Transition to permanent residency and retention of temporary foreign workers in accommodation and food services and food manufacturing

Of note, clear difference between lower and higher skilled:

Temporary foreign workers with lower-skill occupations transition to permanent residency at a lower rate than those with higher-skill occupations and study permit holders in the accommodation and food services industry 

The study “Temporary foreign workers with lower-skill occupations in the accommodation and food services industry: Transition to permanent residency and industrial retention after transition” found that 29% of TFWs with lower-skill occupations who entered the accommodation and food services industry from 2010 to 2014 became permanent residents by their fifth year working in the industry. The rates were higher for TFWs with higher-skill occupations (45%) and study permit holders (49%). However, because of their large population size, the number of TFWs with lower-skill occupations who became immigrants was larger than that of TFWs with higher-skill occupations.

Overall, five years after immigration, nearly 40% of TFWs with lower-skill occupations who became permanent residents from 2011 to 2015 stayed in the accommodation and food services industry. By comparison, the rate was higher among TFWs with higher-skill occupations (52%) but lower for study permit holders (16%).

Retention in the food manufacturing industry decreases for temporary foreign workers with lower-skill occupations 

The study “Temporary foreign workers with lower-skill occupations in the food manufacturing industry: Transition to permanent residency and industrial retention after transition” found that five years after starting to work in the food manufacturing industry, TFWs with lower-skill occupations who arrived in Canada from 2010 to 2014 displayed lower cumulative rates of transition to permanent residency (39%) than TFWs with higher-skill occupations (48%).

The percentage of TFWs who stayed in the food manufacturing industry fell gradually over the first five years after immigration. Among TFWs with lower-skill occupations who became permanent residents from 2011 to 2015, the retention rate decreased from 73% in the year of immigration to 36% five years later. The degree of retention of TFWs with lower-skill occupations fell with each successive landing cohort. One year after becoming permanent residents, the percentage of TFWswho stayed in the industry decreased from 69% for the 2006-to-2010 landing cohort to 57% for the 2016-to-2019 landing cohort. 

Source: Transition to permanent residency and retention of temporary foreign workers in accommodation and food services and food manufacturing

Keller: Thanks to Marc Miller, the immigration system is (slightly) less broken, Clark: Ottawa finally acts on international student visas, setting a challenge for Doug Ford

Two of the better assessments:

Every journey begins with a first step. The Trudeau government has finally taken a step toward fixing what it broke in Canada’s immigration system. This is not the end of the trip, not even close. But it’s a start.

Ottawa didn’t do the breaking on its own. The provinces helped. So did business.

…Mr. Miller has finally taken a first step to repairing the immigration system. All he has to do now is keep walking.

Source: Thanks to Marc Miller, the immigration system is (slightly) less broken

Still, Mr. Ford faces a challenge now. The days of unlimited student visas are numbered, so his government has to decide which schools will get them. Will they prioritize top-notch talent, or keep business going for a low-standard industry?

Of course, Ontario’s failing shouldn’t let the federal Liberals off the hook. They were asleep while the number of temporary residents ballooned. It took ages for the Liberals to even see that massive policy failure while the damaging consequences were piling up on so many ordinary folks.

Finally, albeit belatedly, Mr. Miller has acted. Over to you, Mr. Ford.

Source: Ottawa finally acts on international student visas, setting a challenge for Doug Ford

Critics of D.E.I. Forget That It Works

Contrary to other studies highlighting the limited effectiveness, these HBS academics share their experience with preparing students for a more diverse workforce:

As Harvard-based educators and advisers with decades of collective experience, we have worked with organizations failing to meet this objective and taught M.B.A. students how to negotiate difference, preparing them for a work force more diverse than ever. In our experience, many organizations working on D.E.I. goals are getting stuck at the diversity stage — recruiting difference without managing it effectively — and generating frustration and cynicism about their efforts along the way. They are now at risk of stopping in the middle of a complex change journey, declaring failure prematurely.

Inclusion, as we define it, creates the conditions where everyone can thrive and where our differences as varied, multidimensional people are not only tolerated but also valued. A willingness to pursue the benefits of D.E.I. — the full participation and fair treatment of all team members — renders organizational wholes greater than the sum of their parts.

At a time when some organizations, feeling the politicized ripple effects of affirmative action’s repeal, are at risk of abandoning the objectives of D.E.I., our experiences suggest that to do so is bad for individuals, organizations and American society writ large. Persuasive scholarship has identified the ways in which we become more effective leaders when we collaborate skillfully with people who don’t already think like us — people with different perspectives, assumptions and experiences of moving through the world.

Erik Larson’s firm, Cloverpop, helps companies make and learn from decisions. When Mr. Larson and his research team compared the decision quality of individuals versus teams, they found thatall-male teams outperformed individuals nearly 60 percent of the time, but gender diverse teams outperformed individuals almost 75 percent of the time. Teams that were gender and geographically diverse, and had at least one age gap of 20 years or more, made better decisions than individuals 87 percent of the time. If you’ve ever called a grandparent for advice or tested an idea with a skeptical teenager, you get what this research was trying to quantify. We often learn the most from people who think most differently from us.

Getting people to share what they know that other people don’t know is essential to collective performance. Our Harvard Business School colleague Amy Edmondson and her research collaborator, Mike Roberto, designed a simulation where five-person teams must figure out how to climb Mount Everest. Teams reporting higher feelings of group belonging repeatedly outperform other teams because their members share more of their unique information about summiting Everest.

