…Even for a Canadian who couldn’t understand more than the odd Hebrew word, it was electric.When I messaged the woman in Toronto who had let me know about the choir to tell her how profound I found the performance, Bonnie Goldberg shared some notes she wrote after her own experience.
“If the Rana Choir of Muslim, Jewish and Christian women, can find their common voice,” she wrote, “why can’t my former friends who shunned me find their way back to be my friend?”
This shunning in the diaspora has gone from shocking to almost familiar: friendships torn apart, mezuzahs ripped from doorways. For Israel, the shunning is existential, with people around the world using their platforms to question its legitimacy. Does Israel even deserve to exist?
It was, I have to say, a relief over those 10 days to not be confronted with antisemitism and a prevailing anti-Israel sentiment. There are political arguments and debates here – very heated – but at least you can skip past the should-Israel-even-exist question.
It was also a relief to meet with so many Israelis who are fighting for justice for Palestinians, while also acknowledging the trauma of Oct. 7.
It was never lost on me – visiting art museums, strolling on the beach that I had more rights as a visitor than many of the people who live here, Palestinians, have under Israeli control. I was not able to visit Gaza, obviously. Nor was I able to get to the West Bank. But I didn’t need to go there to know, with certainly, that in those places, there is a lot less of that thing I had been searching for.
Didn’t watch the debate but this is a good summary and a demonstration of the need for such debates and discussion:
…“The single worst legacy of the Trudeau administration,” Kenney argued, “was taking a broad pro-immigration consensus and turning it on its head.”
Coyne did not meaningfully dispute that diagnosis. He did not defend the student visa explosion, the asylum surge, or the erosion of system integrity. Where the two men diverged was not on whether the system had failed, but on how much the failure should reshape Canada’s approach going forward.
The applause at the end suggested that more people in the room sided with Kenney. But the deeper victory belonged to the debate itself.
Immigration remains a pillar of Canadian life. But pillars require maintenance, which will always mean hard work. A system that cannot bear scrutiny cannot be corrected.
Canada is finally relearning how to argue about immigration without resorting to xenophobia or division, or accusing those arguing of doing so. One gets the sense that debate is essential if we want to avoid sliding into the heated, divisive rifts we see opening up south of the border and in much of continental Europe. Debating these serious policies with respect is a sign of civic maturity, and it’s essential that we continue to do so.
A confident country can argue about its future without fearing the argument; hopefully, this Hub debate is a sign Canada is still that country.
Good calling out of the hypocrisy of the anti-woke when it comes to their betrayal of liberal beliefs in the age of authoritarian Trump and his policies:
…While Quillette’s liberal editorial mission has never really changed, executing it became more complicated during the COVID pandemic—especially once vaccinesbecame available. When heated and pressurised under lockdown, the same sort of free-thinking scepticism that fuels heterodox political thought, it turns out, can readily blur into conspiracism and junk science. A prominent example is Bret Weinstein, the one-time Quillette academic darling who began telling Americans that COVID vaccines had, according to one “credible estimate,” caused “something like 17 million deaths globally.” (In fact, the figure represents a passable ballpark estimate of the number of lives that such vaccines have saved.)
Even in ultra-progressive Canada, where this sort of conspiracism is less common, I’ve seen a number of prominent anti-wokesters go down similar rabbit holes. And though it’s been years since the pandemic ended, not all of them have found their way back to the surface.
Following a recent speech I gave to a free-thinking Toronto crowd, the organiser felt moved to explain to attendees that it was important to hear “diverse views.” This was a diplomatic reference to my (poorly received) observation that many self-described heterodox intellectuals who cheer on my opposition to trans-activist pseudoscience will also insist (falsely) that COVID vaccines don’t work and (also falsely) that anthropogenic global warming is a myth. Science isn’t a buffet where you get to pick and choose what proven truths to accept, I told them. Few in the crowd looked convinced.
Another major schism within our liberal movement has centred on Donald Trump and conservative populism more generally. Trump’s second presidency, in particular, has accelerated the ongoing process by which critics of progressive illiberalism have been self-organising into two separate camps—(1) one that continues to oppose illiberalism of all flavours (that’s us), and (2) another that’s just fine with authoritarian political creeds, so long as the authoritarians come from the conservative side of the aisle.
If the goal is to get rid of DEI and throw men off women’s college sports teams, members of this latter Trump-friendly faction reason, why bother with the hard intellectual slog of staging “heterodox” academic conferences and writing long essays about Martin Luther King Jr., Areopagitica, and the nature of human sexual biology? Just elect a strongman who tells university presidents and athletic directors what to do, on pain of losing their government cash. Problem solved.
