More measures coming to reduce temporary residents, Canadian minister says

Stay tuned, more signs of reality, both substantive and political:

Canada’s government is preparing to unveil a suite of measures to clamp down on temporary immigration and has no plans to follow through right now on a broad program offering status to undocumented residents, the country’s immigration minister told Reuters.

“The era of uncapped programs to come into this country is quickly coming to an end. This is a big shift. You can’t just slam on the brakes and expect it to stop immediately,” Marc Miller said in an interview with Reuters on Thursday.

Canada has long prided itself on welcoming newcomers, and the current Liberal government has overseen a dramatic increase in the influx of new residents, especially temporary ones, as many employers struggled to fill vacancies coming out of the pandemic.

But over the past year the tide has shifted: Immigrants are being blamed for a worsening housing situation along with an affordability crisis in the country. Critics have accused the federal government of bringing in too many people.

A Leger poll conducted in July found 60% of respondents said there are too many immigrants coming to Canada.

“I’m not naive enough to think Canada is immune to the waves of anti-immigrant sentiment. … Canadians want a system that is not out of control,” Miller said in a phone interview.

Canadians “want a system that makes sense. And they want one that still has a lot of welcoming aspects we’ve been proud of, but it’s got to make sense,” Miller said, predicting immigration would be “a top issue, if not the top issue, in the next election,” expected to take place in late 2025.

The Canadian government has already outlined some measures. In January it announced a two-year cap on international students – an area of Canada’s immigration system that got “overheated” and was not meant to be “a backdoor entry into Canada,” Miller said.

In March the immigration minister announced Canada’s first-ever cap on temporary immigration. Canada wants to reduce temporary residents to 5% of the total population over the next three years from 6.2% in 2023. That would be a cut of about 20% from Canada’s 2.5 million temporary residents in 2023.

But in its recent monetary policy report, the Bank of Canada expressed doubts that the government could meet its temporary residents goal, noting that non-permanent residents made up 6.8% of the country’s population as of April and that “the share is expected to continue rising over the near-term.”

The bank is right to say achieving this goal is a challenge, but it is a “reasonable” one given the suite of measures Canada plans to announce over the next several weeks, Miller said.

Miller would not give details but said these measures could include changes to post-graduate work permits and enforcement.

Asked if his government had made a mistake in allowing rapid growth in temporary residents, Miller said, “Every government makes mistakes. I think we are all human.” But “coming out of COVID, in particular, we were facing massive labor shortages.”

REFUGEE INFLUX

Meanwhile, Canada is seeing record levels of refugee claims – more than 18,000 in June, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board. This is despite government efforts to deter people by closing the land border to asylum-seekers through a contested bilateral agreement with the United States and by implementing new visa requirements for Mexicans.

Canada cannot dictate how many people file refugee claims but it can make it difficult for asylum-seekers to reach the country. Miller said the government may impose stricter criteria on temporary resident visas to prevent asylum-seekers from coming.

The government had also previously said it would pursue a regularization program to give status to undocumented residents.

That is not on the table before the election, Miller said, but he noted there is a possibility of sector-specific programs.

Source: More measures coming to reduce temporary residents, Canadian minister says

Clark: Ottawa has to do something about immigration boom, but it doesn’t have any good options 

Good capturing Miller’s dilemma as he tries to address the failures of this government and previous ministers:

…So what can Mr. Miller do instead? He can turn a lot of those temporary residents into permanent residents. He has already suggested that is part of the plan.

The problem is that means turning the goals of Canada’s economic immigration program upside down.

It is supposed to bring in people with the best potential to help Canada’s economy – highly educated or highly skilled applicants. But in recent years, the big growth in international students has come in private and public college students, with less education and fewer skills. Turning large numbers of temporary residents into permanent residents means accepting lower-skilled applicants.

And like it or not, those immigrants will take the place of others. There’s a target of 301,250 economic immigrants for 2025, and if the government creates a special program for lower-skilled temporary residents, that means fewer spots will be available for highly qualified applicants. Whiz kids with bachelor degrees in math or computer science will be left in the queue.

But for the next few years, the government will be digging the immigration system out of a hole. The big mistake has been made.

Ottawa didn’t stop provincial governments, particularly in Ontario and B.C., from letting their foreign-student industries grow to excess. The Canadian population grew at its fastest rate since the peak of the baby boom because of unchecked growth in temporary residents, rather than planned immigration. That fuelled a housing crisis.

Now Ottawa has little choice but to do something. And Mr. Miller doesn’t have any good options to choose from.

Source: Ottawa has to do something about immigration boom, but it doesn’t have any good options

Canada’s refugee system is overwhelmed by skyrocketing claims. What can Ottawa do to reduce backlogs?

It starts with reversing some of the visa waivers or relaxed requirements for source countries that are experiencing a major increase along with some of the post-arrival suggestions mentioned by lawyers. And while some will not like it, AI should be part of the triage process:

Canada’s refugee system has been the envy of the world. It’s recognized as being orderly, fair and efficient when compared to any other western country.

