Dave Snow: The groundbreaking Cass Review on transgender care is shifting the debate abroad. Yet it was barely reported by Canadian media  

While I don’t follow this issue closely, this analysis is nevertheless revealing on how the review and related issues are portrayed, particularly by the CBC:

Few Canadian policy issues are as polarizing as youth gender transition. Yet according to my analysis below, most Canadian media spent last month paying little to no attention to one of the most consequential reports on the topic…

Canadian media coverage of the Cass Review

As a major medical report on an issue where there is considerable Canadian political debate, one would have expected the Cass Review to garner considerable Canadian media attention.

To determine how the issue was covered in Canada, I conducted a content analysis of online articles from five mainstream media outlets (The Globe and MailNational PostToronto Star, CBC, and CTV) from the three-week period following the Cass Review’s publication (April 10 – April 30, 2024). These five outlets published a total of 15 stories that mentioned the Cass Review. Given that three stories (all from the National Post) only briefly mentioned it in passing, and one Associated Press story was published in two outlets, this meant a total of 11 unique stories in which the Cass Review featured prominently.

Coverage was dominated by the National Post, which featured seven articles on the Cass Review over an 11-day period between April 10 and April 20. By contrast, there were only two stories featuring the Cass Review in the Toronto Star, and only one each in CBC, CTV, and the Globe. Apart from the one AP story, every article applied the Cass Review to the Canadian context, with six mentioning Alberta’s proposed gender policies. The stories were split between hard news (six) and opinion pieces (five).

Given the National Post’s longstanding focus on youth gender transition, it is not surprising that it gave the Cass Review the most coverage. The other four outlets did not give it as much attention. The only hard news piece in the Toronto Star was a wire story written by the U.S.-based Associated Press. CTV’s one mention of Cass appeared in a piece about Alberta’s proposed gender policies and was only the result of Premier Smith raising it during an interview with the outlet. Meanwhile, the lone CBC article on the review was more of a condemnation than a news report (see below). The Globe and Maildid not feature Cass in a single hard news article, though the report was mentioned in an investigative opinion piece about gender transition in Canada written 16 days after the review was published. In total, only three of the six hard news pieces quoted from the Cass Review extensively, including two lengthy pieces from National Post reporter Sharon Kirkey and one Associated Press piece (published in both the Star and Post).

While there were only five opinion pieces published about the Cass Review, they shared several notable characteristics. All five opinion pieces—three from the National Post and one each in the Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail—portrayed the review positively, including descriptions such as “landmark” and“an exhaustive and rigorous report.” All five were broadly supportive of exercising greater caution around the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for youth. The Post’s Adam Zivo called such restrictions “a wise approach that Canada should follow,” while the Globe’s Robyn Urback cited multiple studies “exploring the potential long-term effects of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones on bone densityfertilitysexual function, and cognitive development” (links in original). Moreover, the five opinion writers demonstrated considerable knowledge of the review itself, with Cass quoted or paraphrased a total of 1611eightfour, and three times, respectively.

By contrast, the CBC’s one news story, published five days after the Cass Review, only quoted it twice. The 1,750-word article, “What Canadian doctors say about new U.K. review questioning puberty blockers for transgender youth,” spent more time criticizing the report than describing it. The story did not quote any proponents of the Cass Review, but it did contain over a dozen quotes from three organizations and three Canadian doctors who were supportive of the gender-affirming model. Two of those doctors criticized the Cass Review directly: one wondered if it was “coming from a place of bias” and “trying to create fear around gender-affirming care,” while another called it “politically motivated.”

One sentence in particular, written by the journalist, is indicative of the CBC’s framing: “The Cass Review, while aiming to be an independent assessment, has been criticized as flawed and anti-trans by trans activists in the U.K., and was described as a product of the U.K.’s hostile environment for trans people in the International Journal of Transgender Health” (links in original). The CBC journalist did not specify the difference between an “independent assessment” and “aiming” to be independent.

However, the International Journal of Transgender Health piece cited by  the CBC journalist refers to the Cass Review as an example of “Cis-supremacy in the UK’s approach to healthcare for trans children.” It was written by a researcher who specializes in “trans inclusion and Applied Trans Studies” and currently holds a grant for “Building Lived Experience Accountability into Culturally Competent Health and Well-being Assessment for Trans Youth Social Justice.” The CBC did not address whether that piece, which was published nearly a month before the Cass Review’s final report came out, was similarly “aiming” to be independent in its assessment of Cass.

This CBC article has garnered considerable attention. It was criticized by American journalist Jesse Singal as “critically dangerous science miscommunication,” while Hub contributor Peter Menzies described it as “so bereft of balance that one could only conclude it [CBC] had abandoned any pretence of principled journalism in favour of playing the role of ally.” But, to regular observers of the CBC, this story was entirely in keeping with its ongoing approach to covering youth gender transition.