These findings are consistent with Ms. Edmondson’s research on the performance advantages of “psychological safety,” the cultural underpinning of inclusion. Individuals, she finds, are more likely to share their views in an environment that does not belittle, or worse, punish those who offer differing opinions, particularly to more powerful colleagues. In a recent study of 62 drug development teams, Ms. Edmondson and Henrik Bresman found that diverse teams, when assessed by senior leaders, outperform their more homogenous peers only in the presence of psychological safety. More diversity is not always better – from a performance standpoint, diversity without the inclusion can actually make things worse.

Inclusion work, done well, seeks to scale these kinds of results. Among other payoffs, organizations that get inclusion right at scale seem to be smarter, more innovative and more stable. One explanation is that they can see their competitive landscape — threats, risks, opportunities — more clearly and have greater access to the full knowledge base of their people.

But achieving gains like this can feel elusive when the will to participate in D.E.I. is waning. It can be tempting to put in place superficial fixes to achieve the optics of inclusion — a primary concern of D.E.I. critics — such as reserving roles for specific demographics. This is often illegal and rarely helpful, and it provides at least one area of broad agreement in this polarized debate: a distaste for hiring and promotion schemes based on an individual’s identity. A way to correct for these concerns is inclusive recruitment processes and rigorous, transparent selection criteria that everyone understands. It is not to scale back investments in inclusion, which would restrict our ability to build healthy, dynamic organizations.

Inclusion work is a way to create the conditions where people you don’t already know — those who are separated from you by more than one or two degrees — can succeed. For example, many U.S. tech companies have successfully created workplaces where young, straight, white men they know can thrive, but have a harder time recruiting, developing, promoting and retaining women, people of color, people from the L.G.B.T.Q.+ community, people over the age of 35 and the young, straight, white men they don’tknow. Organizations with these outcomes are typically relying too much on familiar networks — the people they know — and when they find someone good enough in those networks, they stop looking.

That is one reason we end up with all-male boards. Senior teams with no people of color. Professorial ranks with no conservatives. If the demographics of your team don’t bear much resemblance to the demographics of the broader population, then you’ve likely put artificial barriers on your talent pools and undermined your ability to reap the rewards of inclusion.

Everyone must be better off for inclusion initiatives to work. An example from Harvard Business School illustrates that point. It has always been an important part of our school’s mission to recruit military leaders and ensure that they can thrive, not in spite of their nontraditional training and experience, but precisely because of it. Over a decade ago, the school was succeeding at recruiting military veterans, but once in the classroom, they were less likely to excel academically. The military student group began providing specialized review sessions that focused on where its constituents were collectively getting stuck, making explicit the links between the M.B.A. curriculum and their military technical training.

Within a few years, gaps in performance closed. The performance of nonmilitary students did not decline because those students got extra attention. In fact, the rest of the student body benefited because military veterans became more active and confident in classroom discussions, offering unique insights into the high stakes of leadership decisions. The school’s experience with the value of customized review sessions also helped close performance gaps with other groups, including women and international students.

What does this work look like inside organizations? Sometimes it means more actively recruiting in unfamiliar places. Sometimes it means becoming more systematic about development opportunities. It can mean improving the ways you assess people for promotion, which can be riddled with bias and pitfalls, relying instead on more objective and self-evident advancement criteria. Indeed, what we hear most often from underrepresented leaders — X’s in organizations filled with Y’s — is the desire for a fair chance to compete, in workplaces where the rules of the game are clear and applied equally to all.

We know that historical change is like sleep. It happens gradually, sometimes fitfully, then all at once. We are in the fitful stage of our evolution toward truly inclusive organizations. But let us not get confused: Inclusion is an end goal that channels universal hopes for meritocracy, reflects America at its best and creates the foundation for an even more competitive future.

Caroline Elkins and Frances Frei are professors at Harvard Business School. Anne Morriss is the co-author, with Professor Frei, of “Move Fast and Fix Things: The Trusted Leader’s Guide to Solving Hard Problems.”

Source: Critics of D.E.I. Forget That It Works

The Economist: Germany strikes a brave new deal on immigration

Significant change:

Germany’s debate over migration sometimes seems divorced from reality. The country’s low birth rate and shrinking workforce imply a pressing need to import manpower. Much political talk, however, is concerned with how to keep immigrants away. The anti-immigration right is surging in opinion polls, and even otherwise liberal folk are increasingly prone to saying that “certain kinds” of immigrants are alien to the national Leitkultur, a fuzzy concept of Germanness.

Yet the past week has seen a turn. Earlier this month German media exposed the proceedings of a private conclave of hard-right politicians at a posh hotel near Berlin in November, where the participants discussed expelling millions of aliens. That scandal woke up the dormant left, which has organised a series of big “anti-fascist” demonstrations in cities across the country. On January 20th some 250,000 Germans took to the streets in one of their biggest mass protests this century.

Meanwhile, the governing centre-left coalition, made up of the Social Democrats, the Greens and the liberal Free Democrats, has injected some good sense into the immigration debate. On January 18th and 19th it passed two immigration bills in the Bundestag. The first, pleasing to conservatives, will make it easier to expel asylum-seekers with dubious cases, whose numbers have soared since the end of the pandemic. The second, more significant law will make it easier for legitimate immigrants to gain German nationality.

