MacDougall: Memo to the CBC and the public service — prepare to change

Fair warning…:

Dear staff at the CBC, Radio-Canada and federal public service:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your salad days are over. If the polls are correct, Justin Trudeau is destined for the glue factory, with Pierre Poilievre coming in to be your new lord and master.

If you’re feeling some existential dread, that’s good. It means you’re sentient. It means you’re alert to the threat and open to taking advice on how to cope with it. For it’s going to require a shift in attitude.

As a believer in both public broadcasting and a strong public service, I want you to succeed. The country needs you to succeed. After all, the corollary to “Canada is broken” is “Canada needs fixing.” And those fixes will require more than a few strategically promoted YouTube videos. They will require long-term planning and sustained execution, and decisions properly communicated to Canadians. That’s where you can help.

So, what to do (besides reach for the Xanax)?

First, to the CBC and Radio-Canada: I know you will dispute the characterization of the past nine years as “salad days.” It’s tough out there for any media organization, including the CBC. The radio listenership is still strong, but you need a microscope to spot The National’s audience. What Peter Mansbridge bequeathed has been squandered. The picture is rosier in la belle province but not by much.

Let’s be honest: current CEO Catherine Tait has made you look ridiculous. There was the bonus stuff. And all the happy-clappy talk of content, digital and marketing triangles is the buzzword bingo of a media executive who DOESN’T already have a cool billion-plus dollars parked in the budget. It’s the talk of someone struggling to release Meta and X/Twitter’s chokehold, not someone who can quite literally afford to rise above it.

The members of Heritage Minister Pascal St-Onge’s new advisory committee on public broadcasting won’t see it this way, but the days of telling Canadian stories that “inform, enlighten and entertain” are over, at least non-hard-news wise. Canada’s “content” is now but a dribble in the face of the global content hose, and Canadian viewers are voting with their eyeballs. You won’t reverse that trend.

Stories in the form of news — particularly local news — are different. Those stories still need to be told, even if there’s little click money in it. Your job as a public broadcaster should be to water the news deserts springing up all over the country and provide the accountability journalism that no longer sells when forced to compete against sexier content on platforms run by technologists who don’t care about the scrutiny of public officials. This same function should be delivered in Ottawa and the provincial capitals, too. Your mission under a Poilievre government should be to hold a mirror up to power and society, without — and this is the key — advocating for any particular outcome.

Now, to the public service.

Let’s start with the bad: cuts are coming. You can’t increase by nearly 40 per cent in nine years without expecting a trim. The public won’t care about cuts, as you have it better than most. The simplest thing you can do to demonstrate good will is turn up to work. Literally. The pandemic is over. It’s time to come back to your cubicles and look your new bosses in the eyes. For one thing, they’ll be less likely to sack you if you’re one of those actually in the office.

It won’t all be bad news. For one, those consultants the Liberals have hired to do the “real” policy thinking are going to get it in the neck. More to the point, the political wing of the government quite literally cannot do anything without you. This isn’t an invitation to oppose or frustrate, by the way. It’s a reminder that while you advise, the elected officials are the ones who decide what you’ll then execute. Stay on the right side of those roles and responsibilities and it might all just be OK.

Good luck / bonne chance!

Andrew MacDougall is a London-based communications consultant and ex-director of communications to former prime minister Stephen Harper.  

Source: MacDougall: Memo to the CBC and the public service — prepare to change

Le Devoir Éditorial | Un formulaire en échange d’un toit

To watch how these discussions progress or not:

…Il y a un bon moment que le Québec s’indigne à juste titre de l’apathie d’Ottawa dans ce dossier. Les deux gouvernements se disputent sur les chiffres, au point où cette querelle a paralysé les actions sur le terrain. La famille Aguamba en a vécu le contrecoup à la dure.

Québec affirme qu’en 2023, il a reçu plus de 65 000 des quelque 144 000 demandeurs d’asile entrés au Canada, soit 45 % de la totalité. Des données ouvertes d’Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté Canada (IRCC) consultées par Le Devoir montrent une autre réalité, avec environ 35 % des entrées associées au Québec. L’écart s’expliquerait essentiellement par le fait qu’une proportion des demandeurs d’asile bel et bien entrés au Québec vogue ensuite vers d’autres provinces, dont l’Ontario.

Les ministres de l’Immigration des provinces et leur homologue fédéral, Marc Miller, ont convenu la semaine dernière de créer un comité fédéral-provincial dont la mission sera précisément d’étudier finement cette répartition des demandeurs d’asile entre les provinces, afin de mieux se disputer ensuite la part de la tarte financière. S’agit-il d’une diversion politique et d’une manière de pelleter vers l’avant un problème qui, pendant qu’on l’ausculte en comité, ne peut que s’aggraver ?