People involved in a march against the teaching of so-called “gender ideology” in schools, stand in front of the New Brunswick legislature as they yell across the street at pro-transgender rights counter-protesters in Fredericton, Wednesday, Sept. 20, 2023. Stephen MacGillivray/The Canadian Press. 

Canadian coverage of other LGBTQ topics

Given that major Canadian outlets paid limited attention to the Cass Review, apart from the National Post, observers may wonder if this simply reflected a media tendency to ignore LGBTQ issues.

To test for this, I also conducted a search of stories containing terms like “LGBTQ,” “transgender,” and “gender identity” at each of the five outlets during the same period (April 10-30). I then analyzed stories in which LGBTQ issues were the main topic.

Between April 10-30, in addition to the 11 stories about Cass described above, there were 25  stories on the topic of Canadian LGBTQ issues: 14 at the CBC, six at CTV, three at the Globe and Mail, and one each at the Toronto Starand National Post (this includes one identical Canadian Press wire story published by the Globe, Star, and CTV).

However, not one of these additional Canadian stories mentioned the Cass Review. Some of this was understandable, as most CBC and CTV articles, for example, were local stories covering topics such as a proposed LGBTQ community centre in Montreal, legal battles over New Brunswick’s pronoun policy, and a summer camp for LGBTQ children in Newfoundland and Labrador.

However, in addition to these 25 Canadian-focused LGBTQ stories, the five outlets also published  66 internationally-focused LGBTQ stories. None of these mentioned the Cass Review. All were written by foreign wire services.

Thirty stories were published by the National Post, 27 by the Toronto Star, five by CTV, four by he Globe and Mail, and none by the CBC. Nearly 80 percent (52/66) were focused on American politics, but the 14 other stories covered topics such as Swedish and German laws making changing your gender easier, the passage of an anti-LGBTQ law in Iraq, and a Hong Kong trans activistgetting a male ID card.

Canadian news outlets’ lack of attention to the Cass Review cannot be explained by a lack of interest in international news on LGBTQ issues. The Toronto Star published 28 hard news stories about international LGBTQ issues during this period, but only one mentioned the Cass review. Likewise, the Globe and Mail and CTV published four and five international news stories on LGBTQ issues respectively, none of which mentioned the Cass Review.

 Consequences for Canada

Three broad conclusions can be drawn from the Canadian media’s coverage of the Cass Review. First, apart from the National Post, hard news coverage of the groundbreaking report was limited. Moreover, this minimal coverage cannot be explained by a lack of interest in LGBTQ issues, as these outlets published many Canadian and international LGBTQ-focused stories about topics far less prominent. Perhaps it is unsurprising that a conservative outlet was more likely to report on a major study that appeared to vindicate arguments associated with conservative political positions. Yet the lack of reporting by other news outlets brings to mind a quote from American journalist Nellie Bowles about the 2020 riots around policing and African Americans in Kenosha, Wisconsin: “How the mainstream media controlled the narrative was by not covering it.”

Second, despite this minimal reporting in Canada, the Cass Review seems to have shifted the parameters of the debate over youth gender transition. The way that it has been covered in international media suggests it will now be far more difficult to paint those who favour a more cautious approach to social transition, puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones as “transphobic.” Although Canadian hard news coverage of Cass was limited, Canadian opinion pieces demonstrate a similar shift. All five opinion pieces (including one from the Toronto Star) covered the Cass Review favourably. All raised criticisms about the prevalence of the gender-affirming model across Canada. In the recent past, the Globe and Star have not been shy about publishing opinionpieces lauding the gender-affirming model. But no such opinion pieces were published in response to the Cass Review.

Finally, as the debate around youth gender medicine shifts, the CBC appears to have dug in its heels in support of the gender-affirming model. In previous research for The Hub, I documented how the national public broadcaster chose allyship over objectivity in its coverage of youth gender transition. That trend has clearly continued. The CBC has often been criticized in general for progressive bias, but it is difficult to recall another policy issue for which the CBC’s lack of balance has been so strident and so sustained. As scientific and policy debates around youth gender transition evolve, this issue will provide a litmus test for whether CBC can provide objective coverage on contentious social and medical topics. For now, the public broadcaster is failing that test.

Source: Dave Snow: The groundbreaking Cass Review on transgender care is shifting the debate abroad. Yet it was barely reported by Canadian media

Éditorial | La CAQ en quête de renforts

Le Devoir’s take of Canada-Quebec discussions on immigration and the related political considerations:

Le disque caquiste sur la trame de l’immigration temporaire et de la capacité d’accueil du Québec a si souvent tourné que François Legault se cherche de nouveaux auditeurs, contraint d’admettre qu’il n’a toujours pas réussi à influencer son principal interlocuteur fédéral. En implorant maintenant les Québécois de l’épauler enfin dans cette mission de persuasion contre Ottawa, le premier ministre du Québec devrait prendre garde de ne pas frôler ainsi dangereusement l’aveu d’échec.