The reasons for the latter law are obvious, though German media has devoted strangely little space to discussing them. An extraordinary 13.4m of Germany’s 84m residents do not hold citizenship. More than 5m of these have lived in the country longer than ten years. In some cities the proportion is far higher: 45% of the population of Offenbach, a big satellite of Frankfurt, are foreigners, as well as a third of Munich’s and a quarter of Berlin’s. This number has swollen rapidly in the past decade, partly because more immigrants have arrived, but also because Germany has failed to naturalise those already here.

Germany’s “naturalisation rate”—the percentage of resident foreigners granted nationality every year—was just 1.2% in 2021, well behind the European average of 2.2%. Sweden did far better at 10%. The number Germany naturalised rose from 130,000 in 2021 to 168,000 in 2022, the highest in two decades. But the backlog still grew, because of a range of obstacles: restrictions on dual nationality, long residency requirements, tough tests to prove language skills and gainful employment, and a clogged bureaucracy.

On average, Turkish immigrants who acquire German citizenship have already been in the country for 24 years. Small wonder that nearly half of Germany’s 3m immigrants of Turkish background—the largest immigrant group—remain non-citizens. Their case is special. Among the hundreds of thousands of Turkish Gastarbeiter (guest workers) who arrived in the 1960s and 1970s, many assumed they would return to Turkey and so did not apply to become German. Yet with hard-right pundits wagging fingers at the alleged failure of Turkish immigrants to integrate, Germany’s failure to welcome them deserved scrutiny too.

The new law should help address the citizenship backlog. It shortens the residency requirement for most applicants from eight to five years, which is in line with other countries that compete with Germany to attract talent, such as France and America. In special cases the wait can now be as short as three years. Children who are born in Germany with at least one parent who has lived in Germany for five years will automatically become citizens. Dual citizenship is now generally allowed. New citizens will have to promise to uphold democratic freedoms and to accept Germany’s “special historical responsibility” for Nazism and the need to protect Jewish life.

Some 5m resident non-Germans are eu citizens who already enjoy nearly all the rights of natives, and so may not see the need to add another nationality. Of the remaining 8m foreigners, including around 1m Ukrainian refugees, it is unclear how many will now rush to acquire a German passport. It is also unclear how capably the understaffed and underfunded bureaucracy that handles naturalisation, much of it managed by local governments, will adapt to the new rules.

Some estimates suggest that 2m or more Germans could be added to electoral rolls in the next few years. There will probably not be enough of them to strongly affect the next national election in autumn 2025. Nevertheless, the far-right Alternative for Germany party attacked the new law as a “coup d’état through a forced restructuring of voter demographics”. Whomever newly minted Germans vote for, it is hard to argue with two points. Without immigration, Germany’s population would already be in steep decline and its economy in jeopardy. And if Germans fail to make immigrants welcome, they risk creating precisely what the hard right fears: a huge pool of disenfranchised, disgruntled aliens in their midst. ■

Source: Germany strikes a brave new deal on immigration

And in related German news, consideration being given to allowing foreign citizens to serve in the army:

A proposal to allow foreign citizens to serve in the German army, known as the Bundeswehr, could be extended to Europeans in countries outside of the EU.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius had initially put forward the idea of welcoming non-Germans to enlist in order to combat a drastic shortage of personnel.

In addition to Pistorius from the Social Democrats, the idea has also received support from lawmakers belonging to one of its two coalition partners, the FDP, plus the opposition Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

However, questions remain about how such a plan would be implemented.

Free Democratic Party (FDP) member Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, who chairs the German parliament’s defense committee, told DW that she can envision opening up the German army to candidates from across the continent.

She said candidates could initially come from the EU as well as countries like the United Kingdom, a former EU member, as well as neutral Switzerland. But there is also scope beyond these countries.

“I think that Europe also needs to be considered further, namely those who may live in European states but which do not yet belong to the European Union, but which may well be in accession negotiations,” Strack-Zimmermann said in an interview with DW’s Nina Haase.

“I don’t want to tie it down like that, because it has to be legally scrutinized,” she added.

Source: Germany weighs allowing foreign citizens into the army – DW – 01/22/2024 – DW (English)

Face à un achalandage record, les délais chez Francisation Québec explosent

Not only the federal government that has service delivery issues (a family friend in Montreal is one of those affected):

Attente de plusieurs mois, allocations non versées, suivis de dossier difficiles : six mois après le lancement de Francisation Québec, le service, complètement débordé, connaît des ratés, a constaté Le Devoir.

Sur les 62 000 dossiers complets, 36 300 immigrants, soit environ 60 %, attendent toujours de commencer un cours. « On a vu un avant et un après. Et le constat, c’est que Francisation Québec a complexifié l’accès à la francisation », a soutenu Guillaume Boivin, directeur du centre pour personnes immigrantes Le Tremplin, à Lévis. Avec pour conséquence que les listes d’attente « se sont énormément allongées ».

Alors qu’ils étaient de « deux mois gros max », les délais semblent maintenant souvent excéder la norme de service de 50 jours (environ deux mois et demi) promise pour les cours à temps complet par le ministère de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration (MIFI). « J’ai même un client qui s’est inscrit en juin et qui vient juste d’être appelé. Ça, c’est pratiquement sept mois », a fait valoir M. Boivin.