…While the University of Austin is just one institution, it serves as a bellwether of the whole anti-woke project more generally—having been conceived as a sort of model liberal project by some of the leading lights of this movement. Its board of trustees includes historian Niall Ferguson and journalist Bari Weiss, while the board of advisors boasts Eric Kaufmann, economists Glenn Loury and Tyler Cowen, and famed evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. Harvard professor Steven Pinker was also an early advisor; as was social scientist Jonathan Haidt (a founder of the staunchly liberal-minded Heterodox Academy)—though both have since departed. Every one of these people has been featured by Quillette at one time or another, either as author or podcast guest. It says a lot about the stormy seas that liberals now face that even a once-impeccably liberal organisation such as this can begin listing to starboard just four years out of the shipyard.
I find these developments not just politically disturbing, but also personally disappointing. Not so long ago, I imagined that the coalition of plucky liberal gadflies that began countering illiberal progressivism at around the time I began working for Quillette could be sustained indefinitely—and perhaps even solidify into a durable movement that would become my long-term political home. (I’ve never had one, and it would be nice if I finally did.) But that’s now been exposed as an exercise in wishful thinking.
O’Sullivan’s Law and Quillette’s Law (I promise that’s the last time I’ll use the phrase) both describe ideologically centrifugal forces—driving people away, in opposite directions, from the liberal democratic baseline that I’d always taken for granted as the natural resting point for mainstream intellectual life. Battling against illiberalism from both sides at the same time can feel like a lonely and hopeless intellectual project. But absent the emergence of some third law that will deliver me from my labours, I see no principled alternative.
Bouchard still going strong with his pointed critique:
Des restrictions non justifiées. Le nouveau projet de loi sur la laïcité contient des mesures bienvenues, notamment la fin des exemptions en faveur des écoles privées. Mais d’autres mesures font problème parce que leur justification n’est pas démontrée. Où sont les études qui précisent le nombre d’éducatrices en CPE et en garderies subventionnées qui portent le hidjab ? Ou des études qui établissent que cette pratique perturbe les enfants ? Qui dénombrent les femmes exerçant leurs activités à visage couvert dans les institutions publiques ? Qui évaluent rigoureusement l’ampleur du problème des prières en public ?
Vous dites, Monsieur Legault, qu’il vaut mieux prévenir que guérir. La religion musulmane au Québec serait donc un fléau en dormance ? Et la bonne façon de s’en protéger serait de resserrer des mesures déjà très restrictives ? Vous ne craignez pas de favoriser ainsi ce que vous prétendez prévenir ?
Un terrain mal connu. Contre quoi précisément entendez-vous nous protéger ? Voit-on les signes d’un grave problème islamiste au Québec ? Observe-t-on des manifestations de haine, des mouvements de rue, de la violence ? Que savons-nous exactement de la situation, de l’humeur de cette minorité ? De l’état de la foi et de la pratique ? De son attitude envers l’intégration ? Des tendances qui la traversent ou la divisent ? Est-elle aussi homogène que vous le croyez ? Que savons-nous de ses dispositions envers notre société ? Sont-elles marquées par l’agressivité, le retranchement ? Je parle ici de connaissances et non de stéréotypes ou de rumeurs nées d’épisodes montés en épingle.
Pourtant, en cette matière tout particulièrement, il importerait de bien connaître le terrain sur lequel vous intervenez. Ce n’est pas le cas. Vous vous laissez guider surtout par la boussole électorale.
Des contradictions. Votre démarche est plombée par des contradictions qui révèlent un étrange bricolage. En voici deux exemples. Les signes religieux et les lieux de prière sont interdits dans les universités. Cependant, une chapelle catholique située sur le campus de l’Université Laval restera ouverte. Motif ? Ce serait un « milieu de vie » isolé à l’image des prisons et des CHSLD ! S’il s’agissait d’une petite mosquée, aurait-elle droit à la même indulgence ?
Votre gouvernement entend légiférer dans les écoles privées à vocation religieuse. Mais en respectant quelques conditions, elles continueront néanmoins à être financées par l’État (coût en 2024 : 160 millions de dollars, ce que M. Drainville a fièrement qualifié de « compromis historique »). Ici, c’est donc l’ensemble de l’école qui sera elle-même religieuse. Où est la logique ?
De la retenue. Notre société a été jusqu’ici épargnée par les conflits religieux. Mais la réalité internationale enseigne que le sujet doit être traité avec prudence et lucidité. Il faut se garder d’initiatives dont on n’a mesuré ni la pertinence ni le potentiel d’effets nocifs.
Élargissons la perspective. Des études québécoises montrent que la majorité des immigrants désirent s’intégrer et nourrissent une vision favorable de notre société. Mais ces travaux semblent ignorés. J’ai à l’esprit la déclaration d’un de vos ministres de l’Immigration se désolant de ce que les immigrants refusent de travailler, méprisent nos valeurs, rejettent le français, etc.
Cette vision reflète-t-elle la réalité ? Donne-t-elle le goût du Québec ? Inspire-t-elle confiance en votre gouvernement ?