La redondance était telle que les courriéristes parlementaires qui s’étaient déplacés au conseil général de la Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ), cette fin de semaine, ne se sont même pas donné la peine, ou presque, de faire état de cette énième sortie de François Legault contre le refus d’Ottawa de freiner l’arrivée croissante d’immigrants temporaires en sol québécois.

« Le problème, c’est leur nombre », a-t-il répété. Lequel « affecte les services que l’on donne à l’ensemble des Québécois » et « met de la pression sur la langue française ». « L’heure est grave pour notre nation », a-t-il renchéri, en se dédouanant par la même occasion des manques de services en santé et en éducation ou de l’offre insuffisante de logements.

« C’est le gouvernement fédéral qui a créé ce problème. C’est à lui de le régler rapidement », a-t-il plutôt ordonné. « Mais pour y arriver, j’ai besoin de l’appui des Québécois. Il faut que les Québécois convainquent le gouvernement fédéral d’agir rapidement », a-t-il supplié, dans son discours de clôture du rassemblement partisan.

Le jovialisme exposé par le premier ministre du Québec à l’issue de sa rencontre avec son homologue fédéral ce printemps était donc de toute évidence utopique. Là où François Legault avait choisi de voir de l’« ouverture » de la part de Justin Trudeau ne se cachait finalement qu’une banale et spécieuse politesse, à en croire le dépit qu’il affiche aujourd’hui.

L’octroi de visas n’a pas encore été resserré, malgré la demande du gouvernement québécois. L’exigence possible d’une maîtrise du français pour les travailleurs temporaires arrivant par le biais du Programme de mobilité internationale, qui relève d’Ottawa, n’avancerait pas non plus selon le camp québécois. Sa demande de remboursement de 1 milliard de dollars pour l’accueil de demandeurs d’asile risque quant à elle de n’être qu’en partie enfin accueillie.

Ne s’en remettre qu’à l’espoir d’un rapport de force avec le gouvernement fédéral, avec l’aide de la population québécoise cette fois-ci puisque celle d’une majorité parlementaire n’a pas suffi, semble mince comme stratégie. Rien n’indique que Justin Trudeau et ses ministres tendront soudainement l’oreille aux défis pourtant réels vécus sur le terrain au Québec. Leur obstination chronique indique tout le contraire. Or, le coffre à outils qu’avait laissé miroiter ce printemps le gouvernement caquiste pour forcer la main d’Ottawa semble finalement dégarni.

Quant à l’idée d’un référendum sectoriel, qu’il avait lui-même ravivée, François Legault rétorque que l’issue en est déjà connue, puisque la moitié des Québécois et les deux tiers des électeurs décidés ont confié à la firme Léger souhaiter le rapatriement des pouvoirs en immigration. Évacuer désormais cette possibilité lui évite surtout l’obligation de résultat, hasardeuse, qui s’ensuivrait.

Son gouvernement a donc préféré lancer de nouvelles propositions dans un tout autre champ d’action : la tenue d’une commission parlementaire spéciale et transpartisane sur les effets des écrans et des réseaux sociaux sur les jeunes Québécois. Si cette étude va de l’avant, il ne faudra pas moins en surveiller les recommandations, et surtout la probabilité qu’elles soient respectées, puisque les initiatives qui ont à l’étranger tenté tant bien que mal d’encadrer l’utilisation de plateformes Web ou de réseaux sociaux ont, en règle générale, échoué.

Alors que tous les yeux étaient rivés sur l’autre conseil national de la fin de semaine, celui de Québec solidaire (QS) à Jonquière, les caquistes auront été soulagés d’y voir émerger un possible début de trêve. Cette accalmie dans la guerre intestine qui guettait QS leur permet d’espérer que le débat politique perdurera également sur un axe idéologique politique plutôt qu’un retour à l’axe strictement indépendantiste, ce qui aurait menacé d’écarteler leur coalition. François Legault préférera de loin se colletailler avec l’adversaire de gauche solidaire.

Ce qui n’évacuera pas pour autant l’indéniable popularité bien installée du Parti québécois et de Paul St-Pierre Plamondon. Si la population ne répond pas à l’ultime appel de François Legault, et si le gouvernement de Justin Trudeau persiste à lui faire la sourde oreille, la CAQ aura-t-elle autre chose à proposer pour faire aboutir ses demandes en immigration ? Si la Coalition avenir Québec est alors forcée de s’avouer à court de solutions face au mur fédéraliste, c’est le Parti québécois, nourri de nouvelles munitions, qui s’en réjouira.

Source: Éditorial | La CAQ en quête de renforts

Mason and MacKenzie: Now is not the time to lose faith in immigration because Canada cannot prosper without it

Platitudes rather than substance. And what do the authors mean by “throw off the institutional shackles that resist change?”

Countries worldwide have long envied Canada’s ability to attract and integrate immigrants. Yet just as our aging demography is beginning to bite, we risk losing the long-standing public consensus that immigration is good for Canada.

To boot, our GDP per capita is declining at a faster rate than that of many other advanced countries. Productivity is abysmal and Canadians are looking for solutions. 

