years. The main stated objective is to reduce the proportion of non-permanent residents (those with work or study permits and asylum seekers) to 5 per cent of the Canadian population by 2027, a target experts consider unattainable.

However, is the growth of a population with a certain immigration status the only problem the government needs to resolve? Or is it the increasing size of the population in general? Or the number and pace of arrivals, whatever their status? Or the skills and skill-levels of the people who are arriving? Or the age pyramid?

There was no vision in the immigration policy that got us into this conundrum, and there is no obvious vision for bringing immigration policy back under control. For public policy to be effective and reinforce confidence in government, the public must understand and relate to the problems that the policy is attempting to address and feel intuitively that the government has the issue under control. Canadians these days sense that this is no longer the case for immigration policy and this is dangerous for social cohesion….

Source: Despite moving to limit temporary immigrants, Canada’s policy lacks vision

Nicolas: Conservatismes dénationalisés

While I wouldn’t class J.K. Rowling the same as the “pyromanes” Elon Musk and Donald Trump, valid point on the convergence of the nationalist right wing across countries:

Il y a désormais 20 ans, l’été normalement très peu politique des gens de Québec était interrompu par une manifestation de 50 000 personnes se portant à la défense de CHOI Radio X et de son animateur vedette Jeff Fillion alors que la licence de la station était menacée par une décision du Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications canadiennes, le CRTC. Les voitures de mon quartier étaient placardées d’autocollants où on pouvait lire : « Liberté ! Je crie ton nom partout ! »

Liberté de quoi ? Liberté, pour Jeff Fillion, d’insulter les femmes, les immigrants, les gais, les pauvres, les politiciens : bref, à peu près tout le monde. Du moins, c’était là le type de propos dits « controversés » qui avaient justifié la décision du CRTC.

En septembre 2004, une élection partielle dans mon comté, Vanier, a fait entrer à l’Assemblée nationale un nouveau député de l’Action démocratique du Québec (ADQ), Sylvain Légaré. Le chef de l’ADQ, Mario Dumont, avait vu dans la mobilisation locale une occasion politique en or et avait fait campagne en se portant à la défense de Radio X.

Cette page d’histoire locale illustre bien le contexte social et politique dans lequel a émergé ce qu’on a appelé la « crise des accommodements raisonnables ». L’été 2004 représente en quelque sorte une version bêta de l’alliance entre personnalités médiatiques populistes et politiciens populistes qui permet aux uns de normaliser leurs idées dans l’espace public et aux autres de faire des gains électoraux à court terme.

La recette testée cet été-là a été adaptée à l’échelle de la province dans les années qui ont suivi. D’un côté, des anecdotes médiatiques du type « les immigrants et les minorités exagèrent » ont trouvé leur courroie de relais à l’Assemblée nationale. De l’autre, le nouveau paradigme parlementaire a décuplé la proportion du débat public québécois qui divise la population sur la base des attitudes face à « l’identitaire ». À bien des égards, on vit toujours dans ce paradigme.

La métamorphose politique de ces années-là n’est toutefois pas unique au Québec. L’alliance entre médias de droite populiste et mouvements politiques conservateurs a aussi été cimentée par des hommes bien plus puissants, tels que Rupert Murdoch, propriétaire de la chaîne américaine Fox News comme de plusieurs médias du même acabit au Royaume-Uni et en Australie, et Vincent Bolloré, propriétaire de CNews et de plusieurs autres chaînes françaises. Ces hommes ont transformé non seulement les médias, mais aussi le champ des idées politiques acceptables et la manière de débattre dans leurs pays d’activité respectifs.

À bien des égards, la dynamique politique des années 2000, c’était le bon vieux temps. L’enfance du problème, en quelque sorte.

Ou du moins, c’est ce qui m’appert alors que je regarde comment des présupposés sur l’identité religieuse du suspect dans une affaire de meurtre servent de bougie d’allumage à une vague d’émeutes violentes portée par des mouvements d’extrême droite en Grande-Bretagne. Ou quand je vois comment la Russie, frustrée d’être exclue des Jeux olympiques, contribue à semer le doute sur l’identité de genre d’une boxeuse algérienne, Imane Khelif, de manière à faire s’entre-déchirer tout l’Internet occidental pris au piège dans ses « guerres culturelles ».

