French march against antisemitism shakes up far right and far left – BBC

Of note. Of course, the anti-immigration and xenophobic discourse of Le Pen is directed against Muslims, surprising omission from the article:

Something unprecedented is happening this weekend in Paris, brought about by the war between Israel and Hamas and its spill-over in Europe.

For the first time ever, a major demonstration being attended by representatives of the major political parties includes the far right – but not the far left.

On Sunday afternoon thousands of people heeded a call from the Speakers of the two houses of parliament to show their support for French “Republican” values and their rejection of antisemitism – this in the face of a steep rise in antisemitic actions since 7 October.

Among the first to announce their presence were Marine Le Pen, three-time presidential candidate for the National Rally (formerly the National Front), and the party’s young president, Jordan Bardella.

Almost simultaneously came a rejoinder from their counterpart on the far left, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, irascible leader of France Unbowed (LFI). His party would not be attending, he tweeted, because the march was a “rendezvous for unconditional supporters of the massacre [of Gazans]”.

Source: French march against antisemitism shakes up far right and far left – BBC

CD Howe Institute: Higher immigration without business investment lowers Canadian living standards

Yet another voice questioning the government’s immigration strategy and policies given lack of business investment:

Immigration is driving a historic surge in Canada’s population. At the same time, Canadian wages and living standards are stagnant. That is a bad combination – and, worse, it is not a coincidence. And here’s the link: Business investment is so weak that the stock of productive capital per worker in Canada – the buildings, tools and software they use – is falling. More workers and less capital are putting Canada on a path to a low-productivity, low-wage economy.

William Robson is chief executive of the C.D. Howe Institute. He recently co-authored a report on business investment in Canada.

Source: Opinion: Higher immigration without business investment lowers … – The Globe and Mail

Star editorial: Canada needs immigrants. It also needs a plan for the influx of new Canadians.

Even the Star is critical of the government’s approach to immigration.

Money quote: “On the larger immigration question it must come to grips with the reality that bigger isn’t always better when there’s no strategy.”

Marc Miller characterized it as a mere piece of housekeeping. Canadians were telling his Liberal government, he said, to “be a little more organized” and plan a little better when it comes to immigration policy.

But Canadian immigration policy needs a rethink, not just better organization. While the federal immigration minister rightly says Canadians are not xenophobic, they are paying more attention to immigration than they have in recent years. As Miller concedes, it’s time for the Trudeau government to pay more attention as well. It’s time to tailor the number of immigrants to our needs because in recent years Liberal immigration policy has been a set of numbers in search of a coherent strategy.

The numbers are not just big – they are historic.

Miller will stay the course for the life of his government, sticking to previously announced plans to welcome 485,000 permanent residents in 2024 and 500,000 in 2025, but will freeze that number for 2026. When the Liberals were elected in 2015, the immigration intake was set at 265,000 per year, but under its steadily increasing levels in non-pandemic years, 98 per cent of the country’s population increase now comes from international migration, Statistics Canada reports.

The real numbers eclipse permanent resident targets. Canada’s population hit 40 million last summer, part of the largest year-over-year percentage increase in population in 66 years, with the country on a path to double its population in 25 years. The 2.2 million non-permanent residents living in this country on July 1, 2023, comprised largely of temporary workers and international students, was up 46 per cent over the previous year. They now outnumber Indigenous Canadians.

Miller agrees his government has become “quite addicted” to temporary foreign workers and mused about capping the number of international students in this country, now estimated at 900,000. The temporary workers too often find abusive working conditions. Students are too often lured to private colleges with fraudulent claims only to receive substandard education and false hope.

Miller has promised renewed scrutiny on those issues, but the larger picture also needs greater scrutiny. Yes, we are getting older and workers are needed, including those who can fill what the government estimates is a shortfall of 100,000 needed to build homes. But those workers, too, need some place to live, adding more pressure on the market. The Liberal argument that growing immigration means a growing economy is also being questioned, because Canadians’ personal standard of living has not grown with an influx of new arrivals.