Though Canadian support for continued growth in immigration numbers is dropping, the need for new immigrants to address our demography cannot be wished away. With more Canadians leaving the workforce than entering it each year and our total fertility rate dropping to a historic low of 1.33 in 2023, immigration is the only way to maintain the living standards and levels of services we have come to expect.

If we were to freeze Canada’s population, we would go from around 30 people over 65 per 100 working-age Canadians to over 60 per 100 in the year 2071 — an unfathomable increase in very much loved, but costly, dependants supported by each working Canadian. We must address our demography at the same time as we improve our living standards.

As Carolyn Rogers at the Bank of Canada has cried out, productivity growth is key, where our lagging measures predate current increased immigration levels by a few decades. 

Some lay blame on newcomers for decreasing businesses’ willingness to invest in equipment and technology. Why invest when you can just hire another person? This criticism is short-sighted because to overcome demography we need both more workers and more capital investment. It would be foolish to put the country into population decline. 

Immigrants can help solve the productivity problem over time. A recent Statistics Canada study showed that so-called “two-step” immigrants, who gain education or experience in Canada before becoming permanent residents, broadly earn more (reflecting higher productivity) than permanent residents without Canadian education or experience. Many of our most successful entrepreneurs are immigrants too, for example Tobias Lütke of Shopify.

Immigration is not on its own an economic silver bullet for every problem, but Canada cannot grow without newcomers’ skills and ambition. We should all welcome a renewed dialogue about our national economic, social, and humanitarian goals, since the case for improving our immigration system is strong.

The time is now to ensure the selection of immigrants selected for the economic impact are aligned with labour market needs. In its recent strategic review, Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada committed to hiring a Chief Talent Officer. We are ready to support this work through our connections to employers from coast to coast.

Immigration is of course an interconnected issue, not just an economic one. Newcomers alleviate workforce and demographic pressures but also create their own demand for housing, health care, and transportation. Concentrated in major cities, this demand can expand on the other factors driving the housing crisis — the foundations of which we laid long ago.

The recent cap on international students shows that the government is taking the issue seriously and increasingly considering the multiple factors that lead to success, like housing availability and “wraparound” support for newcomers. This is good. Prospective immigrants must be able to see a complete future here, not just a job. If they do not, more will leave for better opportunities, as Parisa Mahboubi and William Robson from the C.D. Howe Institute recently argued, or forgo coming to Canada entirely. To let this happen would be to squander our global advantage.

Our system has been the envy of the world, but as other countries compete to attract the best, we should update our policy-making to incorporate data from across the economy, with tailored thinking that nimbly responds to labour market demand. It was encouraging to attend the Better Evidence Conference this February and see rooms full of people discussing new ideas for exactly that. Better data will help Canada avoid surprises, match social infrastructure to immigration levels, and respond to changes.

It is vital that Canadians see immigration as part of our future and keep supporting it. Approval is still high, but that will only continue with successful outcomes. To achieve these, it is time to adjust course, adopt more data-driven decision making, and throw off the institutional shackles that resist change within our system.

Gillian Mason is the CEO of the Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council. Patrick MacKenzie is CEO of the Immigrant Employment Council of British Columbia.

Source: Now is not the time to lose faith in immigration because Canada cannot prosper without it

Canada set to lift restrictive citizenship by descent norms; Indian diaspora to benefit say experts

Seems like immigration source countries are looking at the implications of the change more than Canadian media: “open up the chain of citizenship without end…:”
 
…Pavan Dhillon, immigration attorney illustrates the first- generation limit. Mrs. A was born in India and was its former citizen. Subsequently after migrating, she acquired Canadian citizenship. On her return to India, she bore a child – ‘B’. Now, ‘B’ was eligible to be a Canadian citizen through descent. However, subsequently, ‘B’ (a Canadian citizen) could not under the first-generation limit rule pass on citizenship to her child (let’s name him C) if C was also born outside Canada.In other words, the first-generation which was born abroad, did not have the right to pass on citizenship by descent to the second-generation that was born abroad. This set of individuals, who were denied citizenship by descent are referred to as ‘Lost Canadians’.

According to the proposed amendment children born abroad to Canadians since 2009, would automatically be granted citizenship. A new substantial connection test would be created for those born outside Canada, after the new law comes into effect.

Those Indians who post enactment of the proposed legislation are eligible to become Canadian citizens and want to opt for it, will have to give up their Indian citizenship, as dual citizenship is not permitted.

The proposed provisions require that “Parents born abroad who have or adopt children also born outside Canada will need to have spent at least 1,095 cumulative days of physical presence in Canada prior to the birth or adoption of their child to pass on citizenship”.

Ken Nickel-Lane, founder of an immigration services firm , told TOI, “This announcement, at least on initial reading looks like it will open up the chain of citizenship without end as long as the parents have spent at least 1,095 cumulative days (approximately three years) of physical presence in Canada prior to the birth or adoption of their child to pass on citizenship. So, this could be very significant to a large group of individuals worldwide, notably Indian Nationals given that they are our largest source of new Canadians.”