Ce comité est créé sous l’impulsion de la ministre de l’Immigration du Québec, Christine Fréchette, qui dit s’inspirer d’initiatives semblables tentées dans l’Union européenne, en Allemagne et en Suisse par exemple. Parlementer autour d’une meilleure répartition entre les provinces, pour décharger le Québec et l’Ontario d’une pression indue, est une idée à laquelle on ne peut s’opposer. Espérons que ce nouvel espace de dialogue servira à mettre sur pied des solutions constructives plutôt qu’à poursuivre une guerre de chiffres stérile.

Source: Éditorial | Un formulaire en échange d’un toit

Silverstein: The blind spots in diversity and inclusion

From Pizza Pizza, some interesting broader ways of looking at diversity in terms of use of health and wellness plans:

When Pizza Pizza decided in 2021 to form a diversity and inclusion council, one of the first things we did was send out a survey designed to give us a foundational snapshot of our workforce.

The results told us about 60 per cent of corporate employees who participated were from racialized groups and more than 40 per cent were women. Almost 80 per cent said they viewed Pizza Pizza as a diverse organization.

Despite the inherent limitations of survey data, our results were a good starting point for building our initial slate of diversity and inclusion policies and programs. But we knew it wasn’t enough.

A key challenge with diversity and inclusion efforts is they tend to address only the diversity that’s visible and known, and organizations often have limited insight into the full range of interests and needs within their ranks. This limited perspective is caused by a number of reasons, including companies’ reliance on employees’ self-disclosure as well as the widespread use of tick-box questionnaires that leave little room for anything that falls outside pre-defined diversity groupings.

Consequently, many organizations must navigate forward with blind spots in their strategy, potentially missing opportunities to strengthen their culture and corporate brand. But how do you address blind spots you don’t know exist?

You need to think – and look – outside the box.

At Pizza Pizza we’ve started to use data analytics to find hidden patterns of inequality as well as unexplored areas of opportunity to strengthen our diversity and inclusion strategy. One example of how we’re doing this is through analysis of aggregated, anonymized data pertaining to use of company-sponsored health and wellness benefits. Do data patterns show, for example, more frequent use of our family resources? Are there increased claims for particular drug categories or health services, such as mental health or physiotherapy?

We undertake this and other types of data analyses with the goal of identifying unmet needs we could potentially address with new programs. For example, we might learn from our analysis that we need to expand our focus on wellness. This insight could also lead to actions that ensure stronger awareness of the resources available to employees, and that our leaders are trained to handle conversations around physical and health wellness challenges.

This data-driven approach doesn’t apply to all blind spots. Some instances of “unconscious bias” and inequity are hard to substantiate, but we know that when they happen, they erode an organization’s culture of inclusion. Consider, for instance, a department’s habit of automatically assigning overtime work to employees with no spouses or children. Or think about the manager who answers emails during meetings while lower-level team members sit and wait quietly. Would that manager behave that way in the presence of a peer or a more senior leader?

Ultimately, building a solid strategy – one with minimal blind spots – is about instilling and nurturing the right values within the organization. We do this by training leaders and team members and by having ongoing conversations about diversity. We also do this by asking questions.

Since we launched our first employee engagement survey in 2021, we’ve continued to ask what and how we can do better to make our employees feel like they belong. Through one survey we learned that our team members felt there was a need for more inclusive language. That prompted us to work with our partners at Pride Toronto to organize lunch-and-learns focused on inclusive language along with allyship.

These sessions proved to be relevant beyond the 2SLGBTQI+ context. Inclusive language and allyship, we all learned, are useful in virtually any dialogue or circumstance.

We know that as the country’s demographic makeup evolves, our diversity and inclusion strategy will inevitably run into more blind spots. Our increasingly multigenerational, racialized and gender-diverse workforce continues to be vulnerable to all manner of unconscious bias, which is why we also continue to fortify the strong culture we’ve built so far.

We know there are emerging needs among our team members that are likely to grow in urgency in the coming years, as many start families or, as we’re seeing with our more experienced workers, become caregivers to aging parents. We’ll need to adjust our programs accordingly.

As it is today, an evidence-based approach will be critical going forward, along with an ongoing commitment to a truly diverse and inclusive culture.

Amy Silverstein is the senior director of People for Pizza Pizza Ltd.

Source: The blind spots in diversity and inclusion

‘It’s not that easy’: plan to allow dual citizenship leaves Indonesia divided

Of note:

Members of the Indonesian diaspora have welcomed an announcement from a high-ranking government official that plans to allow for dual citizenship are in the works, but they are wary of whether there is enough political will to make it happen.

“We welcome the discourse [to allow] dual citizenship, because in the end, the diaspora and children of mixed marriages also benefit from it, as well as the country,” Enggi Holt, an Indonesian who lives in Britain, told This Week in Asia.