None of this is the fault of immigrants, temporary workers or international students. It is a fault of lack of government planning. Canadians facing financial stress are right to worry that a glut of workers available through immigration will drive down wages. They are correct to be concerned about more stress being put on the country’s health care system and social services. They have seen refugees sleeping on the streets in Toronto.

Canada’s worker to retiree ratio of three-to-one and a low birth rate will put greater stress on our social programs, necessitating the open-door policy, Miller says. He has begun work to better integrate federal policy with the needs of provinces who deliver services for newcomers and will upgrade services in smaller centres in the hope that more will settle outside Canada’s three largest cities. All this will take time.

A recent Environics and Century Initiative poll found 44 per cent of Canadians agreed to some degree that there was too much immigration in Canada, the largest one-year jump in that view since the annual survey started in 1977. Importantly, 42 per cent of respondents said immigrants made their community a better place and only nine per cent felt newcomers made things worse.

This country is indisputably enriched by immigrants. The Liberal government must guard against Canadians scapegoating immigrants as they face increased financial stress. It must get a handle on the ever-increasing number of temporary workers and international students in this country. On the larger immigration question it must come to grips with the reality that bigger isn’t always better when there’s no strategy.

Source: Canada needs immigrants. It also needs a plan for the influx of new Canadians.

Regg Cohn: Canadians who seek justice in the Israel-Hamas war should choose their words — and their targets — very carefully

Of note. Money quote:

“We used to say that the world needs more Canada.

It can now be said that Canada does not need more Middle East — neither the madness nor the menace.”

Across Canada, protesters are raising their voices for their rival truths on both sides of the Middle Eastern divide. But two harsh realities await:

First, Canadians can’t stop the endless bloodshed in Gaza and Israel from here.

Second, they quite possibly can start a new conflict on the home front — pitting Canadians against Canadians on the streets of Toronto.

That would be the worst possible legacy of the latest war.

In Sunday’s Star, I wrote at length about the continuing war against peace, based on my own journalistic journey covering the front lines in Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon. Today, the conflict is closer to home.

Tensions are rising here just as they are around the world, notably in European countries where antisemitism and Islamophobia are two sides of the same debased coin. The difference is that Canadians aren’t habituated to so much intolerance and incitement.

Today, demonization is the common denominator.

Antisemitism is being normalized. Islamophobia is being legitimized. And xenophobia is being Canadianized.

Please don’t close your eyes to it, for it is in plain sight. If you can’t feel it — in the air, on the streets and online — then you have lost all feeling.

In my last article, I described how far-right Jewish settlers and inciters undermined the peace process in Israel with an assassination and occupation; how Hamas and Islamic Jihad acted not merely as terrorists but rejectionists, blowing up the peace process with suicide bombs targeting civilians.

Never underestimate the ability of extremists and extreme voices on both sides to hijack the agenda — two tails wagging two warring dogs.

I worry that something similar is happening here in Canada — not with weapons of war, just the weaponizing of words. Some are using social media and megaphones to drive a wedge of division.

Debate is good and democratic. Protests are core to the fabric of freedom and petitions are part of our history.

However, hate speech isn’t protected — antisemitic or Islamophobic attacks can be prosecuted. When a synagogue is hit with Molotov cocktails in Montreal, or a mosque in Ottawa is smeared with feces, it’s against the law.

Small comfort. I worry as much or more about the rhetoric that is perfectly legal yet utterly hostile, if not inciteful.

I’m not pining for a country that bans harsh words or uncomfortable ideas. But it is painful when I see people validate or celebrate protests that devalue what their fellow Canadians hold dear.

I don’t expect every protester to be a model of modulation. I’m not counting on every social media monger to show moderation.

But when it feeds bigotry and bullying, we are moving into perilous territory. There’s a fine line between protesting for peace and provoking a war of words.

That line has been crossed in recent weeks.

Those protesters who seek justice should also show judgment — in choosing their words and their targets. When they criticize Israeli actions over there, and then single out Jewish Canadians over here, it sends a chill here at home that Jews everywhere are fair game.

