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’

New Electoral Map and Diversity

My analysis of the impact of the new electoral map on racialized and religious minorities and Indigenous, and how it will be further impacted by the ongoing increase in immigrants.

Source: New Electoral Map and Diversity – The Hill Times

Tara Henley: What happened to Canada?

Tara Henley, who left the CBC over concerns over its overly “woke” approach to stories, continues her critique of narrow identity focused analysis rather than more universal class-based approaches:

…During the same decade or so that housing affordability was tanking in Canada, an ideology arrived that took a radical posture on social issues while maintaining the economic status quo. 

This new line of thinking originated at elite American universities and spread to Canada through social media. It presents itself as leftist but eschews key leftist concepts such as class analysis, universalism, and the importance of free speech. Instead, it views politics through the lens of identity, focusing on equalizing outcomes between identity groups, as well as on problematizing language, criticizing social, cultural, and interpersonal norms, and building up a vast administrative class to advance such efforts.

Critically, it presents its ideas as moral imperatives, trading persuasion for campaigns of public shaming.

It is a political project that’s been widely embraced by economic elites in Canada, from individuals to corporate and governmental leaders, including Justin Trudeau. Though clearly well-intentioned in some instances, in practice it serves to assuage the guilt of the haves and to signal their virtue to the have-nots. (See the prevalence of Indigenous land acknowledgments at public events in Canada. This exercise makes participants look and feel good but does nothing to improve the living conditions of Indigenous people.)

Identitarian moralism, as it happens, has also appealed to a vocal and understandably pessimistic segment of the have-nots—chiefly a class of young, educated knowledge workers, whose economic prospects have markedly declined. As other writers have pointed out in the past, this ethos provides a low-effort outlet for feelings of powerlessness. The causes of Canada’s decline are multifold, complex, and difficult to address. Calling someone a bigot online is relatively easy….

Source: Tara Henley: What happened to Canada?

McWhorter: The Hidden Lesson of ‘American Fiction’

On my watch list:

Cord Jefferson’s film “American Fiction” offers a delightful portrayal of the white fetishization of Black pain — and also, in 2024, at least, one that is more satire than documentary. In the movie, an erudite Black author writes a baldly melodramatic “ghetto” novel titled “My Pafology” in protest of the way white audiences seem to go wild for such material — and to his surprise, nobody gets the joke and white audiences do, in fact, go wild for the book.


America had a conversation of this sort long ago — especially amid the debates over hip-hop in the 1990s and afterward — about treating inner-city violence, sexism and multigenerational poverty as “authentic” and entertaining. I think we can give the non-Black public here in the real world at least some credit. Today they would not embrace nakedly cartoonish tripe like the novel cooked up by the film’s protagonist, Thelonious “Monk” Ellison, or the best seller “We’s Lives in Da Ghetto” by the Black author Sintara Golden that inspired his sarcastic stunt in the first place.


However, such exotification of Blackness has hardly disappeared entirely, and the film perfectly captures facets of the contemporary continuation of it. I was especially struck by a scene in which Monk finds that a bookstore has stocked his earlier novel, an adaptation of Aeschylus’ “The Persians,” in the African American section simply because he is Black.


I had the exact same experience.


Twenty years ago, I wrote a book called “Doing Our Own Thing,” a study of the increasing informality in public language in America since the 1800s. It mentioned race only in passing, yet I twice found it stocked in the Black studies (or some equivalent description) section of a bookstore. Apparently someone — at least twice! — blithely assumed that because I’m Black, the book must be an indignant shout-out on behalf of Black English, an appeal that Black people should be able to “do our own thing” (thang?). To the bookstore employees — and perhaps customers — the paramount aspect of a Black author was his Blackness.

But let’s face it: White people don’t get this view of us only from their own subconscious bias or objectification. Black people play a part in fostering this vision, too, in the ways we present our souls to the public. Not in silly novels like “My Pafology,” but more broadly.
Some of us enthusiastically portray microaggressions as grave harms to our well-being, despite the fact that the literature on microaggressions is mostly of questionable scientific rigor and yields only limited evidence that they injure this deeply, or even that most Black people experience them in this way.

Many of us also insist that there remains something insufficient and inadequately “representative” about the degree to which Blackness is depicted in popular culture. The implication is that Blackness is marginalized, held at least at half an arm’s length. Yet a random list of recent Black-oriented films and television shows — “Black Panther,” “Atlanta,” “Black-ish,” “Dear White People,” “Insecure,” “The Book of Clarence” — demonstrates enough richness and variety to make an old-time Southern segregationist retch. “American Fiction” itself has been widely nominated for major awards and features exquisite performances by Jeffrey Wright, Erika Alexander and Myra Lucretia Taylor in particular. An uninformed observer of Black representation in contemporary American popular culture would be mystified that anyone felt there remained any real deficit at all.