De l’inconséquence. Sous prétexte de fermeté et de vigilance, ne craignez-vous pas de faire mal au Québec en semant les graines d’un vrai problème qui mettrait un grand désordre dans notre vie collective ? Avez-vous une pensée pour la réaction des jeunes musulmans d’aujourd’hui quand ils auront pris conscience des effets que vos politiques à courte vue auront provoqués ? Curieusement, votre projet de loi est pourtant présenté sous l’affiche de la « paix sociale » — j’ai lu aussi : « apaiser le climat social ». Étrange médecine. Et ce climat serait donc présentement turbulent ?
Monsieur Legault, vous avez opté pour la méthode forte avec votre laïcité répressive. Peut-être pourriez-vous jeter un coup d’œil du côté de la France pour voir ce qu’il en est ? On constate aujourd’hui chez les jeunes musulmans français qu’au lieu de s’intégrer, ils se replient sur un islam plus radical que celui de leurs parents.
Il y a plus. Selon des études fiables, un grand nombre de jeunes écoliers québécois manifestent beaucoup d’ouverture en matière de diversité ethnique et religieuse. Comment réagiront-ils à vos initiatives ? Leur disposition sera-t-elle ébranlée ? Vous apprêtez-vous à compromettre une importante avancée de notre système scolaire ?
Une phobie du religieux. Je ne comprends pas pourquoi il faut interdire le port du hidjab à une étudiante universitaire, une adulte agissant selon des convictions profondes, en conformité avec le droit consacré par notre charte et qui ne porte préjudice à personne — sauf à ceux et celles que la seule vue d’un signe religieux indispose. C’est pour moi l’exemple le plus frappant d’une violation arbitraire d’un droit fondamental. Réalisez-vous que, ce faisant, vous encouragez l’hostilité non seulement envers les signes religieux, mais envers le religieux lui-même ? Et ce n’est pas un n’est pas un croyant qui vous en fait reproche, c’est un athée tout simplement respectueux du droit.
J’ai peine aussi à comprendre que les manifestations et rassemblements publics à caractère social, culturel ou politique sont admis, mais non ceux qui ont une connotation religieuse. Cet interdit ne relève-t-il pas d’une phobie du religieux, tout comme l’interdiction du hidjab chez les éducatrices de la petite enfance ?
Et tout ça, pour quoi au fond ? Pour tenter de refaire votre image en vue de la prochaine élection ? Cet objectif justifierait les sensibilités que vous allez heurter, les préjugés que vous allez remuer, les divisions que vous risquez de créer ?
Apparemment, « c’est comme ça qu’on fonctionne au Québec ». Et les droits ? Ils ne feraient pas partie de notre fonctionnement eux aussi ?
Éviter l’autre extrême. Cela dit, évitons tout malentendu. Il faut évidemment se garder de la naïveté. Je crois que des garde-fous s’imposent — nous l’avons vu dans le cas de l’école Bedford. Mais leur mise en place doit être arbitrée par la mesure, la clairvoyance et la sagesse.
Unjustified restrictions. The new bill on secularism contains welcome measures, including the end of exemptions for private schools. But other measures are problematic because their justification is not demonstrated. Where are the studies that specify the number of educators in CPE and subsidized daycare centers who wear the hijab? Or studies that establish that this practice disturbs children? Who counts women carrying out their activities with their faces covered in public institutions? Who rigorously assess the extent of the problem of public prayers?
You say, Mr. Legault, that prevention is better than cure. Would the Muslim religion in Quebec therefore be a dormant scourge? And the right way to protect yourself from it would be to tighten already very restrictive measures? Are you not afraid to favor what you claim to prevent?
A poorly known terrain. What exactly do you intend to protect us against? Do we see signs of a serious Islamist problem in Quebec? Do we observe manifestations of hatred, street movements, violence? What exactly do we know about the situation, the mood of this minority? The state of faith and practice? Of his attitude towards integration? Trends that cross it or divide it? Is it as homogeneous as you think? What do we know about his dispositions towards our society? Are they marked by aggressiveness, entrenchment? I’m talking here about acquaintances and not stereotypes or rumors born of episodes edited in pins.
However, in this matter in particular, it would be important to know the field in which you intervene. This is not the case. You let yourself be guided above all by the electoral compass.
Contradictions. Your approach is weighed down by contradictions that reveal a strange DIY. Here are two examples. Religious signs and places of prayer are prohibited in universities. However, a Catholic chapel located on the Université Laval campus will remain open. Reason? It would be an isolated “liveing environment” like prisons and CHSLDs! If it were a small mosque, would it be entitled to the same indulgence?
Your government intends to legislate in private schools with a religious vocation. But by meeting some conditions, they will nevertheless continue to be financed by the State (cost in 2024: $160 million, which Mr. Drainville proudly described it as a “historic compromise”). Here, it is therefore the whole school that will itself be religious. Where is the logic?