But as the number of asylum seekers keeps surging here — and with the queue and processing times getting longer, the beleaguered system is in desperate need of a rethink to save it from spiraling out of control and being clogged up in endless backlogs.

“It didn’t take long for me to realize with the team that we needed to maintain our ability to render fair decisions despite the growing intake,” Manon Brassard, who was appointed as the chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board a year ago, told a Senate committee in June. “We need to do something about that.”

In 2023, the country’s largest independent tribunal received 138,000 new claims, up by 129 per cent from the year before and by 136 per cent in 2019, before the pandemic halted international travels and slowed the inflow. In the first three months of 2024, already 46,700 claims were lodged, with a total of 186,000 cases in the queue.

In the spring, the federal government tried unsuccessfully to ram through some much-needed changes to the asylum system through an omnibus bill that it said were necessary to streamline the process and tackle a growing backlog.

Those changes would have simplified the initial registration of a refugee claim; imposed “mandatory conditions” and timelines that claimants must follow to avoid their cases from being deemed abandoned; and allowed immigration officials to hold on to a file before referring it to the refugee board for hearing. 

Immigration Minister Marc Miller told the Star in a recent interview that the status quo is unsustainable.

“It was unfortunate,” he said of the foiled reforms carved out of the budget bill amid complaints by advocates for the lack of consultation. “Those amendments were fair in nature, and they were intended to accelerate some of the processing.”

Miller said he has some decisions to make in the coming months and is not ruling out reintroducing the proposed changes in a new bill.

The refugee board’s dilemma

Despite an extra $87 million in federal funding over two years — and new rules to crack down on irregular migration through U.S. land border — the refugee board only has the capacity to process 50,000 claims a year. With more than 186,000 cases pending, it would take almost four years to clear its inventory, even if new intakes were halted.

And the board is not going to get more money. As part of the federal budget cuts, the tribunal must reduce spending by $8.3 million this year, $10.5 million in 2025 and $13.6 million in 2026 and beyond.

Without the proposed legislative changes, the tribunal has few tools at its disposal.

“Money is part of the solution, but it’s not the only solution,” Brassard, who declined the Star’s interview request for this story, told senators in June. “We need to improve the way we do things.”

The board is developing a plan, known as “Horizon 26-27,” to streamline its operations and processes with the help of technology and automation, but few details are available. The aim is that by next March it will be able to process 80 per cent of claims within two years, as opposed to the current 37 months.

Critics urge for greater efficiency 

Critics say that while the board does need more decision-makers, it must also improve efficiency, and the government could help take some of the asylum seekers out of the queue by providing them with alternative pathways.

The tribunal already has policies to expedite less complex claims, such as those that appear to have solid evidence and are from clearly troubled countries.

Brassard told the Senate committee that the board has a task force to review cases — covering Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and Venezuela — for quicker processing and about a third of the claims go through the screening.

However, immigration lawyer Robert Blanshay said even if an asylum seeker is selected for less complex screening, the case is still required to go before a refugee judge for a decision.

He said the board could hire trained administrative staff to review cases and interview claimants to make a record for the adjudicator to just sign off on, to save time and resources for formal hearings.

“On paper, it has been implemented, but it’s been severely underutilized,” said Blanshay, vice-chair of the refugee and litigation committee of the Canadian Bar Association’s immigration section.

Immigration lawyer Maureen Silcoff, who served as an adjudicator on the refugee board in the 1990s, said there used to be refugee protection officers — neutral parties — tasked with interviewing claimants where credibility was the only concern.

“You had an opportunity to ask questions and get clarification about some points that might be troubling you and could be resolved,” she explained. “The member (adjudicator) who signed off on the decision did so with more comfort.”

Silcoff said it’s worth bringing back the eliminated administrative position and triaging cases into three streams based on complexity: those requiring a full hearing, an interview if there are a few questions, or just a paper review for the most solid claims.

Aviva Basman, president of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, said the current asylum process is complicated and cumbersome, and the online portal, launched in 2021, takes a long time to fill out, especially when a claim involves multiple applicants.

Currently, foreign nationals can seek asylum at port of entry or make an inland claim after entering the country. However, there continues to be inconsistent and confusing information, for example, about deadlines to file documents, depending on the entry point into the refugee system. 

The less complex file review process is also somewhat unclear, which discourages counsel from even making an attempt because it requires substantial resources to make a case.

“What you have is a complicated, cumbersome refugee claim process where a lot of people are having a hard time,” said Basman. “Having simpler, streamlined processes would be a good thing.”

Alternative pathways for refugees

In addition to adequately resourcing asylum processes, a recent international report recommends governments alleviate pressure on their refugee determination systems by providing safe, orderly alternatives through resettlement programs and regular immigration pathways.

