Tasha Kheiriddin: Young people are taught to hate Canada. Mandatory service could fix that

Inspired by Sunak? How realistic is this given federal government implementation challenges? And is the situation that dire anyway? Silos unfortunately are hard to dismantle in an era of social media and algorithms that accentuate division.

Agree that much of today’s content is unbalanced, as much of earlier content was as well. But emphasis on the negative parts of our history needs to be balanced by recognition of progress, along with an appreciation of context.

After all, today’s “woke warriors” will likely find their positions viewed differently over time:

…Just a basic Canadian? What is that, anyway?

What indeed. It is time that we actively revive our sense of patriotism and national pride. That we honour the values that make us great, that have drawn millions of people to our shores.

And it is urgent, on so many fronts. The world is once again a hostile place. Our allies are under attack, from Eastern Europe to the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific. We are deluding ourselves if we don’t think that somewhere down the line, we are going to have to fight for our country too.

Maybe if young people got a taste of what it is to serve their country, they would want to defend it. Maybe if they volunteered in the armed forces, in charities, in public service, they would want to build our country, instead of tearing it down. But it’s up to us, to take the lead and make it happen.

Source: Tasha Kheiriddin: Young people are taught to hate Canada. Mandatory service could fix that

Keller: The latest unintended consequence of Liberal immigration policy

The latest from Keller, raising legitimate fears on the possible impact on public support for immigration. No win for the government as any measures they take will be opposed by activists on the left and conservatives on the right:

….The Liberals are under pressure from left-wing groups to offer many of them citizenship. But doing so would set a precedent, and open a Pandora’s Box of consequences.

It would encourage aspiring immigrants who do not qualify for the limited number of permanent residency spots to simply ignore the expiry of their work or student visas and remain in the country, pending amnesty. Ditto failed refugee claimants. Ditto people who overstay a tourist visa.

It would reinforce the growing impression, which student and worker recruiters around the world are selling, that crossing the Canadian border, by whatever means, is a smooth road to Canadian citizenship.

But for the Trudeau government, the most compelling reason to tread carefully in this area may be political. Canadian citizenship as a reward for flouting immigration law is going to tick off a lot of Canadians. I suspect the most hardboiled and unapologetic will be those people who queued up, followed the rules and entered during daylight hours: immigrants.

Source: The latest unintended consequence of Liberal immigration policy

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 Mail, National Post, Toronto 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 density, fertility, sexual 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 16, 11, eight, four, 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