Restraint. Our society has so far been spared from religious conflicts. But the international reality teaches that the subject must be treated with caution and lucidity. We must beware of initiatives whose relevance or potential for harmful effects has not been measured.
Let’s expand the perspective. Quebec studies show that the majority of immigrants want to integrate and have a favorable view of our society. But this work seems to be ignored. I have in mind the statement of one of your Ministers of Immigration regretting that immigrants refuse to work, despise our values, reject French, etc.
Does this vision reflect reality? Does it give the taste of Quebec? Does it inspire confidence in your government?
Inconsistency. Under the pretext of firmness and vigilance, aren’t you afraid of hurting Quebec by sowing the seeds of a real problem that would put a great mess in our collective life? Do you have a thought for the reaction of today’s young Muslims when they become aware of the effects that your short-sighted policies will have caused? Curiously, your bill is nevertheless presented under the poster of “social peace” – I also read: “appease the social climate”. Strange medicine. And this climate would therefore be turbulent at the moment?
Mr. Legault, you have opted for the strong method with your repressive secularism. Maybe you could take a look at France to see what’s going on? We see today among young French Muslims that instead of integrating, they fall back on a more radical Islam than that of their parents.
There is more. According to reliable studies, a large number of young Quebec schoolchildren show a lot of openness in terms of ethnic and religious diversity. How will they react to your initiatives? Will their disposition be shaken? Are you about to compromise an important advance in our school system?
A phobia of the religious. I do not understand why the wearing of the hijab should be prohibited to a university student, an adult acting according to deep convictions, in accordance with the law enshrined in our charter and who does not harm anyone – except those whom the mere sight of a religious sign indisposed. For me, this is the most striking example of an arbitrary violation of a fundamental right. Do you realize that, in doing so, you encourage hostility not only towards religious signs, but towards the religious himself? And it is not a believer who reproaches you, it is simply an atheist who respects the law.
I also find it difficult to understand that public demonstrations and gatherings of a social, cultural or political nature are allowed, but not those with a religious connotation. Isn’t this prohibition a phobia of the religious, just like the prohibition of the hijab among early childhood educators?
And all this, for what basically? To try to remake your image for the next election? Would this objective justify the sensitivities that you will offend, the prejudices that you will stir, the divisions that you risk creating?
Apparently, “that’s how we work in Quebec”. And the rights? Wouldn’t they be part of our operation too?
Avoid the other extreme. That said, let’s avoid any misunderstanding. We must obviously beware of naivety. I believe that safeguards are necessary – we have seen it in the case of Bedford School. But their implementation must be arbitrated by measure, foresight and wisdom.
The controversial Victims of Communism memorial in downtown Ottawa will no longer feature the names of specific individuals after federal officials determined a significant number could be linked to the Nazis.
The memorial, located near the corner of Wellington and Bay streets, was intended to honour those who suffered under communism.
But concerns have been raised over the years by Jewish organizations and historians that names of eastern Europeans who collaborated with the Nazis in the Holocaust have been put forward in an attempt to whitewash their past.
The Ottawa Citizen reported in 2024 that the Department of Canadian Heritage was told by historians that more than half of the 550 names to be inscribed on the Memorial to the Victims of Communism should be removed. The reason was because of potential links to the Nazis or questions about affiliations with fascist groups.
As originally planned, there were to be 553 entries on the memorial’s Wall of Remembrance.
Canadian Heritage has now reversed course on inscribing specific names. “The Government of Canada has emphasized that all aspects of the Memorial to the Victims of Communism must align with Canadian values of democracy and human rights,” department spokesperson Caroline Czajkowski said in an email. “The Wall of Remembrance will now solely feature thematic content that conveys the broader commemorative and educational intent of the Memorial.”
Czajkowski noted “there is currently no set timeline for the completion of the thematic content.”
She declined to say what exactly the department meant by “thematic content.”
But federal documents show that government officials had suggested one way out of the controversy over the Nazi names would be to drop honouring specific individuals and instead focus on various themes or points of history. Those could include events such as the fall of the Berlin Wall and the arrival of the Vietnamese refugees to Canada….
We will see how this works in practice and whether it is enforced:
Heurter des convictions, des croyances ou des visions du monde, c’est le propre de la liberté d’expression. C’est par la réprobation sociale, et non le risque de poursuite et d’emprisonnement, qu’une société démocratique respectueuse de l’équilibre entre les droits fondamentaux vient à bout des discours fiévreux et orageux.
Le Bloc québécois a souvent demandé aux libéraux d’en faire plus pour que la foi ne soit plus utilisée comme une excuse pour tenir des propos haineux. La formation s’appuyait notamment sur l’aversion suscitée par les propos d’un prédicateur incendiaire, Adil Charkaoui, qui implorait le Tout-Puissant de se charger des « sionistes agresseurs », au lendemain de l’invasion de la bande de Gaza par l’armée israélienne. « Assure-toi de n’en laisser aucun », disait-il. Il en appelait aussi à « recenser et exterminer » tous les « ennemis du peuple de Gaza ». Le Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales (DPCP) n’y avait pas trouvé matière à déposer des accusations.