Le MIFI reconnaît lui-même sur son site qu’il lui faudra désormais 75 jours pour traiter un dossier. En raison du « nombre élevé de demandes » pour les cours à temps complet, « vingt-cinq (25) jours ouvrables supplémentaires pourraient être nécessaires pour traiter votre première demande », écrit-il à côté de son engagement de traiter toute demande en 50 jours ouvrables.

Les organismes d’aide aux immigrants et les responsables de la francisation au sein de centres de services scolaires à qui Le Devoir a parlé sont unanimes : depuis le lancement de ce guichet unique censé faciliter l’accès à la francisation, les immigrants attendent plus qu’avant. « Pour le temps plein, j’ai des gens qui attendent depuis le mois de septembre d’avoir une place, mais pour le temps partiel, j’en ai qui attendent depuis juillet », explique pour sa part Sarah Toulouse, directrice générale d’Accueil et intégration Bas-Saint-Laurent, en précisant que la moitié de sa clientèle n’est toujours pas en classe.

Même son de cloche chez Alpha Lira, à Sept-Îles, où certaines personnes inscrites l’été dernier attendent toujours de recevoir une invitation du MIFI, a confirmé Fanja Rajery, responsable de la francisation. « Je crois que Francisation Québec est débordé », indique-t-elle.

Pour la session démarrant en janvier, il n’y aurait eu que quatre nouvelles inscriptions. Pourtant, plusieurs immigrants inscrits l’automne dernier attendent avec impatience de pouvoir commencer. « Disons que je suis allée moi-même chercher l’information auprès de notre responsable de secteur, et on a débloqué certains dossiers », a admis Mme Rajery. Plusieurs immigrants ont finalement pu entreprendre la francisation à temps partiel il y a quelques jours.

De nombreux écueils

Le Devoir s’est fait rapporter de nombreux cas de figure qualifiés d’« absurdes » par plusieurs. Par exemple, un immigrant qui se fait dire qu’il commence un cours, mais qui ne figure sur aucune liste du centre de francisation, ou encore un autre à qui on offre un cours en ligne bien qu’il ait spécifié ne pas avoir d’ordinateur. « Son dossier a finalement été suspendu parce qu’il n’a pas pu assister à ce cours en ligne », a raconté une personne qui souhaite garder l’anonymat parce qu’elle est en démarche pour résoudre le problème.

Un étudiant de 16 ans aurait même perdu de précieux mois sur une liste d’attente de francisation aux adultes alors qu’il aurait dû intégrer… une classe d’accueil au secondaire !

La directrice d’Accueil et intégration Bas-Saint-Laurent souligne la difficulté de faire un simple suivi de dossier, notamment pour les immigrants, comme les Ukrainiens, qui n’ont pas déjà de Certificat de sélection du Québec ou de Certificat d’acceptation du Québec. « Dans ces cas-là, le MIFI ne fait pas de suivi pour les informer si les cours vont commencer bientôt, a-t-elle remarqué. Les immigrants sont souvent renvoyés d’une personne à l’autre, on ne sait pas qui est chargé de quoi et ça entraîne des retards. »

Des responsables de la francisation ont aussi rapporté des retards dans le versement des allocations de 200 $ par mois aux immigrants qui suivent des cours à temps plein. « Il y a des personnes [présentement en classe] qui n’ont pas reçu leur financement pour septembre et octobre. Ça crée une certaine détresse dans notre population étudiante », a indiqué Claude Théberge, directeur adjoint du Centre d’éducation des adultes des Navigateurs (CEAN). « On a fait des démarches pour les aider, mais on s’est fait dire de ne plus appeler les agents [du MIFI] parce qu’ils reçoivent trop d’appels là-dessus. »

« Produire » des gens qui parlent français

La directrice du CEAN, Sophie Turgeon, déplore pour sa part le retard dans la transmission des listes, ce qui gêne sa planification. « J’ai besoin de savoir combien d’enseignants je vais avoir de besoin d’une session à l’autre. [Francisation Québec] tarde à fournir les listes, et tout à coup, il nous envoie 200 noms. Les étudiants sont à moitié classés », explique-t-elle. Tout le processus d’évaluation sera à refaire, y compris celui des besoins de l’élève, qui pourrait entre-temps s’être trouvé du travail et ne plus vouloir suivre un cours à temps plein.

« Nous, aux Navigateurs, on veut travailler avec les individus et les aider dans leur intégration. Mais c’est comme si Francisation Québec voulait juste “produire” des gens qui vont parler français », a-t-elle poursuivi. Le ministère de l’Immigration nie tout retard dans le versement des allocations.

Par ailleurs, au 31 décembre 2023, 66,4 % des nouveaux élèves auraient commencé leur francisation en 50 jours ou moins. Toutefois, le ministère indique ne pas être en mesure d’isoler les élèves ayant fait une demande d’inscription après le lancement de Francisation Québec, le 1er juin. Il rappelle que  24 637 élèves étaient « actifs » au 10 janvier 2024. « Ce nombre peut comprendre des élèves qui ont déposé leur demande avant le 1er juin (et qui poursuivent leur parcours avec nous session après session) et des élèves qui ont déposé une demande à Francisation Québec depuis le 1er juin », a précisé le MIFI.