“Narrow- or short-sighted policies that focus on only one piece of the puzzle are likely to merely push the problem elsewhere,” warned the report by Washington-based Migration Policy Institute and the Robert Bosch Stiftung, a German foundation

Silcoff said Ottawa could expand on initiatives that offer immigration status to asylum seekers employed in fields with labour shortages, such as a one-time program during the pandemic that granted permanent residence to asylum seekers working in health care and a current pilot that resettles skilled refugees abroad to fill in-demand jobs here. 

“That could be a win-win,” said Silcoff. “It meets our labour market needs and it helps relieve the pressure from the refugee board.”

Source: Canada’s refugee system is overwhelmed by skyrocketing claims. What can Ottawa do to reduce backlogs?

Fake letter leaves Nigerian international student without status, asked to leave Canada

Yet another example of unscrupulous consultants and lack of real time due diligence. Appears that about 2.4 percent of all applications include fraudulent letters:

The new letter of acceptance verification process began on Dec. 1, 2023. Before it began, the department acknowledged many students “sincerely” came to Canada to study, but some who knew about the fake letters had “no intent” of studying.

Between that day and July 1, IRCC said it has caught 9,175 letters that were never issued by a Canadian school.

Those 9,175 letters were out of a total of 361,718 letters checked by IRCC and the schools.

These letters “may be an indicator of fraud,” IRCC wrote in a statement, but each one will need to be checked by an officer.

The department declined to make anyone available for an interview, and agreed to answer questions only by email.

It said it is “focused on identifying culprits, not penalizing victims” of fraud.

In response to questions about Akinlade’s case and why IRCC believes she knew about the fake letter, IRCC pointed back to its officer’s decision based on the “balance of probabilities.”

“Applicants are responsible for all the information on their application,” IRCC wrote, noting that Akinlade had an opportunity to address the officer’s concerns.

Onus on the applicant

Sandhu said it’s not clear to her exactly why IRCC believes Akinlade knew the letter was fake.

“If we’re going off of hunches, I feel that most officers can be very skeptical when it comes to applicants that claim they were victims of a rogue agent.”

Sandhu acknowledged that Canadian immigration rules put the onus for everything in the application on the applicant.

“Even though you may have used an agent, you are still supposed to be aware of everything,” she said.

Akinlade said she has learned a “lesson” about finding a reliable agent to help her, but she believes if IRCC looks again at her case it will find she was not complicit in the fake letter.

Her lawyer is submitting her humanitarian application to IRCC in the coming weeks but the application does not give her any right to stay in the country, and it is not clear how many months it could take to process.

“I really want to be investigated,” she said, adding that the whole experience has been “traumatic” for her family.

“This is not something I pray for my enemy to experience.”

Source: Fake letter leaves Nigerian international student without status, asked to leave Canada

Nicolas: Décivilisation


Good piece:


« Il faudrait d’abord étudier comment la colonisation travaille à déciviliser le colonisateur, à l’abrutir au sens propre du mot, à le dégrader, à le réveiller aux instincts enfouis, à la convoitise, à la violence, à la haine raciale, au relativisme moral, et montrer que, chaque fois qu’il y a au Vietnam une tête coupée et un oeil crevé et qu’en France on accepte, une fillette violée et qu’en France on accepte, un Malgache supplicié et qu’en France on accepte, il y a un acquis de la civilisation qui pèse de son poids mort, une régression universelle qui s’opère, une gangrène qui s’installe, un foyer d’infection qui s’étend et qu’au bout de tous ces traités violés, de tous ces mensonges propagés, de toutes ces expéditions punitives tolérées, de tous ces prisonniers ficelés et interrogés, de tous ces patriotes torturés, au bout de cet orgueil racial encouragé, de cette jactance étalée, il y a le poison instillé dans les veines de l’Europe, et le progrès lent, mais sûr, de l’ensauvagement du continent. »

Vous m’excuserez la longueur de la citation. C’est que cette phrase-monument contient en elle seule une thèse entière, un coup de poing à la face du monde qui a toujours le pouvoir de nous couper le souffle aujourd’hui. Aimé Césaire l’a publiée en 1955 en guise d’ouverture de son Discours sur le colonialisme.

1955, c’est cette année charnière qui marque la fin de la guerre d’Indochine et les débuts de la guerre d’Algérie, alors qu’une grande partie du monde se trouve toujours sous contrôle européen. On comprend le contexte, le temps d’où les mots de Césaire nous parviennent. On aurait souhaité qu’avec le passage des années, la thèse de l’écrivain s’empoussière, que le « progrès » en étouffe la flamme. Mais non.

En début de semaine, une foule a fait irruption au tribunal militaire de Beit Lid, en Israël, pour dénoncer l’arrestation de neuf soldats qui auraient torturé et violé un prisonnier palestinien. Plus précisément, les réservistes de l’armée font face à des accusations de sodomie aggravée, d’avoir causé des lésions corporelles dans des circonstances aggravées, d’avoir infligé des sévices dans des circonstances aggravées et d’avoir eu un comportement indigne d’un soldat.