Les débordements et les excès de langage qui ont accompagné les manifestations pro-palestiennes, en particulier sur les campus universitaires, ont grandement influencé la teneur du débat entourant le projet de loi visant à lutter contre la haine. L’affichage de signes ou de symboles associés à des groupes inscrits sur la liste des entités terroristes sera désormais passible de poursuites, au même titre que le blocage des lieux de culte. La montée en force de l’antisémitisme a de quoi inquiéter, et elle doit être dénoncée avec vigueur.
La fin de l’exception religieuse dans le Code criminel marquera sûrement une nouvelle ère, et suivra une nouvelle jurisprudence de la Cour suprême, ultime arbitre de ces questions. Qui sait ce que le DPCP ferait des propos de Charkaoui avec ces nouvelles balises à sa disposition ?
Il n’en demeure pas moins qu’il y a des risques à baisser le seuil en vertu duquel un discours peut être qualifié comme haineux. C’est une porte ouverte à disposer de la question selon l’humeur politique du moment. La loi procurera de nouveaux outils d’intervention aux forces policières, mais seront-elles outillées pour s’en servir ? Départager la véritable haine de la croyance religieuse abêtie, dans ce nouveau contexte, exigera une analyse minutieuse. L’épreuve de la réalité viendra assez vite, car la véritable mesure de succès d’une loi (et son utilité) réside dans la capacité des pouvoirs publics de la faire respecter, sans engendrer de situations arbitraires.
To hit convictions, beliefs or visions of the world is the characteristic of freedom of expression. It is through social reprobation, and not the risk of prosecution and imprisonment, that a democratic society that respects the balance between fundamental rights overcomes feverish and stormy speeches.
The Bloc Québécois has often asked liberals to do more so that faith is no longer used as an excuse for making hate speech. The formation was based in particular on the aversion aroused by the words of an incendiary preacher, Adil Charkaoui, who implored the Almighty to take charge of the “Aggressive Sionists”, the day after the invasion of the Gaza Strip by the Israeli army. ” Make sure you don’t leave any,” he said. He also called for the “identification and extermination” of all the “enemies of the people of Gaza”. The Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP) had not found reason to file charges.
The overflows and excesses of language that accompanied the pro-Palestian demonstrations, especially on university campuses, greatly influenced the content of the debate surrounding the bill to combat hatred. The display of signs or symbols associated with groups on the list of terrorist entities will now be subject to prosecution, as will the blocking of places of worship. The rise of anti-Semitism is worrying, and it must be vigorously denounced.
The end of the religious exception in the Criminal Code will surely mark a new era, and will follow a new jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of these issues. Who knows what the DPCP would do about Charkaoui’s remarks with these new beacons at its disposal?
Nevertheless, there are risks to lower the threshold by virtue of which a speech can be described as hateful. It is an open door to dispose of the question according to the political mood of the moment. The law will provide new intervention tools for police forces, but will they be equipped to use them? Parting the true hatred of the dazed religious belief, in this new context, will require a careful analysis. The test of reality will come quite quickly, because the real measure of success of a law (and its usefulness) lies in the ability of the public authorities to enforce it, without generating arbitrary situations.
Ailleurs dans le monde, des officiers religieux sont accusés, et parfois condamnés, pour ce genre de propos. En Belgique, au Danemark, en France, en Allemagne, en Suisse, pasteurs et imams savent que la tenue de propos extrêmes, même dans leurs temples, même en citant leurs dieux, peut avoir des conséquences, non seulement pour les cibles de leur haine, mais aussi pour leur propre liberté. Partout, ils peuvent plaider la liberté d’expression et la liberté de religion. Partout, les juges doivent mettre ces libertés dans la balance. Pas au Canada. Au Canada, l’exception sert de bouclier impénétrable pour la haine religieuse.
Elle n’est pas fréquente. En fait, rarissime. Élevé dans le catholicisme, je n’ai jamais entendu un curé citer les passages de la Bible susmentionnés. Les textes sacrés offrent aux célébrants le choix des thèmes, et la plupart choisissent d’en tirer des appels à la fraternité, à la compassion et à l’entraide. C’est pourquoi nous avons des religions apaisées. Mais aux religieux qui ne le sont pas, je ne vois pas pourquoi on donnerait le bon Dieu sans confession.
Elsewhere in the world, religious officers are accused, and sometimes convicted, for this kind of statement. In Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Switzerland, pastors and imams know that holding extreme remarks, even in their temples, even by quoting their gods, can have consequences, not only for the targets of their hatred, but also for their own freedom. Everywhere, they can plead for freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Everywhere, judges must put these freedoms in the balance. Not in Canada. In Canada, the exception serves as an impenetrable shield for religious hatred.