“But we also have to see how far the government dares to change the paradigm, from single citizenship to dual citizenship, because the costs will be very high. [An amendment to the law] is a political process between the government and the legislature, so the sticking point is, do they have the political will or is it just a political campaign? If it’s a political campaign, it’s not worth digging further.”

Indonesia does not allow adults to hold dual nationalities, and children of mixed marriages must decide their nationality at the age of 21.

However, Luhut Pandjaitan, Indonesia’s coordinating minister for maritime affairs and investment, said the government was working on changes to that law.

“We are welcoming the Indonesian diaspora soon with the provision of dual citizenship. When they [diaspora] fulfil the requirements to obtain Indonesian citizenship, in my opinion, it will really help the Indonesian economy and also bring highly skilled Indonesians [diaspora] back to Indonesia,” Luhut said at an event attended by Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella in Jakarta on April 30.

However, he did not offer any particular timeline or further details about the potential change to the law, and nothing else has been announced since.

The statement by Luhut, also known as President Joko Widodo’s right-hand man, has sparked hope among diaspora members, particularly those who have campaigned for years for the country to “progress” towards adopting a dual-nationality principle.

Source: ‘It’s not that easy’: plan to allow dual citizenship leaves Indonesia divided

Half of racialized people have experienced discrimination or unfair treatment in the past five years

Latest GSS. Interestingly overall observation “Between racialized groups, there were no significant differences in experiences of discrimination.”

But “For instance, nearly half of Black people experienced discrimination or unfair treatment in a workplace setting (48%). This was significantly more than other racialized groups (39%) or non-racialized people (41%). Black people were also more than twice as likely to report discrimination when seeking housing (13%) compared with other racialized groups (6%) or non-racialized people (6%).:

Over one in three people (36%) aged 15 years and older living in Canada have experienced some form of discrimination or unfair treatment in the five years prior to the latest wave of the Canadian Social Survey. These experiences occurred in a variety of settings—while attending school, applying for jobs, working, shopping, and seeking healthcare, among others. The results, based on new data from the survey collected from January to March 2024, suggest that while the proportion of self-reported incidents of discrimination has remained relatively stable since 2021, discrimination and unfair treatment continue to disproportionally affect racialized groups, Indigenous people, women, 2SLGBTQ+ populations, people living with disabilities, and young adults. 

Discrimination and unfair treatment is a headline indicator in Canada’s Quality of Life framework. This framework enables the federal government to identify future policy priorities, to build on previous actions to strengthen evidence-based decision-making and budgeting, and to improve the well-being of Canadians. 

Racialized people, especially Canadian-born Black people, are more likely to face discrimination

Using pooled data from six waves of the Canadian Social Survey, it is possible to examine the intersection of various characteristics of people who have experienced discrimination. From 2021 to 2024, just over half (51%) of racialized people aged 15 years and older reported experiencing discrimination or unfair treatment within the five years prior to the survey. This was nearly double the proportion (27%) recorded for non-racialized people. Between racialized groups, there were no significant differences in experiences of discrimination. 

Reflecting the diversity of intersectional identities in Canada, experiences of discrimination varied across intersecting identities of racialized people and immigrants. Consistent with previous findings, reports of discrimination were more common among the Canadian-born racialized population (57%) than among racialized people who recently immigrated to Canada (48%) or who immigrated more than 10 years ago (49%). This difference was most pronounced among Black Canadians, with Canadian-born Black people being significantly more likely to report having experienced discrimination (71%) than either recent (51%) or established (59%) Black immigrants. 

The higher prevalence of experiences of discrimination among racialized groups was perceived to be largely motivated by race or ethnicity. Specifically, discrimination based on race or skin colour was the leading perceived reason for discrimination against racialized people (66%). This was followed by discrimination due to ethnicity or culture (49%), accent (28%), and language (27%). 

Discrimination is also more common among other historically marginalized groups such as 2SLGBTQ+populations, Indigenous people, and people with a disability

Chart 1 
Discrimination in the five years prior to the survey, perceived reason for discrimination, by sex and total population, Canada, 2021 to 2024

Chart 1: Discrimination in the five years prior to the survey, perceived reason for discrimination, by sex and total population, Canada, 2021 to 2024

Reasons behind discriminatory treatment varied among groups, as did the actual prevalence of discrimination. For instance, the leading perceived reasons behind discrimination and unfair treatment against 2SLGBTQ+ populations were sexual orientation, physical appearance, and sex. This population was also nearly twice as likely as the non-2SLGBTQ+ population to face some form of discrimination or unfair treatment in the five years prior to the survey (61% versus 32%). 