When crowds chant outside the Jewish Community Centre at Bloor and Spadina (on their way back from a nearby protest), it transmits an unmistakably antisemitic signal across the city that Jews are somehow interchangeable with the Israeli consulate. When protesters yell slogans outside restaurants allegedly to call out Jewish or Israeli connections — intending only to intimidate and berate those trapped inside — it sends an ominous message across the country.

Boycotts are blunt instruments at the best of times. This is the worst of times.

Shall our universities ban books or appearances by bestselling Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari, one of his country’s harshest social critics, because of his origins? Should Canada follow the lead of Lebanon and other Arab countries in banning Wonder Woman movies because its leading woman, Gal Gadot, is Israeli?

Beware such sophistry, for it is a slippery slope.

Obviously it is possible to criticize Israel without being antisemitic — as I did and I do. It is also possible to be anti-Zionist without being anti-Jewish — though it is not as simple as it sounds.

For if Zionism is truly racism, and Israel is transparently racist, would we say the same of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan — carved out as the explicit homeland for Muslims during the 1947 partition of the subcontinent, a place where blasphemy still triggers a death sentence and church bombings remain rampant?

Polling shows most Canadian Jews are broadly supportive of Zionism and the existence of Israel (setting aside illegal settlements). So it is hardly surprising that chanting Zionism is racism, or that Israel is an abomination — and calling for its elimination — would raise alarm bells (just as attacking Ukraine’s right to self-determination would trigger anxiety among Canadians with family ties to that country).

Righteous sloganeering is the wrong way to bring people together. Without humility, there is no empathy.

We have already seen violent and hateful incidents in Canada and the U.S. against Jews and Muslims. We have already heard people claiming that pro-Palestinian protesters should be doxxed or deported for speaking out, or listened as Canadian Jews were accused of dual loyalties for having strong opinions.

Instead of reaching out across the divide and joining hands, too many Jews and Muslims can only see themselves as the bigger victim — oblivious to the other — both in the Middle East and now in Canada. But in any competition for victimhood, there are no victors — it doesn’t work over there, and it won’t help over here.

It is not too late for Canadians to regain their footing, recover their balance, reclaim their compass. But we all need better filters.

Campus excesses are today magnified by social media and then amplified by mass media — distorting the dialogue further. An echo chamber has been transformed into a boxing ring where people take their best shots to provoke the worst instincts among cheering throngs.

Instead of joining hands, we have moved to finger-pointing and flag-waving. I wince when I see the Israeli and Palestinian flags affixed to cars whose drivers honk furiously for their rival tribe or team — as if this deadly conflict were a World Cup soccer competition for the loudest fans.

In a world of conflict and ignorance, Canada can remain a country of coexistence and tolerance. At a time of political polarization, Canadians must show the path to pluralism and remain a role model for multiculturalism.

I wake up with a heavy heart when I think of the bloodshed across the Middle East now — as I did in the past for the hundreds of thousands of souls that have died in the countries I’ve covered as a foreign correspondent. But when I wake these days to what is slowly unravelling in Canada, I hear unmistakable echoes — and yes, echo chambers — from my time abroad.

Which makes my heart even heavier.

We used to say that the world needs more Canada.

It can now be said that Canada does not need more Middle East — neither the madness nor the menace.

Source: https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/canadians-who-seek-justice-in-the-israel-hamas-war-should-choose-their-words-and-their/article_8b42ba0a-ee70-59cb-9a40-7125c887c51d.html

Le rapport sénatorial sur l’islamophobie est le fruit d’une intoxication idéologique

The Quebec laicité perspective on the recent Senate report:

Irresponsable ? Catastrophiste ? Incendiaire ? On hésite sur le bon adjectif à utiliser pour décrire le rapport sur l’islamophobie que le Comité sénatorial permanent des droits de la personne (CSPDP) vient de déposer.