It is not frequent. In fact, very rare. Raised in Catholicism, I have never heard a parish priest quote the aforementioned passages of the Bible. The sacred texts offer the celebrants the choice of themes, and most choose to draw calls for brotherhood, compassion and mutual help. That’s why we have peaceful religions. But to the religious who are not, I do not see why we would give the good God without confession.
Baber’s impassioned performance at the justice committee made the case that stripping the religious defence was more likely to criminalize faith than combat hate.
He pointed out that the religious defence has never been used to acquit a defendant accused of public incitement of hatred. “When we start going down the road of criminalizing more and more speech, we kill free speech,” he said.
The Bloc amendment was aimed at separating religion from the state. But Baber said “everyday Canadians” should not have to fear quoting religious scripture. “That is definitely not something the state should engage in.”
He said the problem the Bloc is trying to solve in the Criminal Code does not exist.
Baber pointed out that the religious defence does not apply to the Section 318 of the Criminal Code on advocating genocide. Nor does it apply to the public incitement of hatred.
Proponents of removing the religious defence have pointed to controversial imam Adil Charkaoui who at a pro-Palestinian rally in Quebec in 2023 made a call “to kill the enemies of the people of Gaza” and “take care of Zionist aggressors.” However, the decision not to charge Charkaoui turned on the basic threshold of incitement to hatred, not on the religious defence.
“I’m so tired that there is no nuance in this place,” Baber told the committee.
“For goodness sakes, look at how much money we’re spending and there’s no professional thought. We’ve got to inject a little bit more professionalism into politics.
“You don’t need a fancy lawyer, you need someone to read the section. The problem you (the Bloc) are trying to solve does not exist. You cannot defend yourself with a religious exemption after inciting hatred or inciting violence. I implore you to please not do this.”
But, of course, the Liberals and the Bloc teamed up, and they did.
My takeaway from the gruelling hours of testimony at the committee was that the government made a Faustian bargain to gain passage of their bill.
They won, but it was not a clean win.
The removal of the religious exemption may well prove to be an assault on freedom of expression if misused, and its impact will have to be watched closely.
The Liberals will claim victory but if they rack up more wins like this, they will be ruined.
Parmi les renvois exécutés cette année, 841 dossiers entraient dans la catégorie des cas « graves » : sécurité nationale, crimes de guerre, violations des droits de la personne, crime organisé et criminalité. Le reste des expulsions portaient sur des motifs liés au statut migratoire et à l’application de la Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés.
Sur les 19 000 renvois, 4823 personnes ont été retournées aux États-Unis.
Pour l’ensemble des personnes expulsées par le Canada, le Mexique, l’Inde et Haïti sont les pays de citoyenneté les plus représentés. Suivent la Colombie, la Roumanie, les États-Unis et le Venezuela.
Une mesure d’expulsion est exécutoire dès que tous les recours ont été utilisés et qu’aucune suspension n’est en vigueur.
Recul des demandes d’asile
Pendant ce temps, au Québec, les demandes d’asile ont plongé de 30 %.
Entre janvier et novembre, l’ASFC a traité 20 752 demandes d’asile, contre 29 668 demandes, au cours de la même période, l’an dernier.
Cette baisse ne reflète toutefois pas l’ensemble du système d’asile, puisque des demandes sont plutôt évaluées par Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté Canada (IRCC).
Selon les données les plus récentes, au 25 septembre, 31 875 demandes avaient été traitées au Québec, contre 45 530 à la même date, un an plus tôt, soit une baisse de 30 %.
À l’échelle canadienne, 89 380 demandes avaient été enregistrées, contre 132 455 l’année précédente, une chute de 32,5 %.
Un cas isolé
Au chapitre des entrées irrégulières, aucun signe de hausse, assure Miguel Bégin, directeur du district frontière Est.
« Au niveau des entrées illégales, il n’y a pas de tendance actuellement qui démontre une augmentation », a-t-il déclaré à La Presse.
L’affaire des 44 migrants découverts dans un camion cube sans ventilation à Stanstead, en août, demeure selon lui un cas isolé1.
« C’était effectivement un réseau de passeurs qui avait recruté toutes ces personnes-là, qui avaient payé pour entrer au Canada. Elles ont presque toutes été retournées aux États-Unis. S’il y en a qui sont restées, il n’y en a vraiment pas beaucoup. C’est vraiment très, très minime par rapport à la totalité du groupe. On parle probablement de moins de 5 personnes sur le groupe de 44 personnes. »
Moins de voyageurs
Entre janvier et octobre, l’ASFC a accueilli un peu plus de 70 millions de voyageurs, comparativement à 80,5 millions en 2024, une baisse de 12 % toutes catégories confondues : Canadiens, touristes, immigrants temporaires.