Among First Nations people living off reserve, Métis, and Inuit, 46% reported experiences of discrimination, compared with 33% of non-Indigenous people. The reasons for these experiences were largely perceived to be due to Indigenous identity and physical appearance. Indigenous people (23%) were also nearly twice as likely to be discriminated against due to a physical or mental disability compared with the non-Indigenous population (12%). 

Elevated levels of discrimination were also recorded for people living with a disability. In all, 44% of people with a disability reported experiences of discrimination, compared with 32% of people without a disability. The most frequently-cited perceived reasons for discrimination against people with a disability were due to physical or mental disability, physical appearance, and age. 

Age and sex also played a role in both prevalence of and perceived reason for discrimination. Experiences of discrimination consistently decreased with age, from a high of 45% among those aged 15 to 34 to a low of 17% among people aged 65 years and older. This may be explained by the fact that the racialized population and people who are 2SLGBTQ+ tend to be younger

Perceived reasons for discrimination varied by people in different age groups, with race or skin colour (38%) and physical appearance (38%) being the most common reasons among those aged 15 to 34, and age (50%) being the most common reason for people aged 65 years and older. There were also sex differences in prevalence of discrimination: 37% of women reported experiences of discrimination, compared with 30% of men. Women were more often discriminated against because of their sex or age, while for men, discrimination was more often on the basis of their race or skin colour, ethnicity or culture, language, accent, or religion. 

The work environment is the most common context where discrimination is reported

Chart 2 
Discrimination in the five years prior to the survey, situation in which discrimination was experienced, by sex, Canada, 2021 to 2024

Chart 2: Discrimination in the five years prior to the survey, situation in which discrimination was experienced, by sex, Canada, 2021 to 2024

There were differences in the context in which discrimination was experienced across groups, though the workplace (41%) was the most common location of discrimination or unfair treatment, whether it was while working, applying for a job, or seeking a promotion. This was followed by discrimination experienced in a store, bank, or restaurant (33%) and while using public areas (29%). 

While differences in the prevalence of discrimination did not significantly differ between racialized groups, the contexts in which they occurred did. For instance, nearly half of Black people experienced discrimination or unfair treatment in a workplace setting (48%). This was significantly more than other racialized groups (39%) or non-racialized people (41%). Black people were also more than twice as likely to report discrimination when seeking housing (13%) compared with other racialized groups (6%) or non-racialized people (6%). 

Conversely, Chinese people were less likely than other racialized groups to report experiencing discrimination while attending school (17% versus 23%), in the workplace (26% versus 44%), when crossing the border into Canada (5% versus 8%), and when seeking housing (3% versus 8%). Similarly, reports of discrimination towards Chinese people were lower than reports of discrimination against non-racialized people in the workplace (41%) and against non-racialized people when seeking housing (6%). 

People who experience discrimination also report lower measures of quality of life

Chart 3 
Discrimination in the five years prior to the survey, confidence in selected types of institutions, Canada, 2021 to 2024

Chart 3: Discrimination in the five years prior to the survey, confidence in selected types of institutions, Canada, 2021 to 2024

Experiences of discrimination and unfair treatment may influence overall perceptions of health and wellbeing. People who experienced discrimination in the five years prior to the survey compared with those who did not were more than twice as likely to report fair or poor mental health (31% versus 14%), were less likely to report high life satisfaction (37% versus 57%) and were less likely to report high levels of meaning and purpose (46% versus 63%). And while two-thirds of people who experienced discrimination (66%) reported that they always or often had someone they could depend on, this was lower than those who had not experienced discrimination (79%). 

People who experienced discrimination were also less likely to report a strong sense of belonging to their local community compared with people who did not experience discrimination (39% versus 51%). Furthermore, they were less likely to report confidence in various institutions, including the police, school, courts, Canadian Parliament, and media. These results were consistent with a previous study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic using crowdsourced data

Source: Half of racialized people have experienced discrimination or unfair treatment in the past five years

Muslim, Jewish voters leaning away from the federal Liberals as Gaza war grinds on: poll

Hard to reconcile Muslim and Jewish perspectives. Middle of the road is often road kill, as is the zig-zagging of the government:

A new poll suggests Muslim and Jewish voters are leaning away from the federal Liberals in voting intentions — a possible sign that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s efforts to straddle gaps in public opinion over the Israel-Hamas war are falling short.

The new poll of voting intentions by the Angus Reid Institute says the federal NDP is leading the Liberals among Muslim voters 41 per cent to 31 per cent, while the federal Conservatives are beating the Liberals among Jewish voters 42 per cent to 33 per cent.

“This does feel to the Liberals, in terms of their outreach around diaspora politics, to now be a fairly untenable situation,” Shachi Kurl, president of the Angus Reid Institute, told CBC News.