Meanwhile, some believe it is antiracist for Black people to portray ourselves as a people for whom standards must be loosened thanks to the legacies of our past. The SAT, for instance, has been presumed such a racist burden that it should be withdrawn — despite evidence that it has been better at identifying gifted Black students from disadvantaged backgrounds than alternatives.


Is it any wonder that white people listen to these kinds of reasoning and feel compelled to think of us as poster children and stereotypes rather than as whole people? There is a straight line from the positions I outlined above, often thought of as forms of enlightenment, and a well-meaning but Kabuki version of pity that becomes a kind of racism in itself.

Source: The Hidden Lesson of ‘American Fiction’

Yakabuski: Quand la digue du débat sur l’immigration cède

Indeed. Remarkable change:

La digue a cédé. Depuis plusieurs mois, les critiques fusent de toutes parts pour dénoncer une politique fédérale d’immigration hors de contrôle qui contribue à la crise du logement, notamment en raison de la croissance fulgurante du nombre de travailleurs étrangers temporaires et d’étudiants étrangers qui s’installent au pays.

Plusieurs économistes parmi les plus respectés accusent Ottawa de faire fi de la capacité de l’économie canadienne à accueillir un si grand nombre de nouveaux venus sans faire les investissements nécessaires à la construction de nouveaux logements et de nouvelles infrastructures. Bref, de mener une politique d’immigration qui vise à doper la croissance économique — sinon à gagner les votes de certaines clientèles politiques —, mais qui finit plutôt par créer toutes sortes d’effets pervers dont les répercussions néfastes se feront sentir dans les années à venir.

Jusqu’à cette semaine, le premier ministre Justin Trudeau et son ministre de l’Immigration, Marc Miller, répondaient à ces critiques en promettant d’examiner la possibilité d’apporter des modifications somme toute mineures aux programmes d’immigration temporaire. Jamais n’ont-ils manifesté un sentiment d’urgence qui justifie la correction des failles béantes dans ces programmes qui ont mené à l’explosion de cette filière. 

En date du 1er octobre dernier, le Canada comptait plus de 2,5 millions de résidents non permanents, ce qui correspond à une augmentation de plus de 40 % en un an. Leur nombre a certainement augmenté depuis cette date, car rien n’a été fait pour limiter l’octroi des permis de travail et d’études. Cela fait l’affaire des employeurs et des établissements postsecondaires qui, partout au pays, sont devenus accros aux programmes fédéraux d’immigration temporaire, cela au détriment de l’économie canadienne dans son ensemble.

Dans une étude publiée en début de semaine, les économistes Stéfane Marion et Alexandra Ducharme, de la Financière Banque Nationale, prétendent que le Canada fait actuellement face à un « piège démographique » en raison d’un taux de croissance de sa population cinq fois supérieur à la moyenne des pays membres de l’Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques (OCDE). Leur constat est cinglant : « Présentement, nous ne disposons pas des infrastructures et du stock de capital nécessaires pour absorber la croissance démographique et améliorer notre niveau de vie. »

Une telle situation, typiquement le lot des pays émergents ayant un fort taux de natalité, engendre un cercle vicieux qui mène à l’appauvrissement collectif. Au Canada, notre piège démographique découle d’une politique d’immigration délibérément choisie par le gouvernement Trudeau.

Un ménage s’impose. Il reste à voir si MM. Trudeau et Miller feront preuve de courage politique et redresseront la barre. Mardi, lors d’un déjeuner-causerie devant la Chambre de commerce du Montréal métropolitain, M. Trudeau a dit ne pas avoir l’intention de toucher aux seuils d’immigration permanente. Le pays compte accueillir 500 000 nouveaux résidents permanents en 2025 et dans les années qui suivent. « Ça, c’est le chiffre dont on a besoin pour continuer à appuyer la croissance économique et des opportunités, a-t-il fait valoir. Ce sont surtout des étudiants internationaux et des travailleurs temporaires. Ce sont ces groupes-là qu’il va falloir qu’on mette un peu sous contrôle. »

« Un peu sous contrôle » ? Les économistes de la Banque Nationale estiment que la croissance de la population canadienne devrait être ramenée entre 300 000 et 500 000 personnes par année « si nous voulons échapper au piège démographique ». Or, la population canadienne a augmenté de plus de 1,2 million en 2023. Ce ne sont pas des demi-mesures qui pourront restaurer l’équilibre. Des réformes en profondeur seront nécessaires.