« On a observé une diminution du nombre des voyageurs cette année, surtout les voyageurs canadiens. On a suivi l’évolution, surtout en période estivale, parce que c’est là où on a nos plus gros volumes », explique M. Bégin.
Among the referrals executed this year, 841 cases fall into the category of “serious” cases: national security, war crimes, human rights violations, organized crime and crime. The rest of the deportations were on grounds related to immigration status and the application of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Of the 19,000 returns, 4823 people were returned to the United States.
For all people expelled by Canada, Mexico, India and Haiti are the most represented countries of citizenship. Followed by Colombia, Romania, the United States and Venezuela.
An expulsion measure is enforceable as soon as all remedies have been used and no suspension is in force.
Detrain of asylum applications
Meanwhile, in Quebec, asylum applications fell by 30%.
Between January and November, the CBSA processed 20,752 asylum applications, compared to 29,668 applications during the same period last year.
However, this decline does not reflect the entire asylum system, since applications are instead assessed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).
According to the most recent data, as of September 25, 31,875 applications had been processed in Quebec, compared to 45,530 on the same date, a year earlier, a decrease of 30%.
At the Canadian level, 89,380 applications were registered, compared to 132,455 in the previous year, a drop of 32.5%.
An isolated case
In terms of irregular entries, there are no signs of an increase, says Miguel Bégin, director of the East border district.
“In terms of illegal entries, there is currently no trend that shows an increase,” he told La Presse.
The case of the 44 migrants discovered in a cubic truck without ventilation in Stanstead in August remains an isolated case, according to him1.
“It was indeed a network of smugglers who had recruited all those people, who had paid to enter Canada. Almost all of them were returned to the United States. If there are those who have stayed, there are really not many. It’s really very, very minimal compared to the entire group. We are probably talking about less than 5 people out of the group of 44 people. ”
Fewer travelers
Between January and October, the CBSA welcomed just over 70 million travelers, compared to 80.5 million in 2024, a decrease of 12% in all categories: Canadians, tourists, temporary immigrants.
“There has been a decrease in the number of travellers this year, especially Canadian travelers. We have followed the evolution, especially in the summer, because that is where we have our largest volumes, “explains Mr. Begin.
In 2023, with little fanfare and no political opposition, the federal government gave itself the power to subvert Canada’s world-renowned skilled immigration system.
That system was formerly centred on the “points system,” called the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) in its most recent incarnation.
Under the CRS, applicants for permanent residency were evaluated on their education, work experience, and language proficiency and the highest scoring applicants were admitted. The result was a continuous inflow of top talent chosen without political influence that benefited the Canadian economy and was admired by many countries (and emulated by some).
But in 2023, the government created a new category-based feature in the system. That feature gave the immigration minister the power to prioritize categories of immigrants and move them to the front of the line. A rules-based system was replaced with a discretion-based system.
The result is an opaque system that is exposed to political lobbying, looks like a lottery to prospective migrants, and squeezes out highly skilled candidates. In 2025, the leading category of immigrants under the new category-based system are francophones applying to live outside Quebec.
Contributing to Canada’s patchwork immigration system, provincial nominee programs, which give provinces the ability to prioritize groups unable to meet the standard of the points system, account for an ever-increasing share of immigrant admissions.
Admitting fewer skilled immigrants reduces our country’s productivity and tax revenue making it harder to fund social programs. It also affects Canada’s ability to attract the world’s best and brightest students to our post-secondary institutions, which are collectively reeling from plummeting international enrolment.
Under the Canadian Experience Class (CEC) program, former international students with a Canadian postsecondary credential and one year of work experience in a skilled occupation are eligible to transition to permanent resident status without leaving the country.
The CEC program’s intention is a good one – we attract whiz kids from around the world and provide them with an education that Canadian employers can easily evaluate. When this path works, it works well. International students pay high fees, lowering tuition costs for Canadians, and those who stay end up doing well in Canada’s labour markets.
However, this approach can be abused when postsecondary institutions use immigration, not education, to lure foreign students. This has contributed to the growth of low-quality programs and distorted incentives on all sides. The problem lies in policy design.
In response to unsustainable growth in Canada’s non-permanent resident population and worries about housing, healthcare and labour market effects, the government has cut international student admissions for 2026 by 50 percent.
The reduction is facing criticism from the postsecondary sector, but critics are overlooking that universities and colleges are not even reaching the quotas they have been given under the already reduced caps. New foreign student arrivals are on track to reach less than 160,000 in 2025, far below the government’s cap of 305,900.
Foreign student applications to Canada’s universities and colleges have declined dramatically because prospective students no longer see a clear path to staying in Canada. Graduate students in computer science who want to stay are being told that learning French is their best option. And they fear that when they graduate, a different arbitrary category will be the priority. The current system discourages the best foreign students from applying to Canadian postsecondary institutions and blocks many of those who graduate from remaining in Canada.