À la suite de cette arrestation, des centaines de manifestants de l’extrême droite israélienne ont donc pris d’assaut la base militaire de Beit Lid, forçant des confrontations avec des soldats. La scène n’est pas sans rappeler l’attaque sur le Capitole du 6 janvier 2021, à Washington. La ressemblance avec la déchéance politique américaine s’amplifie encore lorsqu’on comprend que des élus, et même des ministres israéliens, ont participé à la mobilisation et encouragé les manifestants. Tant dans la foule que chez les politiciens les plus radicaux, on s’est insurgé de « l’ingratitude » envers les soldats ainsi accusés. D’autres, dont le premier ministre Benjamin Nétanyahou ainsi que des élus plus progressistes, ont vivement condamné le mouvement de foule.

Les questions sous-jacentes à cette suite d’événements extraordinaire sont lourdes. Pourquoi un « terroriste » aurait-il des droits ? Quels sont les motifs suffisants pour enquiquiner des hommes qui servent avec bravoure la Nation, affrontent son Ennemi ? La torture, la sodomie sont-elles des chefs d’accusation adéquats pour embêter des Héros ? Pourquoi s’empêtrer dans la moralité alors que nous sommes en guerre ? Serait-ce là, implicitement bien sûr, les questions qui divisent profondément les membres de la Knesset cette semaine, au point de devenir un véritable point de clivage politique ?

Les horreurs ont continué à se succéder à Gaza dans les dernières semaines, ou plutôt les derniers mois. Comme si ce n’était pas assez, la catastrophe humanitaire de Gaza vient elle-même faire ombrage aux assassinats, arrestations arbitraires et colonisations accélérées en Cisjordanie, et à la maltraitance de nombreux prisonniers palestiniens en Israël même. Et puis, il y a le conflit avec le Hezbollah qui a repris de plus belle à la frontière sud du Liban. La dernière attaque israélienne sur Beyrouth fait craindre une accélération du conflit et une implication directe de l’Iran, voire des États-Unis.

Ça faisait déjà un moment que je n’avais plus écrit sur Gaza et Israël. Non pas parce que les horreurs ont cessé, mais parce qu’à force, on est à bout de souffle. On ne sait plus quoi dire de plus. Je sais que je ne suis pas seule, ici.

Sauf que l’émeute de Beit Lid vient cristalliser, symboliser quelque chose de particulièrement important, qu’il faut nommer. Et ce, même si les questions de maltraitance des prisonniers palestiniens sont loin d’être nouvelles, et qu’elles ont été largement documentées par plusieurs organisations de défense des droits de la personne, étrangères comme israéliennes. Que des accusations de violence sexuelle puissent susciter un débat — oui, vraiment, un débat — entre représentants politiques dit beaucoup de choses sur l’état actuel du droit, des institutions et peut-être surtout de la morale dans cette fameuse « seule démocratie du Moyen-Orient ». Après près de dix mois de guerre, certes, mais aussi après des décennies de colonisation illégale de terres palestiniennes.

J’en reviens donc à l’ouverture du Discours sur le colonialisme d’Aimé Césaire, qui me travaille au corps pendant que j’absorbe les dernières nouvelles sur l’état du monde. Césaire parlait de « décivilisation ». C’est là un mot qui resurgit dans toute son actualité pour parler du débat public à l’ère des guerres de Benjamin Nétanyahou et des frasques de Donald Trump, dont le dossier criminel vient aussi banaliser la question de la violence sexuelle dans l’espace politique ; à l’ère de trop d’émules encore. Une ère où on doit poser avec le plus grand sérieux du monde des questions qui relèvent de l’absurde.

Le viol, est-ce si grave ? Vraiment, oui, on est dans l’absurde. Le théâtre de l’absurde, par ailleurs, est aussi un mouvement artistique qui a pris son envol à la même époque où Césaire écrivait son Discours — une manière de garder son humour, et donc son humanité, dans un monde qui avait perdu la tête. Décidément, pour faire sens de la dégradation politique qui nous entoure, il nous faudra renouer avec plusieurs classiques.

Source: Décivilisation

“We should first study how colonization works to decivilize the colonizer, to dumb him in the true sense of the word, to degrade him, to wake him up to buried instincts, to lust, to violence, racial hatred, to moral relativism, and show that, every time in Vietnam there is a cut head cut and a flat eye and that in France we accept, a girl raped and that in France we accept, a Malagasy tortured and that in France we accept, there is an achievement of civilization that weighs on its dead weight, a universal regression that takes place, a gangrene That is settling in, a focus of infection that is spreading and that at the end of all these violated treaties, all these lies spread, all these tolerated punitive expeditions, all these prisoners tied up and interrogated, all these tortured patriots, at the end of this encouraged racial pride, this spread jactance, there is the poison instilled in the veins of Europe, and the slow but sure progress of the enrage of the continent. ”

You will excuse me for the length of the quote. It is because this monument-sentence alone contains an entire thesis, a punch in the face of the world that still has the power to take our breath away today. Aimé Césaire published it in 1955 as the opening of his Discourse on Colonialism.