M. Miller songe à serrer la vis à certaines provinces pour que leurs établissements postsecondaires acceptent moins d’étudiants étrangers.

À elle seule, l’Ontario compte plus de la moitié des près de 900 000 étudiants étrangers du pays. Ces derniers sont inscrits non seulement dans les universités et les collèges communautaires de la province, mais aussi dans des centaines d’écoles de formation professionnelle. Certaines de ces écoles sont accusées d’exploiter des étudiants étrangers vulnérables qui cherchent à fuir leur pays d’origine en percevant des droits de scolarité astronomiques sans donner une éducation digne du nom. Mais il ne suffit pas de sévir contre ces « usines à chiots », comme M. Miller les appelle. La vaste majorité des étudiants étrangers au Canada sont inscrits à l’université ou à un collège d’enseignement technique, et il faudrait aussi y réduire leur nombre.

Or, une diminution du nombre d’étudiants étrangers risquerait de plonger la plupart des établissements postsecondaires du pays dans une crise financière pouvant menacer leur survie. C’est surtout le cas en Ontario, où le gouvernement conservateur de Doug Ford a instauré un gel des droits de scolarité en 2019. Les établissements postsecondaires de la province se sont tournés massivement depuis vers les étudiants étrangers, dont les droits de scolarité s’élèvent à plusieurs fois ceux payés par les étudiants canadiens.

Et que faire du nombre grandissant de travailleurs étrangers temporaires ? À en juger par le silence de M. Miller à ce sujet, on dirait que le ministre n’est pas pressé de s’y attaquer. Or, la promesse faite cette semaine par Pierre Poilievre de rééquilibrer les seuils d’immigration en fonction de la construction de logements change la donne politique. Le chef conservateur avait jusque-là soigneusement évité d’aborder la question de l’immigration dans ses discours sur la crise du logement.

Son changement de cap signale le début d’un débat politique sur l’immigration auquel les Canadiens hors Québec sont peu habitués tellement le consensus sur la question semblait inébranlable. Mais les libéraux ont permis à l’eau de monter. Et la digue ne tient plus.

Source: Quand la digue du débat sur l’immigration cède

Black public servants locked in three-year legal battle with Ottawa with no end in sight [and related equity issues]

Good overview. One issue I have is the lack of comparison with other minority groups. Citing the numbers for Black public servants without the other groups provides an incomplete picture, as the table below shows, highlighting that other groups have more significant under-representation than Blacks, both at the all public service and EX levels. Disaggregated data for the last six years shows similar differences (https://multiculturalmeanderings.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ee-analysis-of-disaggregated-data-by-group-and-gender-2022-submission-1.pdf):

Jasminka Kalajdzic, director of the Class Action Clinic at the University of Windsor, says the mere pursuit of the lawsuit has already led to more changes than what a public servant could ever achieve with a grievance.

For example, Treasury Board is working on a more accurate self-identification process and centralizing employment equity data collection and reporting. As well, many departments have created anti-racism secretariats.

The government committed to a Black justice strategy and set aside $46 million in funding for a Black mental-health plan, although efforts to get that up and running have been mired in controversy.

The government recently announced a new panel to develop a “restorative engagement” program to address discrimination.

There has also been a flurry of promotions. In August 2022, Caroline Xavier became the first Black deputy minister when she was appointed president of Communications Security Establishment – 33 years after Ontario appointed its first Black deputy minister.

The Black Executives Network, established in July 2020, delivered its first report in June 2023, which noted “tremendous progress” in building a Black executive community over the past three years. The number of Black executives in the federal public service has grown to 168 today from 68 in 2016, with four deputy ministers and 15 assistant deputy ministers and a few dozen directors-general.

That’s still only about 2.3 per cent of the executives in the core public service, while Black people account for about 4.2 per cent of all public-service employees.

“This (issue) is so much bigger than the Black class action,” says Courtney Betty, the plaintiffs’ lead lawyer. “This is reflection of Canadian society. This is who we are. And for many Black individuals, that’s what they feel. It’s not a reality for any other Canadian. But for Black Canadians, it is a reality.”

Source: Black public servants locked in three-year legal battle with Ottawa with no end in sight

Lisée: L’immigration et la loi de la gravité

Sarcasm, well justified:

Le saviez-vous ? Avant qu’Isaac Newton ne découvre la gravité, tout le monde prenait les choses à la légère. La boutade s’applique superbement à la soudaine épiphanie de membres du gouvernement Trudeau face à l’immigration.