“The Jewish diaspora is now saying, ‘You haven’t gone far enough in condemning Hamas and condemning the violence and stopping antisemitism in Canada.’ And you’ve got pro-Palestinian voters and populations, many of whom are Muslim, obviously saying, ‘You haven’t gone far enough to condemn the Israeli Defence Forces for its counterattack in Gaza.'”

The data shows only 15 per cent of Muslims polled say they would vote for the Conservatives, while just 20 per cent of Jewish voters say they would support the New Democrats.

Kurl said that under Trudeau’s leadership, the Liberals have made a concerted effort to appeal to Muslim voters since 2015, when the Conservatives under Stephen Harper ran an election campaign that included controversial promises like a ban on the niqab and a “barbaric cultural practices” tip line.

An Environics Institute poll looking back on that election found 65 per cent of Muslims who said they voted cast their ballots for the Liberals, while only 10 per cent voted for the NDP.

“We saw the Liberals go out and court Muslims in Canada to vote Liberal,” Kurl said.

She said the Liberals appear to be feeling the fallout from trying to appease both Muslim and Jewish voters since Hamas’s attack on Israel of Oct. 7, 2023. Israeli officials say up to 1,200 Israelis were killed and 253 were taken hostage in that attack. Health authorities in Gaza say the Israeli military operation launched in response has killed almost 35,000 people….

Source: Muslim, Jewish voters leaning away from the federal Liberals as Gaza war grinds on: poll

Regg Cohn: On refugees, Canadians aren’t that different from everyone else

Of note and a dose of reality:

On a recent visit to Dublin and London, it was impossible to ignore the human migration byplay. Even at the far ends of Western Europe, Britain and Ireland are on the front lines of a seemingly unstoppable migration wave that is destined to disrupt every country — and overturn all our assumptions about how to do the right thing.

The Irish like to think of themselves as more moral than most — they sound so very Canadian. But from the moment you deplane in Dublin, you see border patrol officers interrogating migrants for their paperwork on the sidelines while everyone else clutches their passports in the queue.

On the streets of the capital city, homeless encampments are a familiar sight, sheltering refugees with nowhere to go. On the front pages of the country’s newspapers, the issue never seems to go away.

Ireland, long a country of emigration, is now a destination for migration. Outbound has become inbound, which is turning its politics upside down.

To be clear, the Irish have done their fair share of helping Ukrainian refugees resettle on their shores. More than 100,000 people displaced by Russia’s invasion are living and working in the republic, one of the highest intake rates in Europe given its own small population of 5.3 million.

That’s an economic bonus for the Irish, given that their unemployment remains at a rock bottom 4.2 per cent amid resurgent tourism. But Ireland’s long-standing housing crisis is even more acute than Canada’s sudden shortage.

Now, a surge in claimants has triggered economic and political pressure on a country that, like Canada, prides itself on laying out the welcome mat. When I visited recently, the Taoiseach (Ireland’s prime minister) announced an expansion in refugee centres, but also a decline in government supports for Ukrainians:

“It’s so important that we maintain social cohesion,” Simon Harris said earnestly last month. “Irish people are a good and decent people who see the benefits of migration. They also like to see a bit of common sense when it comes to migration.”

A Canadian politician couldn’t have put it better. But beyond welfare adjustments, he also announced a broader refugee review because of how many are “still living in free state accommodation without making a contribution.”

The Taoiseach might have added that the Irish, like their Canadian cousins, can also count.

Fully one-third of all asylum seekers so far this year are coming from Nigeria — nearly double the rate of a year ago. That so many emanate from Nigeria — a perennial source of dubious claims compared to true global hot spots — seems reminiscent of similar distortions among claimants in Canada.

Belatedly, the Irish are designating Nigeria a “safe country” that triggers “fast processing” for claimants (to deter long stays). Interestingly, most Nigerians come not by boat or plane — there are no direct flights between the two countries — but overland from Northern Ireland, making their way via the United Kingdom.

Their sudden exodus from the U.K. is likely motivated by the anti-migration mania gripping British politics, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government concocting an accord with Rwanda to relocate refugee claimants before they put down roots on British soil. The outcry — legally, morally, politically — over his strategy dominates the headlines, but it is Ireland’s retrenchment that is perhaps more telling.

In Dublin, opposition Labour Leader Ivana Bacik described the encampments in Dublin as a local manifestation of London’s Rwanda policy: “This failure, resulting in so many tents, this amounts to a sort of Rwanda policy for the Irish government … as if they’re seeking to send out a signal to those who may be coming to Ireland to claim refuge.”

Times change. Tones change.

Source: On refugees, Canadians aren’t that different from everyone else

Immigrant workers protest in P.E.I.: What’s going on now and how did it start?

Another example of expectations not being met and the policies that contributed to that. The usual false claim that there “will be hunger strike to death;”

Immigrants living on Prince Edward Island are protesting policies put in place to slow down population growth, which have affected their ability to renew work permits and become permanent residents.