La ministre de l’Immigration, Christine Fréchette, a tenu à réagir à la situation. « Le nombre d’inscriptions dépasse nos scénarios les plus optimistes, a-t-elle déclaré. Cependant, comme dans le reste du réseau de l’éducation, nous connaissons des enjeux de recrutement de professeurs. »

Source: Face à un achalandage record, les délais chez Francisation Québec explosent

Québec bloque la nomination au CA de l’INRS d’une prof étudiant le racisme systémique

This blocking of the nomination of Denise Helly, who I know from my time in government, is creating quite a stir in Quebec from what I understand. Always found her work and opinions reasonable even if I didn’t always agree:

La ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur, Pascale Déry, a semé l’émoi chez les professeurs, dans les partis d’opposition et dans les plus hautes sphères de l’Université du Québec (UQ) en bloquant la nomination d’une professeure qui s’intéresse, dans ses travaux, au multiculturalisme, à l’islamophobie, au racisme systémique et, depuis peu, au mouvement anti-woke. 

Le 20 décembre, la professeure titulaire Denise Helly, de l’Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS), a reçu un message du secrétaire général de son établissement qui l’avisait avec « regret » que sa candidature au conseil d’administration (CA) de l’INRS n’avait pas été « retenue » par le ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur. 

La raison ? Dans le courriel que Le Devoir a pu consulter, le secrétaire général, Michel Fortin, écrit à Mme Helly que la décision relève de la « discrétion ministérielle » et que, dans ce type de situation, « le ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur ne fournit aucune explication additionnelle ».

L’INRS fait partie du réseau de l’UQ. En entrevue, le président de l’UQ, Alexandre Cloutier, a dit s’inquiéter de cette intervention de la ministre, qui n’est pas « habituelle ». « Ça soulève deux enjeux. Un qui est lié à l’autonomie des universités et l’autre, celui de la liberté universitaire, mérite une attention d’analyse également », lance-t-il. Ces deux principes sont enchâssés dans la Loi sur la liberté académique dans le milieu universitaire, adoptée par le gouvernement Legault en juin 2022

M. Cloutier a dit avoir sollicité — et obtenu — un rendez-vous avec l’équipe de la ministre Déry. « La rencontre est prévue à la fin du mois de janvier prochain, et c’est certain qu’on va faire valoir la validité de nos processus internes pour la nomination des membres de notre CA », a-t-il averti. Sollicité pour cet article, le cabinet de la ministre a refusé de commenter le dossier. À Québec, les partis d’opposition, eux, y ont vu un geste relevant de la censure. 

Dans un courriel envoyé au Devoir, l’INRS a dit avoir avisé le ministère du fait que « ne pas nommer une professeure désignée par son assemblée était inhabituel et contrevenait [à son avis] à l’autonomie universitaire ». En vertu de la Loi sur la liberté académique, « les universités doivent pouvoir accomplir leur mission sans contrainte doctrinale, idéologique ou morale », ont aussi souligné dans un communiqué commun Jean-Charles Grégoire, président du Syndicat des professeurs de l’INRS, et Madeleine Pastinelli, présidente de la Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d’université.

Bloquée pourquoi ?

Les deux syndicats exigent des explications de la ministre Déry au sujet du rejet de la candidature de Mme Helly, qui détient un doctorat de la Sorbonne. « À nos yeux, s’il est justifié, ce refus ne peut que reposer sur des motifs très sérieux, et ces motifs doivent être communiqués clairement et sans délai à toutes les instances impliquées. »

En entrevue, Mme Helly dit s’attendre à la même chose. « Si [la ministre] ne donne pas d’explication en exerçant son pouvoir discrétionnaire, ça devient de l’arbitraire », estime-t-elle. Faute de justification, elle formule des hypothèses pour expliquer le refus ministériel. 

De l’avis de la professeure, la décision pourrait constituer « de la discrimination selon l’âge, parce que j’ai 81 ans ».Ou alors relever de l’« ingérence », une « atteinte à l’autonomie universitaire et une tentative de politiser les débats ».Se disant encore très active dans la vie universitaire, Mme Helly tend à privilégier sa deuxième hypothèse, de concert avec une troisième, cette dernière voulant qu’elle ait été écartée en raison de ses orientations de recherche.

« Je travaille depuis 40 ans sur le multiculturalisme canadien, le racisme systémique, la discrimination, l’islamophobie, les musulmans. Et puis récemment — et ça, la ministre ne le sait pas encore, parce que je n’ai pas encore publié — sur les courants anti-woke, la dernière offensive politique et publique contre les droits des minorités, explique-t-elle. Donc, ce sont des sujets un peu fâcheux pour les gens de la CAQ. » Elle dit ne pas comprendre « l’intérêt » de lui interdire une présence au CA de l’INRS, un rôle qui, à son avis, constitue « un détail » dans la vie universitaire. « Alors, pourquoi prendre un risque pareil ? Je pense que c’est une erreur politique de la part de la ministre », laisse-t-elle tomber. 

La professeure Helly explique avoir été élue par le corps professoral de son établissement conformément à la procédure interne. Sa candidature a ensuite été soumise par l’INRS au ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur. Selon les règles, le ministère doit retenir une candidature avant de la proposer au Conseil des ministres, qui rend la décision finale. Dans le cas de Mme Helly, la candidature n’a pas été retenue, ce qui veut dire qu’elle n’a pas été soumise au conseil exécutif.

Dans un échange avec Le Devoir, l’INRS assure avoir respecté « chacune des étapes du processus de nomination ».