Les attentats à la mosquée de Québec et de London ont profondément bouleversé les Canadiens. Tous les crimes haineux mentionnés dans le rapport sont inacceptables, et les gouvernements ont la responsabilité de les combattre et doivent tout mettre en oeuvre pour favoriser la coexistence pacifique et la sécurité de leurs citoyens. Mais amplifier indûment la menace en dépeignant un climat de terreur pour les musulmans canadiens ne peut que nuire davantage. Les chiffres de Statistique Canada infirment d’ailleurs cette thèse alarmiste. Pourquoi taire, par exemple, que les populations noire et juive sont, et de loin, davantage victimes de crimes haineux ?

Ce rapport, s’il suggère bien quelques rares mesures raisonnables, préfère brosser un tableau hideux et sans nuances de la situation des musulmans canadiens. Ils se sentiraient attaqués, des femmes et des filles auraient « peur de quitter leur domicile pour aller au travail et à l’école », certains subiraient même de l’islamophobie tous les jours.

Définition, laïcité et idéologie

C’est que la définition proposée de l’islamophobie est très large afin d’englober le plus de cas possible. Par exemple, le fait de ne pas accorder aux musulmans, dans le milieu de travail, des locaux et du temps pour les prières est considéré comme relevant de l’islamophobie, au sens de racisme antimusulman (p. 66). L’approche intersectionnelle, comme les notions d’islamophobie systémique et de micro-agressions inconscientes, permet également d’amplifier le phénomène.

Le rapport reconduit également une compréhension hautement caricaturale de la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État. Les témoins interrogés, qui confondent le respect des personnes avec le respect absolu des préceptes de l’islam, « s’entendent tous pour dire que la loi 21 est discriminatoire, qu’elle a exacerbé l’islamophobie et qu’elle devrait être abrogée » (p. 65). Elle est même accusée de « déshumaniser les personnes ». On le voit, le CSPDP n’a pas entendu comme témoin un seul des nombreux musulmans qui soutiennent la loi 21.

Le rapport évite également de penser la réalité de l’islamisme violent et la peur légitime qu’il soulève, y compris chez les musulmans. Seul Rachad Antonius, parmi les 138 témoins entendus lors des 21 séances publiques, ose en traiter expressément, mais le rapport le passera sous silence. Il n’y aurait, à entendre les autres témoins, que des préjugés et des stéréotypes à combattre à grands coups de campagnes médiatiques et de formations obligatoires contre les biais inconscients pour tous les fonctionnaires et les élèves.

Le rapport ne retient que ce qui appuie une conclusion tirée d’avance. Tout écart statistique, comme la sous-représentation des musulmans chez les fonctionnaires ou leur surreprésentation dans les prisons, est compris comme une « preuve » d’islamophobie systémique, sans qu’il y ait recherche d’une explication plus plausible. Le rapport confond également idéologie et science en prétendant, sans justification, que « la plus grande menace pour la sécurité nationale provient des groupes militant pour la suprématie blanche » (p. 50). On taira donc un document sur la stratégie antiterroriste du Canada qui précisait pourtant que « l’extrémisme islamique violent est la principale menace pour la sécurité nationale du Canada » .

Une offensive contre les institutions chargées de la sécurité

Ce sont assurément les instances responsables de la sécurité nationale qui hantent ce rapport. Cinq des 13 recommandations y sont d’ailleurs consacrées, mais vont dans le sens opposé à celui qu’on attend de la part d’un comité sénatorial crédible. C’est que ce dernier semble surtout à la remorque des recommandations du Conseil national des musulmans canadiens (CNMC), contre lesquelles nous faisions déjà une mise en garde ici.

Le CNMC ne réclame en effet rien de moins que l’interruption de la stratégie nationale de lutte contre l’extrémisme violent et la radicalisation, et la suspension de la Division de la revue et de l’analyse (DRA) de l’Agence de revenu du Canada (ARC), qui est chargée de repérer les menaces de financement du terrorisme au Canada qui s’exercent par l’entremise d’organisations caritatives. Il propose plutôt que soient scrutés les organismes de sécurité nationale, dont le Service canadien du renseignement de sécurité, et les services frontaliers du Canada, qu’il soupçonne de pratiques racistes, xénophobes, islamophobes et même de subir la « pénétration de la suprématie blanche ».