1955, it is this pivotal year that marks the end of the Indochina War and the beginning of the Algerian War, while a large part of the world is still under European control. We understand the context, the time from which Césaire’s words reach us. We would have liked that with the passing of the years, the writer’s thesis would get dusty, that “progress” would stifle its flame. But no.

Earlier this week, a crowd broke into the military court in Beit Lid, Israel, to denounce the arrest of nine soldiers who allegedly tortured and raped a Palestinian prisoner. More specifically, army reservists face charges of aggravated sodomy, causing bodily injury in aggravated circumstances, inflicting abuse in aggravated circumstances and having behaved unworthy of a soldier.

Following this arrest, hundreds of Israeli far-right demonstrators stormed the Beit Lid military base, forcing confrontations with soldiers. The scene is reminiscent of the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, in Washington. The resemblance to the American political decline is further increased when we understand that elected officials, and even Israeli ministers, participated in the mobilization and encouraged the demonstrators. Both in the crowd and among the most radical politicians, there was “ingratitude” towards the soldiers thus accused. Others, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and more progressive elected officials, strongly condemned the crowd movement.

The questions underlying this extraordinary sequence of events are heavy. Why would a “terrorist” have rights? What are the sufficient reasons to worry men who bravely serve the Nation, confront its Enemy? Are torture and sodomy adequate charges to annoy Heroes? Why get entangled in morality when we are at war? Could this be, implicitly of course, the issues that deeply divide the members of the Knesset this week, to the point of becoming a real point of political cleavage?

Horrors have continued to follow one another in Gaza in recent weeks, or rather the last few months. As if that were not enough, the humanitarian disaster in Gaza itself overshadows the assassinations, arbitrary arrests and accelerated colonizations in the West Bank, and the mistreatment of many Palestinian prisoners in Israel itself. And then there is the conflict with Hezbollah, which has resumed at the southern border of Lebanon. The latest Israeli attack on Beirut raises fears of an acceleration of the conflict and direct involvement of Iran, or even the United States.

It had already been a while since I had written about Gaza and Israel. Not because the horrors have stopped, but because by force, we are out of breath. We don’t know what more to say. I know I’m not alone here.

Except that the Beit Lid riot crystallizes, symbolizing something particularly important, which must be named. And this, even if the issues of abuse of Palestinian prisoners are far from new, and they have been widely documented by several human rights organizations, both foreign and Israeli. That accusations of sexual violence can provoke a debate – yes, really, a debate – between political representatives says a lot about the current state of law, institutions and perhaps especially morality in this famous “only democracy in the Middle East”. After nearly ten months of war, of course, but also after decades of illegal colonization of Palestinian lands.

So I come back to the opening of Aimé Césaire’s Discourse on Colonialism, which works on my body while I absorb the latest news on the state of the world. Césaire spoke of “decivilization”. This is a word that resurfaces in all its current events to talk about the public debate in the era of Benjamin Netanyahu’s wars and Donald Trump’s escapades, whose criminal file also trivializes the issue of sexual violence in the political space; in the era of too many emulators yet. An era where we must ask with the greatest seriousness in the world questions that are absurd.

Is rape so serious? Really, yes, we are in the absurd. The theater of the absurd, on the other hand, is also an artistic movement that took off at the same time when Césaire wrote his Speech – a way of keeping his humor, and therefore his humanity, in a world that had lost its head. Decidedly, to make sense of the political degradation that surrounds us, we will have to reconnect with several classics.

Polgren: We’re Taught to Hate Hypocrisy. We Shouldn’t

Thoughtful and nuanced:

…I have never been especially impressed by the accusation of hypocrisy, in no small part because this is the human condition: We are a collection of aspirations and failings, from which we try to be who we think we should be but constantly fall short. But I understand the appeal of calling out what looks like hypocrisy when we see it, especially now. We live under a penumbra of impotence, even as we face wall-to-wall crises: the heating planet; wars in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan; the migrant crisis. In place of action and solutions, which seem totally out of reach, we substitute judgment. And what is more satisfying to adjudicate than the charge of hypocrisy?

There is a temptation to police small hypocrisies to buttress our principles — lecture an environmentalist who uses plastic straws, for example. To give hypocrisy a pass, one might argue, is to slide down a slope toward having no principles at all. A better question is: How do you decide which principles you should hold with an iron grip and which you can grasp more loosely, or even ignore, when good might come of doing so? One does not need to sign up for a conspiracy of meaninglessness or embrace a binary choice between principle and expediency.