Source: Québec bloque la nomination au CA de l’INRS d’une prof étudiant le racisme systémique

Thibodeau: L’illusion de l’immigration pour combler la pénurie de main-d’oeuvre

Of note, the limitations of relying on immigration to address labour shortages, given that immigrants themselves add pressure on housing and public services:

En tant qu’économiste, j’ai fait plusieurs études de retombées économiques : l’étude des retombées potentielles du projet Grande Baleine pour Hydro-Québec, celle ex post des retombées de La Grande 1 et 2, celle de la Convention de la Baie James, celle de tous les parcs d’éoliennes installés au Québec depuis 1997 à 2020 pour CANWEA (Canadian Wind Energy Association), etc. En plus, en 2014, la Société d’habitation du Québec (SHQ) m’a mandaté pour faire l’étude des retombées économiques des Offices municipaux d’habitation.

Dans l’ensemble, ces études démontrent qu’en moyenne, selon les secteurs d’activité, le coefficient multiplicateur de création d’emplois indirects (premiers et seconds fournisseurs) et induits sur l’ensemble du Québec calculé à partir de la création d’emplois directs peut varier entre 5 et 10. Ainsi, pour chaque emploi direct créé seront créés entre 5 et 10 emplois indirects et induits.

Il est présentement beaucoup question de pénurie de main-d’oeuvre dans plusieurs secteurs d’activité économiques. Le recrutement d’un nouvel employé peut-il s’assimiler à la création d’un emploi nouveau comme on vient de le voir plus haut ? Pas complètement, la création d’un nouvel emploi par la mise en place d’une nouvelle activité génère des emplois indirects non seulement pour les intrants à la production, mais aussi pour la fabrication des nouveaux équipements requis. Cela n’est pas nécessairement le cas pour un recrutement ayant pour but de pourvoir un poste vacant.

Mais on peut affirmer que le manque de main-d’oeuvre de façon structurelle et importante dans une entreprise oblige celle-ci à produire en deçà de sa capacité réelle. L’arrivée de nouveaux employés pour pourvoir les postes vacants permettra donc d’augmenter la production exigeant un plus grand besoin de matières premières et d’intrants de toutes sortes (emballage, transports, etc. ). Ces nouveaux employés sollicitent et mobilisent donc des employés dans une multitude d’autres entreprises. C’est une nouvelle demande qui génère des besoins de main-d’oeuvre. Est-ce que ce coefficient multiplicateur se situe entre 5 et 10 ou un peu moins ? De prime abord, il est difficile de le dire, mais il existe, sans aucun doute.

Dans ce coefficient multiplicateur, il y a les effets induits. Ceux-ci sont les emplois créés lorsque sont dépensés les salaires générés par ces nouveaux emplois (directs et indirects). Ce type d’effets demeure discutable lorsque les travailleurs qui occupent ces nouveaux emplois vivaient déjà au Québec et donc avaient un salaire (ou d’autres formes de revenu, comme l’assurance-emploi). Dans ce cas, toute l’induction n’est pas attribuable aux nouveaux emplois.

Cela dit, on se rend bien compte que, si on fait appel à l’immigration pour essayer de combler la pénurie de main-d’oeuvre, on tourne en rond tout en aggravant la situation. Chaque emploi pourvu par un nouvel immigrant nécessitera plusieurs autres emplois pour satisfaire son activité et ses besoins vitaux quotidiens (plus de services de garde, plus de soins de santé, plus de commerces de détail, plus de logements). Puisqu’il s’agit de nouvelles personnes (et même de nouvelles familles) sur le sol québécois, les effets induits en matière d’emplois créés par les achats de biens et de services de ces familles doivent être pris en compte en entier.

Ainsi, même en demeurant très prudent, on peut aisément croire qu’un coefficient multiplicateur de 5 (le bas de la fourchette, donc) pourrait être retenu, chaque travailleur immigrant requerrait la création de cinq nouveaux emplois, dont au moins deux ou trois de façon induite. Il est donc clair que, tant que l’on peut recourir à de la main-d’oeuvre déjà sur le territoire du Québec (meilleure formation de la jeune main-d’oeuvre, utilisation plus systématique des personnes âgées, meilleures conditions de travail dans certains secteurs, etc.) et surtout à l’automatisation et à la robotisation des procédés, il sera plus facile de réduire la pénurie de main-d’oeuvre que de recourir à l’immigration.

Favoriser l’augmentation de l’immigration par compassion pour des personnes en difficulté dans d’autres pays ou encore pour compenser notre faible taux de fécondité et le vieillissement de notre population, c’est une chose, mais compter sur l’immigration pour réduire la pénurie de main-d’oeuvre c’est une erreur. La politique de l’Allemagne en matière d’immigration des dernières années est éclairante en cette matière. Après avoir ouvert toutes grandes leurs portes à l’immigration, ses dirigeants se retrouvent en 2023 avec des pénuries importantes de main-d’oeuvre dans des secteurs névralgiques.

On prend conscience actuellement des pressions énormes que l’accroissement des seuils d’immigration créerait sur le logement. Mais ces pressions se feraient sentir dans l’ensemble du système économique, et en particulier sur nos systèmes de santé et d’éducation, déjà débordés.