« Je crois que personne n’a besoin d’un briefing pour comprendre que, s’il y a plus de gens qui ont besoin de se loger, cela va avoir un impact sur la situation du logement », affirmait cette semaine l’un des architectes de l’immigration massive trudeauiste, car jusqu’à récemment titulaire de ce portefeuille, Sean Fraser, mais qui, depuis l’été, est puni par là où il a péché, car il est désormais ministre du Logement.

Son successeur, Marc Miller, est allé jusqu’à déclarer que le pays avait « perdu le contrôle » du nombre d’étudiants étrangers au pays, mais que cet état de fait était la responsabilité des provinces, dont certaines tolèrent la présence sur leur territoire de ce qu’il a appelé des « puppy mills ». En français, il s’agit d’« usines à chiots ». Il parle de ces écoles privées qui sont des usines à diplômes de qualité incertaine, délivrés dans un temps record à des étudiants pour beaucoup venus de l’Inde et de la Chine, et qui leur donne, selon les généreuses règles en vigueur, un accès rapide à la citoyenneté.

Une des meilleures recettes de la mauvaise foi politique est d’identifier, à l’intérieur d’un problème majeur, un élément réel, mais secondaire, et de faire semblant qu’en s’y attaquant, on prend l’enjeu de front. Car, au fond, les membres du gouvernement Trudeau pensent-ils qu’avoir haussé à un demi-million par an le nombre d’immigrants permanents est excessif ? Non. 

« Les Canadiens sont presque unanimes dans leur appui à l’immigration. C’est un avantage extraordinaire. Nos seuils actuels d’immigration permanente sont ceux dont on a besoin pour notre économie », a déclaré sans rire Justin Trudeau. Tous les sondages récents démontrent au contraire que l’appui des Canadiens aux seuils d’immigration connaît une chute historique. Près des trois quarts jugent — avec sagesse — qu’il faut réduire les seuils au moins le temps que se résorbe la crise du logement. Si la tendance se maintient, il y aura bientôt unanimité.

Le festival du sophisme

Peut-être pense-t-il que les milieux d’affaires torontois, qui ont plaidé pendant des années pour une augmentation de l’immigration et qui alimentent sa caisse électorale, sont toujours avec lui. Pas selon leur Pravda, le Financial Post, qui résume ainsi le consensus ambiant : « La décision du premier ministre Justin Trudeau d’augmenter considérablement l’immigration […] sans fournir un soutien adéquat a créé une longue liste de problèmes économiques, notamment une inflation plus élevée et une faible productivité. » L’économiste en chef de la Banque TD, Beata Caranci, résume la chose ainsi : Trudeau « screwed up ». 

Comment le jugement du premier ministre peut-il être aussi éloigné du réel ? Les solutions, explique-t-il en empirant son cas, sont à portée de main : les 500 000 permanents par an peuvent trouver à se loger, prétend-il, pour peu que les universités dénichent des logements pour leurs étudiants internationaux et les entreprises pour leurs travailleurs temporaires. Il suffisait d’y penser. Car dans l’univers trudeauiste, il y a trois marchés distincts du logement. Incrédule ? Rappelons qu’on parle d’un homme qui, ayant obtenu pour ses vacances en Jamaïque un hébergement d’une valeur de 84 000 $, a déclaré que, « comme énormément de familles canadiennes, on est allés rester chez des amis pour les vacances de Noël ».

On s’ennuie du temps où il débitait des phrases creuses. Car ses nouvelles déclarations sont pires : fausses. Il continue à affirmer qu’il nous faut davantage d’immigration pour résoudre les pénuries de main-d’oeuvre. Mais puisque le Canada a reçu plus de deux millions d’arrivants en deux ans, ne devrions-nous pas avoir réglé le problème et être en surplus de main-d’oeuvre ? 

L’économiste Pierre Fortin a conclu de la revue de la littérature scientifique récente que cette conclusion « n’est rien d’autre qu’un gros sophisme ». Chaque immigrant qui pourvoit un emploi requiert la création d’un autre emploi pour lui fournir tous ses services. Idem pour la prétention que l’immigration nous enrichit (l’impact est non significatif) ou nous rajeunit (même résultat). On continue cependant à entendre politiciens, patrons et commentateurs répéter ces sornettes.