A manichean devotion to principle brings its own peril. As Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote in his best-known essay, “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” But it is a less famous line from that essay, “Self-Reliance,” that has always stuck with me. It suggests that finding yourself abandoning a principle may well be a necessary precursor to changing your mind based on something new. It is, Emerson wrote, “a rule of wisdom never to rely on your memory alone, scarcely even in acts of pure memory, but to bring the past for judgment into the thousand-eyed present.”

We do ourselves no favors when we use the same language to describe our human foibles and genuine moral conflictedness to true amorality, the kind of actions that clearly illustrate that one has no principles beyond naked gain. Sure, Mitch McConnell is a hypocrite. But calling him a hypocrite is a bit like calling Al Capone a tax cheat. It is technically correct, but hardly captures the moral atrocity of his actions. In these merciless political times we should focus our minds on the true betrayals that really matter. Perhaps if we embrace our inevitable inconsistencies, we can have a more generous, less purity-focused politics of practical good aimed at actual persuasion and real change.

Source: Polgren: We’re Taught to Hate Hypocrisy. We Shouldn’t

Feds headed in ‘wrong direction’ on immigration: Privy Council survey

Just another confirmation of the trend:

It doesn’t get any clearer.

Of the people surveyed by the Privy Council Office, 100% said the federal cabinet is “headed in the wrong direction” when it comes to immigration, according to Blacklock’s Reporter.

“Asked whether they felt the government of Canada was on the right or wrong track when it came to managing the immigration system, all believed it was headed in the wrong direction,” said a Privy Council report.

“It was strongly believed the rate of immigration needed to be temporarily stabilized.”

The federal government’s immigration levels plan has quotas of 485,000 people in 2024, another 500,000 in 2025 and 500,000 more in 2026.

These figures don’t include 1,040,985 foreign students and 766,250 migrant workers let into Canada in 2023.

“Several expressed the view that the rate of immigration had been too high in recent years and that action needed to be taken to temporarily reduce the number of people coming to Canada, including refugees and those seeking asylum,” said the report Continuous Qualitative Data Collection of Canadians’ Views.

“It was felt that the current capacity of infrastructure and vital services could not accommodate further increases to the population and that a priority needed to be placed on supporting those already living in Canada.”

The research was based on focus groups across Canada done under an $814,714 contract with Toronto-based pollster The Strategic Counsel.

The other big observation in the report was that immigration should be restricted to foreigners who fill labour shortages.

“It was felt a priority should be placed on more targeted immigration going forward with a primary focus on bringing in skilled workers in areas such as health care and education, which were believed to be facing widespread labour shortages at present,” said researchers.

Respondents felt current immigration policy merely added costs.

“A number identified what they viewed as a higher rate of immigration in recent years as a contributing factor to rising housing costs,” wrote researchers.

“It was believed that as more people entered the country, the increasing demand for housing had driven up housing prices even further.”

Source: Feds headed in ‘wrong direction’ on immigration: Privy Council survey

Idées | Le profilage racial et l’éternel virage vers le statu quo

Pandemic issue for the SPVM, remember well from some of the files I dealt with more than 10 years ago:

La lutte pour mettre fin au racisme policier à Montréal se trouve dans une impasse. Nous n’avons jamais eu autant de preuves de l’existence de racisme au sein des forces policières à Montréal ni une meilleure compréhension des mesures à prendre pour le combattre. Pourtant, le Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) et l’administration de Projet Montréal s’entêtent à rejeter les recommandations formulées par des groupes communautaires et des chercheurs et ressuscitent plutôt des réformes éculées et inefficaces.

De nombreuses preuves empiriques sur le racisme policier ont été accumulées depuis les premières enquêtes gouvernementales, réalisées dans les années 1970. En 2019, par exemple, une équipe de chercheurs indépendants a publié une étude recensant les interpellations policières effectuées entre 2014 et 2017, qui montre que les personnes noires et autochtones sont interpellées par la police de Montréal quatre fois plus souvent que les personnes blanches.

L’an dernier, l’équipe de chercheurs a publié une étude de suivi portant sur la période de 2018 à 2022, et a constaté que les iniquités raciales, loin de s’atténuer, étaient en fait encore plus marquées.

En réaction à ces rapports, des groupes communautaires et des chercheurs ont exigé la mise en oeuvre de plusieurs solutions éclairées et efficaces. Une coalition de 80 groupes communautaires a demandé la réaffectation d’au moins 50 % du budget du SPVM à des programmes communautaires, et 85 groupes ont exprimé leur soutien à l’abolition des interpellations policières et des interceptions routières.

Le SPVM a écarté chacune de ces recommandations. Ainsi, lorsque les auteurs du rapport de 2023 ont demandé un moratoire sur les interpellations, le chef du SPVM, Fady Dagher, a rejeté cette demande, affirmant qu’un « virage culturel » au sein de l’institution suffirait à résoudre le problème. L’administration de Projet Montréal a donné son soutien au plan de Fady Dagher et n’a fait aucune autre déclaration sur le sujet.