What should be done?
First, turn back the clock. Return to the immigration system that existed as recently as 2019 when immigrants were admitted through a single selection system that prioritized candidates with the highest future Canadian earnings. That system was transparent, predictable, and not easy for lobbyists to manipulate.
Second, send a clear message that Canada welcomes foreign students. At a time when our goods exporting industries face major challenges, we should promote one of our most valuable services exports – educating international students. Education is an export that is uniquely dependent on trust, as students must live in Canada to consume the product.
Third, refine the points system to better target international graduates with the best earnings prospects. This would lead to increased demand by international students for programs with high post-graduate earnings and benefit our immigration program. Demand for programs that offer low earnings returns would moderate attracting only those international students who are coming solely for the education, since these programs would provide no realistic pathway to PR status.
Canada needs immigration reform now. What we have now is a bungled system that prioritizes lobbying effort over the very real contribution that immigration can make to the Canadian economy.
David Green is a professor at the Vancouver School of Economics, Philip Oreopoulos is distinguished professor in economics at the University of Toronto. Craig Riddell is emeritus professor at the Vancouver School of Economics. Mikal Skuterud is economics professor at the University of Waterloo, and the Rogers Phillips Scholar of Social Policy at the C.D. Howe Institute and Christopher Worswick is professor of economics at Carleton University and a research fellow at the C.D. Howe Institute.
Not surprising when one looks at grandparents. Unclear how many, if any, will apply:
A group of well-known American public figures, including singer Madonna and former U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton, would become eligible to be considered Canadian citizens under a federal law passed last month that removes long-standing limits on citizenship by descent.
Bill C-3, adopted on November 20, eliminates the “first-generation limit,” a restriction introduced in 2009 that prevented Canadian citizenship from being passed to children born abroad if their Canadian parent was also born outside the country.
The change extends eligibility for citizenship to people who would previously have been ineligible, provided they have a Canadian ancestor somewhere in their lineage. Eligible candidates would need to go through an application process once the bill comes into force.
As a result, several prominent Americans with distant roots would be eligible to apply for Canadian citizenship once the law comes into force.
Madonna, who was born in Michigan and holds only U.S. citizenship, has French-Canadian ancestry through her mother’s family, which traces back to 17th-century Quebec. Under the new law, those historic ties would allow the star to apply for Canadian citizenship.
Actor Viggo Mortensen, born in New York to an American mother and Danish father, would also qualify through his maternal grandfather, who was born in Parrsboro, N.S. Mortensen currently holds U.S. and Danish citizenship.
Actress Lily Collins, born in England and raised in California, would also become eligible for Canadian citizenship based on her maternal grandfather’s birthplace in Winnipeg.
Hillary Clinton, whose French-Canadian roots stretch back to New France through her maternal line, would likewise become eligible for Canadian citizenship. Her genealogy was detailed in her 2003 memoir, which traces family ties to Quebec ancestors, including the Filles du Roi.
Musician Jack White of Detroit similarly would qualify through his paternal grandfather, who was born in Nova Scotia.
The government says the law is intended to address long-standing concerns about the first-generation rule and allow Canadian families affected by it to transmit citizenship to their children. Going forward, Canadians born abroad would be permitted to pass citizenship to their own children born outside the country, subject to a “substantial connection to Canada” test.
Although the legislation has passed, an implementation date has not been announced.
Until then, interim measures remain in place that allow individuals affected by the former limit to apply for proof of citizenship online. Applicants approved under the temporary process will not need to reapply once Bill C-3 comes into force.
…Taken together, these patterns define Canada’s distinctive condition of populism without populists: a democratic tension between demand and acceptable political expression. Canadians articulate strong grievances about elite unresponsiveness and systemic unfairnes, and yet resist leaders who adopt the rhetorical and stylistic markers of populism seen elsewhere. The appetite is for accountability and renewal, not for theatrical confrontation or institutional disruption.
For political leaders, this configuration creates a subtle but consequential hazard. Self-identifying as populist offers little reward and significant reputational risk. Canadians overwhelmingly reject figures who embody the style of American right-wing populism. At the same time, the grievances that animate populist movements elsewhere, such as distrust of elites, dissatisfaction with institutions, and perceptions of distant and unresponsive governance, are unmistakably present.
Despite this aversion to populism as a label or style, recent political developments demonstrate that Canadian politicians are increasingly being held accountable by electorates animated by populist expectations around transparency, fairness, keeping promises, follow-through, and genuine influence. Leadership challenges, caucus revolts, and relentless scrutiny signal tensions between authority and responsiveness.
This is the inconvenient democratic reality confronting Canada’s political class. Politicians of all stripes are being held accountable by voters who expect to be heard, respected, and acted upon. Parties should be reminded that in the end, those who govern must answer to those who elected them.
Multicultural Meanderings 