Le CSPDP approuve tout cela et affirme que « les lois, les politiques et les pratiques relatives à la sécurité nationale sont profondément ancrées dans l’islamophobie et continuent de perpétuer des préjugés à l’encontre des musulmans » (p. 51). La preuve ? Soixante-quinze pour cent des révocations d’associations caritatives posant le plus grand risque de financement du terrorisme au Canada visaient des organismes musulmans, alors que ceux-ci représentent moins de 1 % de l’ensemble des organisations caritatives (p. 57). Malgré le témoignage de Sharmila Khare (directrice générale de la Direction des organismes de bienfaisance de l’ARC), selon lequel « les vérifications de la DRA ne sont entreprises que lorsqu’il y a un risque d’abus terroriste », le rapport conclut néanmoins que la DRA « fait preuve d’un parti pris structurel à l’encontre des organismes de bienfaisance musulmans » (p. 58).

Le simple fait que le modèle d’évaluation du ministère des Finances soit axé sur le risque serait même, selon le professeur de droit Anver Emon, « une déclaration explicite d’islamophobie » . Mieux, qu’un Canadien voyageant à Gaza et combattant pour le Hamas devienne suspect pour le gouvernement serait, ajoute-t-il, un « exemple d’islamophobie systémique » ! Faut-il vraiment relever que le CSPDP perd ainsi toute crédibilité en « oubliant » que le Hamas est sur la liste des entités terroristes du Canada ? Qu’en amalgamant islam et islamisme violent sous le parapluie de l’islamophobie, il mine le sentiment de sécurité de ses citoyens ?

Comment expliquer pareille intoxication irresponsable ? Une partie de l’explication réside peut-être dans le fait que la présidente de ce comité sénatorial, Salma Ataullahjan, est toujours conseillère au CNMC. Rappelons, pour finir, que cette organisation fait partie des plaignants qui sont devant les tribunaux pour faire invalider la loi 21.

Source: Le rapport sénatorial sur l’islamophobie est le fruit d’une intoxication idéologique

Neutral coverage below:

Islamophobia remains a persistent problem in Canada and concrete action is required to reverse the growing tide of hate, says a new Senate report released Thursday.

“The evidence is clear. Islamophobia is an acute threat to Canadian Muslims and urgent action is needed,” Sen. Salma Ataullahjan, chair of the Senate human rights committee, told reporters Thursday.

“We must commit to building a more inclusive country and to better promoting our Muslim relatives and friends, neighbours and colleagues.”

The report, the first of its kind in Canada, took a year and involved 21 public meetings and 138 witnesses.

The report said the committee “was disturbed to hear that incidents of Islamophobia are a daily reality for many Muslims, that one in four Canadians do not trust Muslims and that Canada leads the G7 in terms of targeted killings of Muslims motivated by Islamophobia.”

The report’s finding that one in four Canadians do not trust Muslims comes from a submission to the committee from Maple Lodge Farms, a supplier of Halal meat in Ontario’s Peel region, which said it gathered the information from a “national survey” it conducted of 1,500 Canadians.

The submission does not provide details on how the respondents were chosen or what specific questions they were asked.

The report found that Muslim women have become the “primary targets when it comes to violence and intimidation” because they are easily recognizable from their attire. As a result, many are afraid to leave their homes for work, school or other activities.

“The profound effects of gendered Islamophobia are such that it compels certain women to consider removing their hijabs to enhance their employment opportunities,” the report said.

“Testimonies highlighted the fact that Islamophobia in the workplace is not merely the consequence of a handful of people’s actions; rather, it is a systemic issue that is widespread.”

The report said that as a result, Arab women have the highest unemployment rate of any demographic group in the country.