Je suis tentée de distribuer à J.K. Rowling, Elon Musk et Donald Trump les trois médailles d’une nouvelle discipline olympique : celle de l’ultrariche pyromane. Je laisse au jury le soin de terminer à qui revient l’or, l’argent et le bronze, mais de toute évidence, ces trois-là ont formé le peloton de tête cette semaine.

Je dis que les années 2000 m’apparaissent comme un temps plus doux, parce que dans l’affaire Khelif, nos populistes locaux se sont simplement fait les perroquets de nos champions internationaux ultrariches pyromanes. Depuis l’avènement des médias sociaux et la montée mondiale du populisme de droite, les dérapages qui empoisonnent nos débats d’idées sont de moins en moins désignables comme « nos » dérapages.

Du temps du code de vie d’Hérouxville, ça chauffait, certes, mais on se sentait un peu moins directement comme les pantins des milliardaires de la mondialisation en manque d’attention. On pouvait se battre contre les préjugés toxiques à armes tout de même plus égales lorsqu’on n’avait pas carrément les algorithmes de plateformes comme X contre nous.

En 2008, le rapport Bouchard-Taylor avait désigné, finalement, la « crise des accommodements raisonnables » comme une crise de perception alimentée par des anecdotes montées en épingles par certains médias d’ici. Ce que l’actualité de la semaine démontre, en quelque sorte, c’est que le carburant de nos crises de perception est plus que jamais complètement sorti des champs de compétence provinciaux.

La « bollorisation » des médias français influence directement les élites politiques et médiatiques québécoises admiratives de l’Hexagone. Les guerres culturelles de Fox News sont adaptées à la sauce canadienne par le mouvement conservateur de Pierre Poilievre. Par TikTok et YouTube, les masculinistes parlent aux jeunes de partout dans le monde. Et les propagandistes russes alimentent les complotistes occidentaux sur des plateformes où la vérification des faits a pour ainsi dire pris le bord. En fin de compte, la circulation des idées réactionnaires sur l’immigration, les minorités, les femmes et l’identité de genre s’est accélérée et internationalisée de manière phénoménale depuis 2008.

Entendons bien : les idées ont toujours circulé et circuleront toujours. Cela dit, des commissaires auraient bien du mal, en 2024, à pointer une origine précisément locale à nos « crises de perception » contemporaines sur les drag queens, les trans, les femmes trop masculines, les immigrants qui prennent trop de place, etc.

C’est là un grand paradoxe des nationalismes conservateurs contemporains. Tout en vantant la nation, ils s’appuient sur des discours qui ont de moins en moins de contenu spécifiquement national. De la France au Royaume-Uni, des États-Unis à l’Italie, de l’Espagne au Canada, les scénarios semblent de plus en plus interchangeables — et la « question de l’heure », hors de notre contrôle.

Source: Conservatismes dénationalisés

Moffatt: Ontario experienced a decade’s worth of population growth in just three years. We can’t support that growth without building way more homes

More on housing pressures and noting the importance of curbing demand in terms of numbers of immigrants, permanent and temporary and current government changes (further reductions needed IMO):

…On the population growth side, the federal government has committed to lowering the number of non-permanent residents (NPRs), including international students and temporary foreign workers, living in Canada. They have committed to reducing the proportion of non-permanent residents to under 5 per cent of Canada’s population over the next three years, a reduction of nearly one million people. If achieved, it would ease pressure on rents and ensure that the students we are inviting to the country have the best possible experience while here. However, the Bank of Canada recently called into question the federal government’s commitment to their non-permanent resident growth targets, stating  “it will take longer for planned policies to reduce NPR inflows to achieve the 5% target”. The federal government must release a credible plan, or risk having Ontario’s population grow faster than the housing supply.

Ontario’s housing crisis can be fixed. We have the solutions on both the supply and demand sides, many of which governments have already committed to implementing. They simply need to do so.

Source: Ontario experienced a decade’s worth of population growth in just three years. We can’t support that growth without building way more homes