Pour entrer dans le détail, disons qu’il est vrai que, si on déverse un million de Chinois au Québec ayant chacun 1000 $ en poche, le PIB va croître d’un milliard. Si vous êtes un PIB, c’est la joie. Si vous n’êtes pas un PIB, c’est moins drôle. Et s’il s’agissait d’éviter un déclin démographique en maintenant la croissance récente de la population du Québec, le démographe Marc Termotte a conclu qu’il ne faudrait, pour ce faire, toutes catégories comprises, que 58 000 immigrants par année, plutôt que les 580 000 actuels — les 55 000 permanents et les 528 000 non permanents. Donc, le dixième.

Les sophismes sur les bienfaits de l’immigration ne seraient que du bruit de fond si les conséquences ne devenaient pas si graves, pour le logement, l’éducation — 1500 classes d’accueil supplémentaires au Québec — et, au bout du compte, l’explosion de l’itinérance.

Difficulté cognitive

Des esprits tordus prétendent que la difficulté cognitive des libéraux fédéraux en matière d’immigration tient à cette information, rapportée dans Le Soleil par Hélène Buzzetti : « À leur dernier congrès, le sondeur Dan Arnold a révélé que les électeurs nés à l’extérieur du Canada sont les plus susceptibles de voter libéral. Leur niveau d’appui au Parti libéral a dépassé celui des non-immigrants par 8 points à l’élection de 2015, par 13 points en 2019 et par 19 points en 2021 . » Réduire le flot d’entrées de cette manne électorale est un pensez-y bien, surtout pendant une traversée du désert.

François Legault a de son côté utilisé la formule Miller : identifier une partie du problème et faire comme s’il s’agissait de l’essentiel. Le trop-plein de demandeurs d’asile, écrit-il à Trudeau, ne peut plus durer. Certes. Mais Legault a toujours eu le loisir de limiter le nombre d’étudiants étrangers et de travailleurs temporaires sur son territoire. Il a choisi de ne pas le faire. Sa ministre Christine Fréchette se plaint qu’une bonne part des immigrants temporaires ne sont que du ressort d’Ottawa. Mais c’est parce qu’elle refuse d’invoquer l’entente Canada-Québec sur l’immigration pour exiger d’en avoir le contrôle.

C’est le malheur particulier des Québécois d’être en ce moment gouvernés à Ottawa par des trudeauistes qui prennent leurs lubies de grandeur postnationales pour des vérités et à Québec par un premier ministre qui avouait en campagne électorale ne pas être « un génie en herbe de l’immigration ». Cela paraît.

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon a beau jeu de pousser ce cortège de sophistes dans leurs contradictions, et d’éclairer combien la passivité de la Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) est navrante et combien le projet canadien est contraire, non seulement à nos intérêts, mais à la simple bonne gestion de nos affaires. Il semble être le seul à comprendre la gravité de l’enjeu. Il mérite donc, pour cette semaine, le prix Isaac Newton.

Source: L’immigration et la loi de la gravité

Few immigrant applicants to Canadian military get enlisted: Report

Of note:

Efforts by Canada’s military to recruit new immigrants have been futile.

In fact, a December 2023 briefing note for Defence Minister Bill Blair said only 77 applicants out of thousands of permanent residents successfully enlisted, according to Blacklock’s Reporter.

“Between November 1, 2022 and November 24, 2023, the Canadian Armed Forces received 21,472 applications from permanent residents,” said the note Recruitment Of Permanent Residents. “Seventy-seven permanent residents have been enrolled.”

In 2022, the military altered regulations that promised a quicker path to citizenship for landed immigrants if they enlisted as soldiers, sailors and air crew.

Despite the more favourable regulation changes, the note cited lengthy security checks with the abysmal number of successful recruits during that timeframe.

“There are important and necessary measures which need to be completed such as security checks and medical evaluations,” said the note. “As well the validation of security clearances generally takes longer for permanent residents.”

Due to a 35% decline in recruitment numbers in 2022 — from 8,069 to 5,242 volunteers — the military turned to foreigners who had army training to fill the gap.

“The Canadian Forces recruiting group accepts trained applicants from foreign militaries,” said the note. “These applicants include pilots, logistics officers, infantry officers and other skilled professionals who may become enrolled in the Canadian Armed Forces if they have permanent resident status in Canada. This enables other permanent residents who meet the same criteria as Canadian citizens to enroll in the Canadian Armed Forces as new recruits or officer cadets.”

The military says at minimum 60,500 fully trained full-time members are required while also setting a goal of reaching 68,000 military forces.

Source: Few immigrant applicants to Canadian military get enlisted: Report