Sen. Mobina Jaffer, Canada’s first Muslim senator, told reporters Thursday that in 2001, not long after 9/11, she was flying from Vancouver to Ottawa with about 60 members of her family when she and her husband were singled out by airport authorities.

“Coming from a refugee background to be appointed by [former prime minister Jean] Chrétien to be a senator was a great pride for my family,” Jaffer said. “And my husband and I both were called outside. And my husband and I both had to completely undress … and I don’t wish that on anybody.”

‘A confirmation of what we have been seeing over many years’

Uthman Quick, the director of communications for the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), told CBC News that the council was satisfied to see the report highlight the poor treatment of Muslim women in Canada, which he said is a growing problem.

“I think the report is really a confirmation of what we have been seeing over many years, but particularly over the last few weeks, since October 7,” he said.

Quick said there has been an increase in the number of Islamophobic incidents reported to the NCCM since the starte of the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organization by the Canadian government and other nations.

“I am hoping the recommendations are followed through upon. Now more than ever, we can see that they are absolutely needed,” Quick said.

Islamophobia and the media

The report said that the problem can be blamed in part on negative and pervasive stereotypes of Muslims the report said have mischaracterized “concepts of sharia, jihad and hijab.”

“The recurring portrayal of Muslims in media has entrenched these stereotypes, leading them to become falsely accepted as truth,” the report said.

The report found that hate-based information being spread on social media remains a growing problem, with more than 3,000 anti-Muslim social media groups or websites active in Canada.

“The frequency of hate speech and misinformation on social media platforms such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and Instagram was a common concern for [committee] witnesses,” the report said.

A written submission to the committee from Meta, Instagram and Facebook’s parent company, said its efforts to combat Islamophobia are a “work in progress.” It said it is taking steps that include monitoring hate speech and engaging with Muslim communities.

Representatives from X did not appear or make a submission to the committee.

Recommendations

The report makes a number of recommendations for the federal government:

  • Ensure mandatory, regular training on Islamophobia for all federal government employees and the judiciary.
  • Launch a multimedia campaign and educational resources on Islamophobia that can be incorporated into classrooms.
  • Provide additional money to address hate-motivated crimes.
  • Increase specific Criminal Code offences for hate-motivated crimes.
  • Review the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s mandate to ensure it reflects the needs, interests and aspirations of racialized communities.
  • Introduce legislation to crack down on online hate.
  • Review national security legislation to ensure it takes Islamophobia into account.
  • Modernize the Employment Equity Act to ensure it takes Islamophobia into account.

The report also recommended the federal government introduce legislation in a number of areas to help the Canada Revenue Agency better understand the context for audits of religious organizations and provide quicker decisions on appeals.

The report said that in 2021, 144 anti-Muslim hate crimes were reported to police across the country, with an additional 1,723 crimes reported that were motivated by racial or ethnic hatred.

According to Statistics Canada data used to write the report, there were 223,000 reported cases of hate crime in general in 2020, but the report said those numbers fail to provide a complete picture of hate-motivated violence against Muslims in the country.

Mohammed Hashim, executive director of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, is quoted in the report telling the committee that only one per cent of reported hate crimes are reported to police and only a fraction of those result in charges.

“Muslims in Canada feel like they are under attack. The psychological impact of constant fear and vigilance is a heavy burden,” the report said.

“Survivors of violent Islamophobia live with the trauma of their direct experience, while countless others live with vicarious trauma brought on by justified fear that their communities are not safe.”

Source: Senate report on Islamophobia says urgent action needed to reverse rising tide of hate

Jesse Kline: Liberal immigration plan exposes the folly of big government

Bit of a stretch to link the flawed immigration plan to the “folly of big government” as bad immigration policy can also be the “folly of small government.” And of course, the vast majority of immigrants have the ” potential to contribute to the tax base for the next three or four decades” as any cursory analysis of the data shows:

It is becoming clear to an increasing number of Canadians that the rapid influx of new immigrants brought in by the federal Liberals is exposing cracks in a country with an overburdened health system, a massive social safety net and a bureaucracy that stifles the economy and prevents housing and infrastructure from keeping up with population growth.