The protests, which have been ongoing in Charlottetown, escalated on Tuesday when one protester said workers are ready to go on a hunger strike if their needs are not met by Thursday.

“This will be hunger strike to death,” Rupinder Pal Singh told the CBC. “We are losing our work permits. There are no other places for us to go.”

What sparked the protests?

In February, the province introduced new framework to relieve the pressure of population growth “on our increasingly stressed public services and infrastructure system,” Premier Dennis King said in a statement.

The province’s growth is, in part, due to immigration, as well as birth and death rates and interprovincial migration, according to a news release.

The new policy reduces immigration nominations by 25 per cent for 2024.

Seventy-five per cent of nominations are being “redistributed to align with nine provincial sectors, with a strong emphasis on nominating skilled workers in health care, trades, childcare, and other key industries facing labour shortages.”

Applying for a nomination is one way for people to become a permanent resident.

“Individuals are selected for nomination based on their intention to live and work in PEI and their economic ability to establish here,” according to P.E.I.’s Office of Immigration.

What are the demands?

On Monday morning, a video posted on Instagram showed protesters walking together chanting, “We want fair rules!”

Part of the demands include extending work permits for immigrants already in the province, who are working in sectors that are considered not in demand.

“We want them to grandfather us in and we want them to listen (to) what is right,” Singh, whose work permit will expire in two months, told CBC. He has lived in Charlottetown for one and a half years as an internet technology sales representative.

Protesters also want an easier route to permanent residency after changes were made to P.E.I.’s Provincial Nominee Program.

Singh said he thinks immigrants already working should be allowed to continue their path to permanent residency, CBC reported.

‘Urgent need for action’

The protests started small, with about 25 people gathered outside of government buildings in Charlottetown on May 9, the CBC reported.

It quickly grew to around 300 people by Tuesday morning.

Protesters carried signs that read “Immigrants deserve justice” and “Support sales & service.”

“The protest in Charlottetown highlights the urgent need for action on expiring work permits for foreign workers in PEI The threat of a hunger strike underscores the seriousness of the situation,” wrote Licensed and Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant Kubeir Kamal in a post on X, formerly Twitter.

The Department of Workforce, Advanced Learning and Population would reportedly be meeting with protest organizers on Tuesday.

Source: Immigrant workers protest in P.E.I.: What’s going on now and how did it start?

Buruma: The privileged Gaza protesters

Of note:

The problem is that the “anti-Zionist” cause gaining ground on college campuses is often incoherent. Its ideological underpinnings tend to see everything as interconnected: police brutality, global warming, U.S. imperialism, white supremacy, European colonialism, trans- and homophobia and now the Israel-Hamas war. In the words of a Cornell University student, interviewed by The New York Times, “climate justice” is “rooted in the same struggles of imperialism, capitalism – things like that. I think that’s very true of this conflict, of the genocide in Palestine.”

Zionism, a disparate 19th-century Jewish nationalist movement that contained religious, secular, left-wing and right-wing elements, has now become synonymous with colonialism, imperialism and racism. To be a good, humane and moral person, the thinking goes, one must be an “anti-Zionist.” …

Perhaps that is why students and faculty at Columbia University showed the way in protesting Israel’s war in Gaza, and were swiftly followed by activists at other Ivy League schools. Whether this will really help Palestinians gain their own state, where they can lead better and more dignified lives under a freely chosen government, is unclear. But that may never have been the main point. As is often the case with protest movements in America, this one is really all about the U.S.

Source: The privileged Gaza protesters

Chris Alexander: I am a former immigration minister. Unsustainable population increases won’t solve Canada’s underlying issues

Late to the various debates and discussions given his recent focus on Russia and Ukraine. More descriptive than prescriptive, with few concrete suggestions or recommendations:

In March, the Globe and Mail reported that Canada’s population had grown by 1.3 million in 2023—the largest annual increase on record.

This surge was driven by higher numbers of immigrants, international students, temporary foreign workers, and asylum claimants.

Given that the 2021 census showed that 8.3 million Canadians, or 23 percent of our population, had an immigrant background, this latest increase means that, in a Canada of over 40 million people, one in four of us is a temporary or permanent resident, or was born abroad. This proportion of newcomers is the highest since Confederation, beating the previous record of 22.3 percent set in 1921. By comparison, the immigrant share of the U.S. population is today about 14 percent.

So what is driving these trends? Given that in recent decades immigration has been virtually the sole driver of Canada’s population growth, what overarching federal and provincial policy goals and real-world pressures are behind this recent surge?

Every year Canada’s minister of immigration, refugees, and citizenship tables what is called a “levels plan” in the House of Commons. This is a set of targets for how many permanent residents and refugees should be admitted to Canada in a given year, with projections for the two following years.