Le 23 juillet dernier, une enquête du Journal de Montréal a révélé que le SPVM s’était ingéré dans une étude « indépendante » sur les interpellations afin d’en réduire la portée. Parmi les tactiques employées, le SPVM a tenté d’obtenir la transcription d’entrevues confidentielles de ses policiers qui dénonçaient les pratiques racistes du service et a fait pression sur les chercheurs afin qu’ils s’abstiennent de recommander un moratoire sur les interpellations.

Il est facile de comprendre pourquoi le chef Dagher et Projet Montréal balaient du revers de la main les demandes des groupes communautaires et des chercheurs et font plutôt la promotion d’un « virage culturel ». Le SPVM a déjà amorcé ce virage il y a des dizaines d’années, en adoptant une politique sur les relations communautaires en 1985 et en mettant en oeuvre un ensemble de politiques visant à mieux former les policiers pour éliminer les préjugés, à embaucher plus de policiers racisés et à établir des liens avec les communautés noires, autochtones et racisées.

Depuis les années 1980, ces mêmes politiques sont ressuscitées chaque fois qu’une crise survient — ce qui est stratégique. Présenter des politiques qui ont échoué comme de « nouvelles » solutions permet au SPVM et à l’administration municipale de donner l’impression qu’ils prennent le problème à bras-le-corps. Pendant ce temps, les disparités raciales dans le maintien de l’ordre demeurent aussi marquées, sinon plus, qu’en 1985.

De vraies solutions au racisme policier

Il existe de nombreux moyens efficaces d’éliminer le racisme policier, mais ils se fondent sur une conception très différente de la sécurité publique. Nous appuyons trois de ces mesures.

Premièrement, comme l’exigent depuis longtemps les groupes communautaires et les chercheurs, les interpellations et les interceptions routières doivent être abolies, et des excuses doivent être présentées aux communautés auxquelles cette pratique de longue date a porté préjudice.

Par nature, les interpellations et les interceptions n’exigent aucune preuve préalable que la personne visée a contrevenu à la loi — il suffit que la policière ou le policier « soupçonne » que ladite personne a commis une infraction ou est susceptible de le faire. Les interpellations arbitraires n’ont aucun fondement juridique, nuisent à la sécurité publique plutôt que de l’améliorer et laissent à la police un pouvoir discrétionnaire qui donne lieu à des comportements abusifs et à une discrimination raciale à grande échelle.

Deuxièmement, les règlements municipaux sur les « incivilités » doivent être abrogés. Ces règlements prévoient des pénalités en cas de comportements non menaçants comme s’allonger au sol, uriner sur la voie publique ou « flâner ».

Lorsque le SPVM a commencé à sévir contre ce qu’il appelle des « incivilités », en 2003, nous avons assisté à une augmentation considérable des cas de harcèlement envers les personnes marginalisées, notamment les personnes noires, autochtones et itinérantes de toutes origines, de même qu’à un accroissement du nombre de contraventions remises à ces populations. Projet Montréal a reconnu ce problème en 2018 et a mis sur pied un comité constitué de groupes communautaires chargé d’examiner et de supprimer les règlements les plus discriminatoires. Ces règlements abusifs sont toujours en vigueur six ans plus tard.

Troisièmement, les fonds publics investis dans les forces policières doivent être redirigés vers des programmes qui améliorent de façon tangible le bien-être et la sécurité des populations marginalisées et racisées. Depuis des décennies, la police est vue comme la solution à tous les problèmes sociaux qui retiennent l’attention du public, qu’il s’agisse de violence armée ou d’itinérance. Il en résulte un cercle vicieux où l’échec prévisible des forces policières à résoudre des problèmes systémiques se traduit par des appels renouvelés à une plus grande présence policière.

Ce sont ces mesures — et non un autre « virage culturel » vers le statu quo — que le SPVM et Projet Montréal doivent mettre en oeuvre s’ils veulent lutter contre le racisme et la violence des forces de l’ordre.

Source: Idées | Le profilage racial et l’éternel virage vers le statu quo

Canadians increasingly divided on immigration, government research shows

Confirms other surveys. Karas is editorialized by adding DEI concerns to the mix as no such question was asked in the survey (https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2024/ircc/Ci4-183-1-2024-eng.pdf):

Canadians are becoming increasingly divided on the federal government’s current immigration targets, with over a third now saying we’re taking in “too many” people from other countries.

The Department of Immigration requested polling agency Ipsos conduct a national survey on its current immigration quotas. 

“Many participants felt that the targets set for the next three years, which were presented to them, were too high,” reads the survey. “They could not fathom how cities, that are already receiving high volumes of immigrants and where infrastructure is already under great strain, could accommodate the proposed targets.”

The survey cost $295,428 and included 3,000 people canvassed with two surveys and 14 focus groups.