However, it could be another immigration hot issue, as in some quarters it may be perceived that the floodgates to a wider pool of new immigrants have been opened, adds Nickel-Lane.

“The proposed legislation intends to ensure that Canadians who have substantial ties to Canada are not limited in their ability to pass on their citizenship to their children. The new legislation will greatly benefit the diaspora with significant ties to Canada,” states Dhillon .

Minister Miller summed up, “The current rules generally restrict citizenship by descent to the first generation, excluding some people who have a genuine connection to Canada. This has unacceptable consequences for families and impacts life choices, such as where individuals may choose to live, work, study, or even where to have children and raise a family. These changes aim to be inclusive and protect the value of Canadian citizenship, as we are committed to making the citizenship process as fair and transparent as possible.”

Canada’s immigration agency has stated that if the bill passes in Parliament and receives royal assent, it will work as quickly as possible to implement these changes and will provide more information for eligible individuals on its website.

Source: Canada set to lift restrictive citizenship by descent norms; Indian diaspora to benefit say experts

Some coverage as well in the Nigerian press but with limited analysis by Daniel Béland: Canada restores citizenship rights to “lost Canadians”

Lilley: Trudeau extending Canadian citizenship to grandchildren and illegals

Different take from Lilley in the Toronto Sun than Selley in the National Post. Agree with Lilley that there are alternative methods such as greater use of ministerial discretion for hardship and statelessness cases, rather than casting a broader net:

….On the issue of extending birthright citizenship, the Liberals made it sound like they had no choice, blaming a court decision last December. The truth is, it was a lower court ruling they didn’t appeal because as they stated clearly in their news release they liked it.

“The Government of Canada did not appeal the ruling because we agree that the law has unacceptable consequences for Canadians whose children were born outside the country,” the news release stated.

The court ruling was in response to a number of families who challenged a law which stated that you could only pass on citizenship to a Canadian born outside of the country by one generation. With this change, grandchildren of Canadian citizens will be extended full Canadian citizenship.

This isn’t standard practice in the United States, Britain, France, Italy or a number of peer countries, which with rare exception cap passing on citizenship to the first generation born outside of the country.

Yet when a number of families, some with stories similar to mine, challenged Canada’s citizenship laws, Justice Jasmine Akbarali found the law to be unconstitutional. In her ruling she found that the law violated section 6 mobility rights and section 15 equality rights.

In one of the cases, two Canadians who had moved to Switzerland to work and had a child while there, sued in the off chance that in the future their daughter also moves abroad and has a family that they could pass on citizenship. That’s deciding a case and overturning a law based on a hypothetical, something judges love doing but isn’t a serious way to determine court cases.

In another case, a man born in the United States to a Canadian mother got married and started a family while living in Asia. He wanted to pass on the citizenship to his child, but the law didn’t allow it.

When he moved back to Canada with his family, his daughter applied for and was granted Canadian citizenship.

Bottom line is that in all the cases before Justice Akbarali there were solutions, like applying for citizenship, that didn’t involve watering down our rules. She decided the first generation cut off was arbitrary.

But if a one generation rule is arbitrary, what’s to say a future court won’t find the second generation cut off arbitrary. Parliament must choose a cut off at some point, otherwise, why have citizenship, why have borders, why have rights and privileges open to citizens and not others.

This was a bad court ruling and it has now been followed by a bad government policy. It extends automatic citizenship to people who have little to no connection to Canada and cheapens the value of our citizenship.

Knowing now that the Trudeau Liberals want to extend citizenship to people in the country illegally, their moves shouldn’t be surprising.

The only question left is how far will the Liberals go in terms of devaluing what it means to be Canadian?

Source: Trudeau extending Canadian citizenship to grandchildren and illegals

ICYMI: Statistics Canada findings buck trend on over-educated immigrants

Some good news:

The rate of immigrants hired in jobs they are overqualified for has dropped to the lowest rate in 20 years, says a new Statistics Canada study.

Using census data, researchers examined the educational achievements of immigrants and the educational requirements for their occupations. Overeducation or education-occupation mismatch is defined as when someone with at least a bachelor’s degree is employed in a position requiring no more than a high school education.

The 2021 census found only 26.7 per cent of recent immigrants were over-educated for their jobs, down from 31.1 per cent in 2016. Those in jobs fitting their qualifications went up to 44.4 per cent from just 40 per cent over the same five-year period.

“Selecting immigrants with high levels of education increases their chances of economic success,” said Statistics Canada in the report released on Wednesday. “Immigrants with a bachelor’s degree or higher are more adaptable to changes in the labour market and have steeper growth in employment earnings than those with a trades or high school education.”

But in reality, many immigrants with a bachelor’s degree or higher have occupations that underutilize their skills, which harm their employment income, productivity and well-being, it said.