Il est pour le moins étonnant que les politiques n’aient pas un minimum de connaissance sur les instruments d’analyse économique. Les analyses de retombées économiques sont pourtant très connues (et nécessaires pour presque tous les projets soumis au BAPE). Elles sont rendues possibles grâce à un instrument statistique très sophistiqué géré et mis à jour par l’Institut de la statistique du Québec, le Tableau interindustriel du Québec, qui met en interrelation toutes les activités économiques du Québec.

Source: L’illusion de l’immigration pour combler la pénurie de main-d’oeuvre

Canada weighing extra border measures for asylum seekers from Mexico, says public safety minister

Kind of amusing the impact that the large numbers, ignored for so long, have finally spurred recognition and likely action, as is the case for Monday’s introduction of caps on international students:

Canada is weighing a number of measures to prevent Mexican nationals from flying into the country to request asylum, a top official said on Sunday, after Quebec’s premier said earlier this week the lack of visa requirements for Mexican travellers meant more refugees were arriving by plane.

Speaking to the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc said he and the Immigration Minister Marc Miller were considering visas and other measures.

The two ministers are looking for “the appropriate way to ensure that people who arrived from Mexico arrived for the appropriate reasons and that this doesn’t become sort of a side door to get access to Canada,” Mr. LeBlanc said.

“We’re looking at a number of measures that would, in fact, put us in a position to have done what’s necessary to ensure that these flights directly from Mexico don’t become sort of an indirect way to get access to Canada and to claim asylum,” he added.

In a letter last week, Quebec Premier François Legault urged Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to stem the flow of refugees into the province and to compensate it for costs, claiming Quebec’s services were close to a “breaking point” owing to the rising number.

“Mexican nationals represent a growing proportion of the asylum seekers arriving in Quebec, the possibility of entering Canada from Mexico without a visa certainly explains part of the flow of asylum seekers,” Mr. Legault wrote in the letter.

Ottawa is coming under pressure for its immigration policies because they are blamed for exacerbating a housing crunch, and because some services provided by the provinces, like education and health care, are struggling to keep up with population growth.

Source: Canada weighing extra border measures for asylum seekers from Mexico, says public safety minister

Canada’s controversial ban on adoptions from several Muslim countries sparks court challenge

Another case to watch (hard to understand rationale for difference with USA, UK and Australia which allow the practice, when government does not appear to have articulated the reasons):

A major challenge of Canada’s ban on adoptions from several Muslim countries is set to play out in the Federal Court — a move some legal observers say wouldn’t be necessary if the government wasn’t upholding what they call a “discriminatory” policy.

The case, which could be heard as early as April, comes more than five years after the federal government promised to review the ban introduced when the Conservatives last held office. Since then, the Liberal government has refused to say whether that review took place or what it involved, despite repeated inquiries from CBC News.

In 2013, Canada suddenly put a stop to adoptions from Pakistan, arguing Shariah law doesn’t allow for birth ties between a parent and child to be severed and that the Islamic principle of guardianship (kafala) could no longer be recognized as the basis for adoption. The United States, United Kingdom and Australia all continue to allow adoptions from Pakistan, despite Canada’s claim that doing so would violate its commitment to the Hague Convention.

While on paper the ban applied only to Pakistan, an investigation by CBC’s The Fifth Estate found that in practice, immigration officials quietly extended it to other Muslim-majority countries, including Iran, Sudan, Iraq, Qatar, Afghanistan and Algeria.

An access-to-information request on the ban turned up dozens of redacted pages, including a June 25, 2013, memo marked “secret,” titled “Canadian programming to counter the terrorist threat from Pakistan” — raising questions about what national security might have to do with the adoption of children.

One legal observer said that not only is the ban discriminatory, but it unfairly puts the burden on individual families to argue the validity of their religious traditions.

“Frankly, I’m shocked that the government has not revisited this legislatively,” said Faisal Bhabha, an associate professor at York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. “A case like this should really not fall on the shoulders of a family.

“The last thing they need is for their government to be telling them what their religion prescribes or doesn’t prescribe…. I don’t see how this case could not be successful.”

Pakistani court gives permission for adoption

At the centre of the court challenge is a Toronto woman who became the caregiver to her sister’s three children while living in Pakistan after her sister’s death. Since 2012, Jameela Qadeer has cared for her sister’s son and two daughters as if they were her own, with their father unable to do so.

“When their biological mother died, I knew that I would do anything I could to make sure that they never felt motherless,” she told CBC News, recalling how they’d sleep in one bed together so they wouldn’t feel alone.

A major challenge of Canada’s ban on adoptions from many Muslim countries is set to play out at the Federal Court. Jameela Qadeer took in her sister’s three children after her death more than a decade ago. A Pakistan court recognized her as their adoptive mother but after an abrupt 2013 change, Canada says the Islamic legal principle of guardianship Pakistan and other countries use doesn’t meet the bar of a parent-child relationship.

Now separated from the children, she said, “I think about that now and as I’m going to sleep.”

As an Ahmadi Muslim facing persecution in Pakistan, Qadeer moved to Canada more than six years ago with her biological daughter, first with protected status and now as a permanent resident. But she soon learned Canada wouldn’t recognize her sister’s children as her own.

Pakistan has no official adoption law. Instead, like many other Muslim countries, it relies on the principle of guardianship, which preserves lineage to protect inheritance rights, for example.

To facilitate adoptions abroad, Pakistan’s courts routinely grant permission for those with guardianship orders to complete adoptions in other countries. That was the case with Canada until the 2013 ban.