A series of recent polls found that 44 per cent of the country thinks immigration levels are too high, with even higher levels of dissatisfaction in Liberal strongholds such as Vancouver (49 per cent) and the Greater Toronto Area (57 per cent).

Source: Jesse Kline: Liberal immigration plan exposes the folly of big government

Canada is curbing immigration — but this lawyer says newcomers still drive our economy – Toronto Star

I rely more on labour economists like Mikal Skuterud than immigration lawyers for assessing impact of immigration on the economy, particularly productivity and GDP per capita growth:

The engine driving Canada’s economic growth isn’t cars, crude or softwood lumber — it’s immigration. In spite of lagging productivity compared with other economic superpowers, like the United States or China, Canada has propped up its aging labour force with newcomers.

Last year, Canada’s population grew by nearly one million people, according to Statistics Canada. Almost all of them were newcomers: refugees fleeing persecution, post-secondary students in pursuit of a Canadian diploma and job experience, farm workers with the country’s agricultural temporary foreign worker program.

Just last summer, months after U.S. tech giants like Meta and Amazon were laying off thousands of qualified tech professionals, then-immigration minister Sean Fraser launched a program to give U.S. H1-B visa holders a shot at Canadian work permits. Within 48 hours, 10,000 applications had been submitted.

But Ottawa appears to be tapping the brakes on its ambitious immigration targets. Earlier this month, the federal government announced it would “stabilize” immigration levels at 500,000 per year starting in 2026, despite years of continually raising its target. Meanwhile, Northern College, an Ontario post-secondary institution, has revoked around 700 acceptance letters from international students over the past year due to what it described as a lack of local jobs and housing.

These decisions come in the face of stubbornly high housing and food costs affecting everyone living on Canadian soil: permanent residents, citizens and undocumented alike. Stephen Green, managing partner at immigration law firm Green and Spiegel, spoke to the Star about the current economic — and educational — landscape for immigrants from his Toronto office earlier this week:

There is an argument that amid competition for housing and jobs in Canada, immigration at our current level is unsustainable. Do you buy this argument?

I don’t buy that at all. First, unlike some countries like the U.S., where they have a lottery system based on country of origin, we have a really rigorous and thought-out selection system based on “human capital.” They look at a newcomer’s age, their education, whether they’ve worked or studied in Canada, whether they have family in Canada, whether they can speak English and French — that sort of stuff. We’re selecting immigrants based on a model that economists and various policy experts have said are considered very important factors.

I think the only major issue is that a lot of people in their forties have a very difficult time immigrating to Canada because of the point system. An applicant’s age is about 30 per cent of it. So if you are 45 years old, you run a really successful business outside of Canada and you want to come here, you’re going to have a tough time. But I don’t buy the notion about jobs. Even at my firm, we’ve been trying to find some skilled workers for over two years. We can’t find people. And I’m hearing from the construction industry that there are no workers. We have a really serious problem finding carpenters and plumbers — and these are the people who are supposedly going to help us with our housing crisis.

So how do those folks fare in Canada’s immigration system?

It’s very difficult for them under the point system. A lot of those skilled workers don’t speak great English and don’t have a great education. The trades have a very difficult time immigrating, and the government has always known that, and they’ve struggled to try to make the system better. But the real problem is that the provinces are responsible for licensing, and the feds are responsible for bringing people in. There are situations where you may have a carpenter that will make it through the immigration system, but then they can’t get their licence as a carpenter.

Look at doctors. Look at nurses. We make it so difficult for these people to get the proper licence. You can’t tell me that a doctor that’s graduated from Harvard and wants to practise in Canada — or a pharmacist from Europe — has to go through a horrendous licensing process. It’s wrong, and that was really holding up the ability of individuals that immigrate to our country to really perform their professions.

During the first years of the pandemic, there was some talk about getting more doctors from abroad into Canada’s health-care system. It sounds like the issues haven’t improved.