The report attributed the progress to Canada’s job growth in high-skilled occupations between 2016 and 2021, compared to the previous 15 years, as well as reforms to the immigrant selection system in recent years that have put more emphasis on positive immigrant attributes such as Canadian education and work credentials contributing to better economic outcomes.

Census data from 2001 to 2021 showed the number of Canadians age 25 to 64 with a bachelor’s degree or higher increased to six million people from 5.2 million, with immigrants accounting for 60 per cent of that growth.

In 2021, about 55.3 per cent of recent immigrants and 39.8 per cent of established immigrants had at least a bachelor’s degree, while 32.6 per cent of their Canadian-born peers age 25 to 34 and 24.8 per cent of those age 35 to 64 had the same education level.

Yakabuski: The federal public service is broken. Is it too late to fix it?

Good long if dispiriting read with no easy or quick fixes:

…Canada is hardly the only parliamentary democracy to witness the degradation of its public service and concentration of power in the prime minister’s office, with a resultant decline in the quality and effectiveness of public policy. Britain’s Commission on the Centre of Government recently released its own report on deleterious impact of this phenomenon. “The centre [of government] in recent years has become far too dominant yet far too ineffective. It has scooped out initiative and all but emasculated Whitehall departments, which alternately try to second-guess what the flip-flop centre thinks and are micromanaged by it,” the commission’s deputy chairman, historian Sir Anthony Seldon, wrote in The Sunday Times. (Whitehall is British shorthand for the public service.)

More than ever, in our darkening age of political polarization, we need a neutral and non-partisan public service to guide major policy decisions. And we need competent public servants to implement them without fear or favour. The Trudeau Liberals have done themselves and Canadians a disservice by failing to recognize that a policy-capable and operationally efficient public service is any government’s best asset. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, who speaks disparagingly of “gatekeepers” of all sorts, has given no indication he understands that either.

What future does that suggest for a country that faces chronic (and related) budget and productivity deficits and desperately needs to develop sustainable, affordable and equitable policies to address them both? We cannot expect them to come out of the PMO. Its dominance is partly what got us into this mess.

Source: The federal public service is broken. Is it too late to fix it?

Canada’s temporary foreign worker program is archaic. Here’s how the Senate wants to change it

A start:

The federal government must modernize its archaic temporary foreign worker program by allowing migrant workers to change employers within their industry and overhauling the complicated enforcement system, says a Senate report.

To better support both workers and employers, a Migrant Work Commission should be established to oversee the program, advocate for migrant workers in Canada and serve as a single point of contact for reports of abuse and mistreatment as part of its mandate, says the study released on Tuesday.

“With so many cooks in the kitchen, it is only logical to have a head chef,” Ontario Sen. Ratna Omidvar, chair of the Senate social affairs, science and technology committee, told a news conference.

“This commission would serve as a one-stop shop for migrants who need help in asserting their rights and for employers seeking support in navigating the labyrinth of red tape, and even for government departments seeking to make their operations more efficient.”

The recommendations, however, have received a cold reception by advocates, who criticized the Senate for failing to address the structural issues of the temporary worker program.

“The fundamental power imbalance is the temporary migration system itself,” said Syed Hussan of Migrant Workers Alliance for Change. “So long we have a system of temporariness, there’s going to be inequality, injustice, abuse and exploitation.”

The Senate launched the study in late 2022 into Canada’s temporary foreign work program, which was introduced in 1973 as a stopgap measure to address the country’s labour shortages but has since grown to be an indispensable part of the Canadian labour market….

Source: Canada’s temporary foreign worker program is archaic. Here’s how the Senate wants to change it

Removing religion as hate speech defence worth exploring: anti-Semitism envoy

Worth consideration but of course not without contention (Andrew Bennett, the former ambassador for religious freedom, currently at Cardus, appears to be ruling it out, unlike Lyons):

Canada’s special envoy for combating antisemitism is “very interested” in exploring the idea of removing religion as a possible defence against hate speech charges, she said Thursday, raising concern about creating a possible chill on religious expression.

Deborah Lyons, whose title also includes preserving Holocaust remembrance, made the comment before a parliamentary committee that is studying antisemitism on university campuses.

“I am very interested in exploring (it) as an option because I think, frankly, we are seeing it used in this country and in other places as a defence that frankly does not stand the ground in these very difficult times,” she testified Thursday.

Still, Lyons said she is not ready to offer a final opinion on the matter, and is still discussing it with Justice Department officials.

Jewish leaders, students and faculty have for months been voicing concerns over an increase in hate speech and violence since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas war last fall.

Lyons said she believes universities’ equity, diversity and inclusion strategies are “failing Jews in this country” because they don’t make much mention of antisemitism specifically.

Her office is working to develop better training to counter anti-Jewish discrimination, which she hopes institutions, including governments, will use.

Members of Parliament also asked Lyons about the role police and prosecutors play in laying hate speech related charges, and whether Criminal Code changes are needed.