Qadeer, whose husband has been working in South Africa, formalized her guardianship of the children in Pakistan in 2017. In 2019, after Canada’s refusal to recognize the children as her own, she turned to a Pakistani court, which declared her their adoptive mother.

Canada still refused the children’s application to join her, with an immigration officer saying that “the guardianship arrangements confirmed by the courts in Pakistan do not create a legal parent-child relationship.”

When Qadeer first applied in 2017 to bring the children to Canada, all three were minors. Today, they’re 19, 23 and 25 years old. Asked if their ages could hurt the case, their lawyer said what matters is the date the application was filed.

Qadeer said Canada’s refusal to recognize the children as her own means they could be ripped away from a mother for a second time.

“I would feel like I’ve gotten heaven on Earth” if the children were here, she said.

‘I believe the law is discriminatory’: lawyer

Qadeer’s Toronto-based lawyer, Warda Shazadi Meighen, said she believes the constitutional challenge is the first of its kind.

“I believe the law is discriminatory,” she said in an interview.

The crux of the case, Shazadi Meighen said, is that if the children had been adopted through a legal system not based in Islamic law, Canada would recognize their adoptions — meaning their very identities prevent them from being together as a family.

The children “are unable to reunite with their adoptive mother in Canada and unable to access permanent residence, unlike adopted family members of protected persons in Canada who do not follow Islamic law and/or are not of Pakistani origin and based in Pakistan,” Qadeer’s court filing says.

The filing says Canada’s refusal to recognize Qadeer’s relationship with the children violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically Section 15 (equality rights), Section 2(a) (freedom of religion) and Section 7 (right to security of the person).

“The bottom line is there is no other parent for these children,” Shazadi Meighen said.

In 2018, Pakistan’s High Commission in Ottawa said the claim that Pakistan’s legal system did not allow for adoptions was false. “We believe that the ban from the Canadian government is unjustified,” spokesperson Nadeem Kiani said then.

At the time, then-immigration minister Ahmed Hussen’s press secretary told The Fifth Estate: “We have asked the department to initiate a review of this policy and begin consultations with Pakistan as well as provincial and territorial governments to determine a path forward to regularize adoptions from Pakistan.”

Government not commenting on case

Asked by CBC News if that review ever happened, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada would not say. The department also said it could not comment on active litigation cases.

“We understand and sympathize with prospective parents who have experienced hardships while trying to bring children under guardianship placement from Pakistan to Canada,” spokesperson Mary Rose Sabater said in an emailed statement.

Source: Canada’s controversial ban on adoptions from several Muslim countries sparks court challenge

Feds won’t appeal landmark #citizenship ruling for ‘Lost Canadians’

sigh….

Will see how the government intends to meet the required change, whether through the short-cut of S-245 or a separate bill that would follow established parliamentary committee hearings:

The federal government will not appeal a court ruling that found part of Canada’s Citizenship Act to be unconstitutional.

Last month, an Ontario Superior Court justice found the federal government violated Charter rights with its “second-generation cut-off” rule, which denies automatic citizenship to children born abroad if their Canadian parents were also born abroad.

In an interview with CBC News Sunday, lawyer Sujit Choudhry confirmed federal government representatives informed him last week that there would be no appeal.

Ottawa had 30 days to appeal the ruling — a deadline that passed on Thursday.

“My clients are relieved. It’s been a long, hard fight,” said Choudhry, who is representing families affected by the law.

Choudhry filed a constitutional challenge in December 2021, suing the federal government for denying his clients the right to transmit their citizenship to their foreign-born offspring.

Critics have long said the law creates two tiers of citizenship, creating different rules for Canadians depending on whether they were born abroad.

In her December ruling, Ontario Superior Court Justice Jasmine Akbarali agreed, writing that foreign-born Canadians born abroad hold “a lesser class of citizenship because, unlike Canadian-born citizens, they are unable to pass on Canadian citizenship by descent to their children born abroad.”

The case is lauded as a win for up to 200,000 “Lost Canadians” — groups of people not considered citizens because of gaps or contested interpretations of citizenship law.

The second-generation cut-off was created in 2009 as part of a crackdown by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government on Canadian citizens who lived permanently outside of the country. The move came in response to an $85-million evacuation of 15,000 Lebanese Canadians stranded in Beirut during the 2006 conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

In her ruling, Akbarali noted public anxiety over the Beirut evacuation, but wrote “the highest the evidence goes is to show that some people were concerned about it… there is no evidence to demonstrate that there are citizens without a connection to Canada, nor that if any such citizens exist, that their existence or citizenship creates any kind of problem.”

Federal government must act

The federal government has six months to repeal the second-generation cutoff in the law — a move that will require either fresh legislation, or potentially the passage of a bill already being debated.

Senate Bill S-245 was amended in committee to remove the second-generation cut-off rule and replace it with a “substantial connections test” to pass on citizenship to the children of foreign-born Canadians who were born abroad.

In her ruling, Akbarali described S-245 as a “head start” for Parliamentarians to amend the Citizenship Act law to make it fully constitutional within six months.

How the federal government will respond is unclear. The office of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada Minister Marc Miller declined to comment.

The court also ordered the federal government to grant citizenship to the four foreign-born children of three Canadian families involved in the case. Choudhry says they received certifications of their citizenship last week.

“They’re beyond elated,” he said.

Source: Feds won’t appeal landmark citizenship ruling for ‘Lost Canadians’