When asked if they thought that immigration has a positive effect on their city or town, just over half, 55% agreed, while 22% said the effect has been negative. 

The results were similar when broken down provincially, with 58% saying that the immigration has had a positive effect on their province, compared to 24% who disagreed. 

Asked if immigration had a net “negative effect” on their province, 41% of Ontarians surveyed said yes, while a third of Prince Edward Islanders, 33%, and 27% of Albertans saw immigration as a net negative.

Only 48% of respondents felt that the current targets were “about the right number,” while a little over a third, 35%, said it was ‘too many.’ 

Another small cohort of 12% said that “too few” immigrants are coming to Canada. 

The “too many” sentiment was felt highest in Alberta at 52%, followed closely by Nova Scotia and Ontario at 51% and 49%, respectively.

On the national level, 63% said immigration has a positive effect and 23% said it’s negative. 

This shows the erosion of a long-held immigration consensus in Canada, one expert says.

“For the first time in recent history, support for immigration has eroded steadily amongst the public,” immigration lawyer Sergio Karas told True North.

“There are a multiplicity of reasons why this is happening. Still, the main issues are the cost of living, housing, competition for good jobs, and the general perception that the recent cohorts of immigrants do not contribute to the economy in the same way that previous generations have.”

The immigration department said the “broad sentiment” indicates support for immigration generally but with the caveat of “not right now” or “how are we going to make this work?”

Participants also expressed “strong appeals for reducing the barriers that prevent experienced newcomers from practicing in their fields of expertise,” citing nurses, teachers and skilled labourers as necessary examples. 

However, “reactions to prioritizing those with business skills were more mixed.” 

On the issue of family and immigration, respondents generally agreed on “setting a higher target for sponsoring spouses and partners, who are likely to be working-age, and a lower target for sponsoring parents and grandparents, who might put a strain on the healthcare system rather than contribute to the economy.”

Several participants suggested expediting immigration applications for healthier parents and grandparents over “frailer ones.”

“There is also resentment, especially from immigrants who have been in Canada for many years, that the current crop of newcomers is far more interested in receiving government benefits, and that their language and work skills are not up to par,” said Karas. “This seems to be especially acute about the large number of refugees that Canada has admitted.”

According to the department’s data, few participants believed that Canada was doing the “right thing” by providing asylum to large numbers of refugees. 

While some respondents recognized the “need to assist,” they were also concerned about Canada’s ability to “realistically support population growth given the current strains on public infrastructure.”

Karas said that a further reason for Canadians’ shifting opinion of immigration is the notion that the government is “admitting anyone” without properly vetting them for their skills, language ability and security. 

“While this is not always true, the public is sensitive to how immigrants from non-Western countries are changing the face of Canada,” said Karas. 

“The public concern is that the changes are too rapid and too deep and that immigrants should do more to adapt to existing customs, rather than the public being obligated to adapt to them. Current policies of  Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion have exacerbated that perception as organizations show a preference for EDI hires rather than using a merit system.”

Source: Canadians increasingly divided on immigration, government research shows

Chris Selley: Can Quebec’s language vultures not leave hospitals alone, at least? ATIP translation

On ATIP, the government should just move to automated translation as it is getting good enough to be used for ATIP. From a client service perspective, would address timeliness, from a government perspective, would address costs:

…In other bilingualism news, journalist Dean Beeby reports that federal official languages commissioner Raymond Théberge has launched an investigation into the CBC proactively posting online its responses to journalists’ access-to-information requests.

That’s an undisputed best practice in the world of access-to-information, a field in which Canada (and the CBC in particular) ranks somewhere below South Sudan and Myanmar: If you’ve released information to one journalist, there’s no earthly reason to make other journalists request it again and go through the whole rigmarole. Just send them a link to the response, or they can find it themselves.

But federal government institutions are required to publish everything in French and English; the CBC’s responses are in English. So now we have a federal appointee considering whether this rare attempt at transparency must be published in both official languages.

That would amount to thousands upon thousands of pages of documents. They absolutely will not be translated. The only practical outcome is not to publish the documents at all. I’m quite sure CBC would be happy with that.

And without getting too melodramatic about it — official bilingualism is totally sustainable, in a rational form — I feel like we’re at a crossroads here. There was a time when Canada was fat and happy enough that doing arguably weird and excessive things in the name of official bilingualism didn’t seem like too much of a burden or a hassle. We had plenty of money, debt-to-GDP was fine, pretty much everyone with a decent job had a decent place to live.

That time is not now. This is a broke and broken country, requiring generations of punishingly expensive fixing — not least on the most basic issue of housing — that actually made a controversy out of children’s medicine delivered to Quebec, during a children’s medicine shortage, on grounds the labels weren’t bilingual.

It’s enough, already. Someone just has to say it: “enough.” But no one with the power to change anything ever, ever will.

Source: Chris Selley: Can Quebec’s language vultures not leave hospitals alone, at least?