They pointed to a recent decision by Quebec prosecutors not to charge Montreal imam Adil Charkaoui over comments said during a prayer — a scenario Lyons says she is discussing with the government.

The comments were delivered at a pro-Palestinian demonstration in Montreal, and led to a complaint alleging threats and incitement of violence, which was investigated by the RCMP.

Leading a prayer in Arabic, Charkaoui had called on God to “take care of aggressor Zionists,” adding “O God, don’t leave any of them.”

Last week the province’s director of public prosecutions announced that a committee of three Crown attorneys found the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the words amounted to an incitement of hatred toward an identifiable group, as defined in the Criminal Code.

Using the case as an example, Bloc Québécois MP Rhéal Fortin asked Lyons whether she supports his party’s proposal to eliminate a section of the Criminal Code that allows the use of religious beliefs or a religious text as a defence against the promotion of hatred and antisemitism.

The Criminal Code states that people shouldn’t be convicted of the willful promotion of hatred or antisemitism — defined as downplaying or denying the Holocaust — if, “in good faith,” they expressed an opinion “on a religious subject” or “based on a belief in a religious text.”

Fortin says his party wants to ban “exceptions” to hate speech based on religion.

“Certainly I think that it’s something we’ve got to continue to examine,” Lyons said.

Justice Minister Arif Virani’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

He is already seeking to increase the punishments for existing hate-related offences — including increasing the maximum consequence for advocating genocide to life imprisonment — in the Liberals’ legislation against online harms, tabled back in February.

The stiffer criminal justice reforms have fallen under harsh scrutiny from critics, including civil liberty advocacy groups, who say it could stifle free speech. Justice officials say criminal charges would only be laid in the most extreme examples.

Removing religion as a possible defence to a hate speech charge would likely be welcomed by those who oppose religion, but would create “genuine fear” for those who have deeply held religious beliefs about what they could say in the public square, said Rev. Dr. Andrew Bennett, who works at the public policy think tank Cardus.

“Often, religious people privatize their faith because they’re afraid that if I speak about what I believe, in good faith, in the public square, I’m going to be cancelled, or I’m going to be shut down,” said Bennett, Cardus’s faith communities program director.

He says if a “chill” is placed on religious expression it risks marginalizing a sizable part of the population, including many new Canadians for whom “religion is not just some sort of cultural relic” but “informs all aspects of society.”

“In many cases, they’ve come here because of the religious freedom we enjoy, and so to then say to those new Canadians in particular, ‘Oh, by the way, you can’t speak about your religion publicly for fear of being censured,’ I think that’s a very bad message to send.”

Bennett said the debate raises questions of how hate is defined and what makes a hateful view “different from a peacefully-held opinion that someone might profoundly disagree with?”

In the case of Charkaoui’s comments, Marco Mendicino, a Liberal MP, said he found the call by Quebec’s Crown not to press charges against the imam “incomprehensible and deeply problematic.”

Charkaoui’s comments were “perhaps one of the most egregious offences that I have seen” he told Thursday’s committee.

Mendicino, a former prosecutor who previously served as public safety minister, also cited other examples of demonstrators chanting offensive language, including glorifying Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks.

He believes “Zionists” fit the Criminal Code’s definition of an identifiable group, which refers to “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.”

Source: Removing religion as hate speech defence worth exploring: anti-Semitism envoy

Montréal et Gatineau, l’immigration et les jeunes accélèrent le déclin du français, selon Québec

Ongoing concern one without easy solutions particularly for youth:

Malgré un maintien relatif de l’utilisation de la langue dans l’espace public, le déclin du français se poursuit, accéléré par l’immigration, par les habitudes de consommation des jeunes Québécois et par la situation à Montréal, indique le ministre de la Langue française, Jean-François Roberge.

« J’aimerais ça vous dire : “Oui, oui, c’est réglé !” Ce n’est pas le cas encore », a lancé l’élu caquiste à sa sortie du Salon bleu, mercredi, une petite heure après avoir déposé en chambre le plus récent Rapport sur l’évolution de la situation linguistique de l’Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF).

Rendu public tous les cinq ans, ce document fait une revue multidisciplinaire de l’usage de la langue de Molière au Québec. On y apprend notamment que le français dans l’espace public — une statistique sur laquelle s’appuyait le commissaire à la langue française, Benoît Dubreuil, dans un rapport en septembre — a très légèrement reculé entre 2007 (79,1 %) et 2022 (78,7 %).

Il y est aussi relevé que la proportion de personnes travaillant principalement en français est passée de 81,8 % en 2001 à 79,9 % 20 ans plus tard, en 2021. Sur la même période, l’anglais a progressé, passant de 12,3 % à 14 %.

Accosté par la presse parlementaire, mercredi, le ministre Roberge a tenu à rappeler qu’il « y a plusieurs indicateurs à surveiller ». « Tant mieux s’il y a des secteurs où on recule moins, où on a atteint un certain plateau, mais il reste qu’on n’a pas arrêté le déclin encore », a-t-il dit.