Under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), as adopted in 2001 and amended and updated regularly by successive governments ever since, the federal government must consult with its provincial counterparts on three issues: the number of permanent residents to be admitted in a given year; their “distribution in Canada taking into account regional economic and demographic requirements”; and what we call settlement issues, namely “the measures to be undertaken to facilitate their integration into Canadian society.”

In concrete terms, this means federal and provincial officials are in touch constantly, with the minister meeting his or her provincial and territorial counterparts regularly, as well as many other groups with an abiding interest in immigration.

The minister also has the option to consult provinces on policies and programmes. For instance, how do we get more digital artists, welders, hairdressers, workers for fish or meat-packing plants, or harvesters in the autumn when Canadians do not fill the jobs? Quebec implements its own immigration programmes, which have become more restrictive in recent years, but consults the federal government on its own levels’ plan: every Quebec immigrant still receives a Canadian visa. All other provinces also have their own programmes—including the Provincial Nominee Programme and Atlantic Immigration Programme—accounting for 40 percent of economic immigrants this year, or one-quarter of our total permanent intake in 2024.

Canadian context

So far, so good. But how have these levels evolved in recent years? For the first fifteen years of this century, Canada’s annual immigration intake ranged from 220,000 to 260,000, though in 2010 we had 281,000, and in 2015, 272,000. From 2016 to 2019, between 286,000 and 341,000 newcomers arrived yearly. With the pandemic in 2020, this number fell to 184,000. From 2021 to 2024, it rose to between 405,000 and 485,000. In 2025 and 2026, our goal will be 500,000 new immigrants per year.

In other words, the number of immigrants coming to Canada in a given year is now double what it was, on average, between 2000 and 2015. 

To put this in context, we now have the highest annual immigration levelssince we admitted 400,900 newcomers in 1913 under Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden. While today’s annual immigration represents more than 1 percent of Canada’s population, in 1913 it was over 5 percent.

But what else has been happening? In just three years, the number of non-permanent residents in Canada has quietly doubled. In the third quarter of 2021, there were about 1.3 million non-permanent residents in Canada: about 560,000 workers, half a million international students, and 166,000 asylum claimants. By the first quarter of 2024, there were 2.7 million non-permanent residents—with all three categories (temporary workers, international students, and asylum seekers) each more or less doubling in only three years.  

By March of this year, there were 329,000 asylum claimants in Canada, with 187,000 refugee protection claims pending before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). (By way of comparison, in late 2015, at the end of my time as minister of citizenship and immigration, this backlog of pending claims was under 10,000.)

This bottleneck means ordinary refugee claims, which are supposed to be heard by law within 60 days, now take up to three years. As a result, the government has recently brought in new rules and additional resources for the IRB that are meant to speed decisions and processing of cases.

Global context

So what is driving upward trends in permanent immigration, temporary workers, international students, and asylum claims?

Let’s start with refugees and asylum seekers. In 2009, just over 40 million people had been forcibly displaced. In my time as minister, this number was rising fast due to genocide in Syria, civil breakdown in Venezuela, and other conflicts.

By June of 2023, serious wars in Ukraine, Sudan, and elsewhere in Africa, meant that over 110 million people were, as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees puts it, “forcibly displaced from their homes due to persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations and events seriously disturbing public order.” In only fifteen years, the number of displaced people worldwide has almost tripled.

Since President Biden entered office, the number of migrants apprehended by patrols at the U.S.-Mexico border has oscillated between 100,000 and 250,000 per month, with 2.5 million encountered by U.S. border patrols in 2023.

By contrast, in 2013 U.S. Customs and Border Protection apprehended only421,000 “illegal aliens”; in 2019, they apprehended 860,000. 

In the febrile landscape of U.S. politics, this human drama on the Rio Grande makes for sensational headlines and salacious conspiracy theories. There is even hard evidence that state actors such as Russia are, via large-scale information warfare and other forms of influence, fanning the flames of this crisis in order to aid the Trump campaign and generally make U.S. politics even more grid-locked and chaotic.

This should come as no surprise since Russia, with the support of allies of convenience such as Turkey, actively “weaponised” Europe’s Syria-related migration crisis over 2014-16 in order to marginalize moderate voices and create fertile ground for xenophobic groups, though European politics have polarized less dramatically than other parts of the world, including the U.S.

Quite apart from conflicts and interference now triggering unprecedented forced displacement, including now from North Africa as well, Canada’s peer democracies have seen recent immigration figures jump. Australia saw a net inflow in 2022-23 of 518,000 people; over the same period, the U.K. had a net gain of 672,000, with 1.2 million newcomers arriving over 2022-23. Many attribute this recent spike to pent-up demand following the pandemic, when travel was restricted or postponed.