Trois « fractures »

L’élu caquiste a cerné « trois enjeux en particulier » dans le dossier du français. Il cite au premier chef la « fracture régionale » qui existe entre Montréal, Gatineau et le reste du Québec. Selon l’OQLF, 59,5 % des Montréalais s’exprimaient en français lorsqu’ils étaient à l’extérieur de la maison en 2022. Ce chiffre s’élevait à 63 % à Gatineau.

« On voit que Montréal et Gatineau sont des régions où il y a un écart très, très grand par rapport au reste du Québec », a soulevé M. Roberge mercredi.

Selon le rapport de l’OQLF, « la proportion de personnes parlant principalement le français à la maison a diminué dans chacune des RMR [régions métropolitaines de recensement] du Québec » de 2016 et 2021. « Cette diminution a cependant été plus prononcée sur l’île de Montréal, dans la couronne de Montréal et dans la RMR de Gatineau qu’ailleurs au Québec », peut-on lire.

« Maintenant, en ce moment, avec l’arrivée massive de travailleurs temporaires et de demandeurs d’asile, c’est sûr que ç’a un impact », a déclaré M. Roberge. Aux dernières nouvelles, plus de 560 000 immigrants non permanents résidaient au Québec, dont une part importante dans la région métropolitaine de Montréal.

Les données de l’OQLF montrent par ailleurs que tout près d’un tiers (31,6 %) des résidents non permanents ne parviennent pas à entretenir une conversation en français. « C’est une autre ligne de fracture », a lancé M. Roberge mercredi.

« Je l’ai nommé, je vais le redire encore aussi : quand on accueille 30 000, 35 000 étudiants non québécois anglophones au centre-ville de Montréal, qui après ont des emplois étudiants, ça aussi, ça contribue à angliciser les milieux de travail », a-t-il ajouté.

Beaucoup d’anglais chez les jeunes

Selon M. Roberge, la dernière « fracture » est « générationnelle ». D’après une étude de l’OQLF citée dans le rapport, 55 % des jeunes qui utilisent les réseaux sociaux affirment publier leur contenu « soit autant en français qu’en anglais, soit principalement en anglais ».

« Même parmi les jeunes francophones, la part de personnes publiant principalement en français n’était pas particulièrement élevée (52 %) », écrit l’Office.

À la période des questions à Ottawa, mercredi, le chef du Bloc québécois, Yves-François Blanchet, a reproché au premier ministre canadien, Justin Trudeau, d’« affaiblir le français », notamment chez les jeunes, avec ses politiques linguistiques. « On est préoccupés par le déclin du français qu’on voit à travers le pays, y compris au Québec », a rétorqué M. Trudeau, tout en affirmant que « ce n’est pas la minorité anglophone qui est une menace pour le français au Québec ».

Le ministre Roberge, qui a déposé le mois dernier un plan d’action visant à renverser le déclin de la langue, espère quant à lui « changer l’environnement » culturel des jeunes Québécois.

« Un jeune qui a 15, 16, 17 ans, s’il baigne dans un environnement culturel anglophone, bien il a plus de chances, évidemment, d’utiliser l’anglais au quotidien, de publier sur les réseaux sociaux en anglais, a-t-il soutenu mercredi. Quand il ouvre la télé, il n’ouvre pas la télé traditionnelle. Il va aller sur Netflix, il va aller sur Disney, il va aller sur toutes les plateformes de diffusion en continu. »

Alerté par un comité indépendant des risques pour la santé du français du manque de « découvrabilité » des contenus francophones, le gouvernement de François Legault s’est engagé, au début de l’année, à déposer un projet de loi pour forcer les plateformes numériques à mettre en avant davantage de contenus du Québec. « On va faire flèche de tout bois », avait affirmé en janvier le ministre de la Culture et des Communications, Mathieu Lacombe.

Plan d’action

Voilà deux ans presque jour pour jour que le gouvernement de la Coalition avenir Québec a adopté la loi 96. Cette vaste réforme de la loi 101 agit dans plusieurs sphères, avec pour objectif de protéger la langue française.

Le mois dernier, le ministre Roberge a rendu public le résultat des travaux du Groupe d’action pour l’avenir de la langue française. Dans son plan d’action, le gouvernement Legault s’engage à rehausser les fonds pour la francisation, à légiférer dans le domaine de la culture et à renforcer les exigences de français imposées aux nouveaux arrivants, entre autres.

« Donnons-nous le temps d’implanter nos mesures et de voir ce qu’elles vont changer. Si on doit aller plus loin, on le fera », a dit M. Roberge mercredi.

Interrogé au moment du dépôt de son plan d’action, l’élu caquiste avait refusé de se fixer un échéancier d’inversion du déclin du français. « Je pense qu’on va [l’]inverser […] très rapidement », avait-il dit.

Source: Montréal et Gatineau, l’immigration et les jeunes accélèrent le déclin du français, selon Québec