Indeed, all English- and French-speaking countries, as well as increasingly the European Union as a whole, are competing to attract more international students. Canada’s unique combination of strong institutions of higher education, work permits, and pathways to permanent residency have lifted our international student population from 330,000 in 2014 to over one million today. 

The challenge with such large net inflows of immigrants, students, workers, and asylum seekers has not been to find them work or places to study. The main pressure points are increasingly over infrastructure needs—housing, transport, health care, and other basic services—as well as affordability. How can so many newcomers find an affordable place to live in Canada without inflating rents or house prices, or creating hardships for the population at large?

While the impacts of these larger flows on the housing market are complex, it is fairly clear that large numbers of international students have driven rents upward in many cities, while new construction of single-family, multi-family, or student rental units has not nearly kept pace with demand due to the pandemic-related slowdowns, higher interest rates, and prohibitive zoning in many municipalities. 

At the same time, a growing student presence has brought enormous benefits to Canada, shaping a younger, larger, more dynamic, and innovative population, which on current trends (according to Statistics Canada) may reach 47 million by 2041.

Canada’s economic issues

In my view, the greatest overriding challenge Canada now faces—also a major disincentive for immigrants—is that for ten years incomes have stagnated. At the end of 2014, Canada’s inflation-adjusted per capita GDPwas $58,162; by the third quarter of 2023, it was $58,111—a loss of $51 over nine years.

In comparative terms, Canada’s poor performance is even more striking: for two years (2011 and 2012), Canada’s per capita nominal GDP was higher than the U.S.: according to IMF figures, in 2012 a Canadian earned USD $52,745 per year, while an American earned USD $51,737 per year.

Now fast forward to this year, when the IMF projects our nominal per capita GDP to be USD $54,866 compared to $85,373 for the U.S.—meaning that after twelve years the average American earns 56 percent more, while Canadian incomes have stood still.

The greatest overriding challenge Canada now faces is that for ten years incomes have stagnated.”

To add insult to injury, other advanced, high-income OECD economies where per capita GDP was lower than in Canada in 2012—such as Belgium, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Israel, and the Netherlands—now have higher per capita GDP.

What has created this growing discrepancy? This is a much longer story. The short answer is that business investment, productivity and the scale and value of our exports have, to put it mildly, not kept pace with the U.S. or many other peer economies over the past decade.

In a very short time, we have gone from being a country that was praised for low debt levels, a competitive tax system, innovative firms, prosperous cities, an educated workforce, and leadership on issues from energy to immigration to one that is considered to be heavily indebted, less affluent, less attractive to investors and falling behind—to the point where a leading Financial Times columnist has branded us the leading “breakdown nation.”

Immigration cannot solve these problems. Indeed, if such trends continue, the most qualified immigrants are unlikely to choose Canada. Moreover, the combination of record newcomer arrivals and stagnant incomes is souring Canadians themselves: after supporting immigration for many years by two to one, recent polls show disaffection growing, with Canadians now closer to evenly divided.

Immigration and the future of Canada

The bottom line is that immigrants, students, and workers chose Canada over centuries because we sustained high levels of growth and high standards of living. Canada’s declining affluence over the past decade undermines this pull factor—and is thus a major threat to our future ability to welcome newcomers.

By introducing caps both for international students and temporary residents as a whole—for the first time ever in Canada—our current government appears to agree that runaway inflows are unsustainable, particularly amid the slow expansion of our housing stock and lacklustre economic performance generally.

The most obvious areas for focused attention are asylum seekers, where the current backlog needs to be drastically reduced to ensure hearings are once again held within 60 days. This will allow Canada to sustain higher levels of refugee resettlement, which under our latest levels’ plan is now slated to decline slightly in 2025 and 2026.

Canada could easily have resettled 100,000 Syrian refugees since 2014 and 100,000 Afghans since 2021. After all, these are conflicts where people put their lives on the line for democracy, free speech, the rule of law, and women’s rights, often with Canadian support, but now face persecution in its most horrendous forms. Instead, we have so far resettled only 43,000 Afghans and 44,620 Syrians. This is a far cry from what Canada did for 120,000 Vietnamese refugees, otherwise adrift in small boats, when we welcomed them en masse starting in 1979.

Canada’s citizenship, immigration, study, and refugee programmes give our country a vital lifeline and a crucial advantage. But we cannot afford to be complacent. To meet the expectations of a next generation of newcomers, we need to become once again a leading destination for business investment and commercial success—a country where new firms, innovative products, and emerging sectors take root, find growing markets, and drive a new era of prosperity.

Chris Alexander was Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2013-15) and MP for Ajax-Pickering (2011-15). He is a distinguished fellow of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and the Canadian international Council.

Source: Chris Alexander: I am a former immigration minister. Unsustainable population increases won’t solve Canada’s underlying issues