It’s a little better. They’re moving way too slow. It’s interesting, on the medical side — it costs the province more money to license more doctors. And the doctors want to protect their turf a bit. But I think Canadians have had it. You have people that can’t find family doctors, that can’t find specialists, and they’re saying there’s no reason why doctors should go through such craziness to get licensed.

International students have gotten a lot of attention from the federal government recently. First there was last summer’s acceptance letter scam, then Northern College’s recent revocation of 700 international student acceptances. Can you explain what’s going on?

Former immigration minister Jason Kenney once said foreign students were the best future immigrants to Canada. Why? They pay for their own education. It’s a funny word — but they become Canadianized much easier than other immigrants. Our foreign students fund my kids. They pay $40,000 to $50,000 a year to go to the University of Toronto, when Canadian-born students pay $7,000 to $8,000. But the federal government only let foreign students go to schools that have been designated “learning institutions” — by provinces. And the provinces have failed Canadians by designating far too many that don’t deserve it.

As for the fraudulent letters — the issue is that post-secondary institutions have asked for help finding students in foreign countries, and there is no compliance on them. I was in Chandigarh in India recently. It would blow your mind. Massive billboards by immigration consultants promising to get students into schools. The problem is that the Canadian government knows about it, but they can’t enforce anything because it’s happening in a foreign country. The foreign country can’t do anything.

What’s made it worse is that the Canadian government lifted a requirement that immigration consultants be permanent residents or citizens. Now, if I’m living in India, I can take an online course to become an immigration consultant and the college regulating immigration consultants can’t go after me.

Do you think more institutions will start reneging on international student acceptances, as Northern College has done?

I don’t know. But I hope the provinces will look at those institutions and make them understand what they did to these students. You have to understand that in places like Chandigarh, the parents of these students are selling everything possible to make their child’s life better than theirs. If you get accepted to this college that you mentioned and you’ve got your plane ticket, you’ve booked everything — and they say sorry, you can’t come? I mean, that’s bad.

Have you noticed an increasing reluctance by international students to come to Canada?

Our government has made some statements against certain countries in the Parliament of Canada, and I think it has tremendously affected the way they look at Canada now. So we’ll have to see how the government is going to manage that. I think, regardless of whatever India may or may not have done, I think there were different ways to handle that.

We depend on immigration for economic growth. If Canada decided to flatten or even lower immigration targets, what kind of effect do you think that would have on our economy?

It would be disastrous. Here’s something that most Canadians don’t have a clue about. Do you know what a fellow in a hospital is?

No, I don’t.

That’s someone who is an expert in their area of medicine from abroad, or even in Canada. Our medical system relies so heavily on these doctors from abroad, but we pay them 70 per cent less than what a doctor in Canada makes. Five years ago, the Saudi government pulled 800 fellows home after a dispute with us, and the Canadian government worried the medical system would crash.

Immigration is so important to Canada. It is a very emotional area of the law because, a lot of the time, people don’t understand the effects. They make decisions based on what they think is happening — that an immigrant is taking their job, or that temporary agriculture workers get paid less than Canadians. They aren’t.

Temporary foreign workers are tied to specific employers, and it can be very difficult for them to report labour violations. Is the federal government trying to change that?

On the one hand, the government has a compliance regime that puts a lot of stress on workers — on the other hand, they have to ensure there is an employer-employee relationship, and ensure there are parameters on what workers will do. It’s a difficult balance, and the government is aware of that. They’ve heard those concerns. Like all of us, they want to make the system better. But some people take advantage of it, and we have to look at how to prevent abuses. Maybe, for now, a restricted work permit is the best way to prevent the abuses in our system.

Source: Canada is curbing immigration — but this lawyer says newcomers still drive our economy – Toronto Star

The Census Bureau sees an older, more diverse America in 2100 in three immigration scenarios

Of note:

By the end of the century, the U.S. population will be declining without substantial immigration, older adults will outnumber children and white, non- Hispanic residents will account for less than 50% of the population, according to projections released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

The population projections offer a glimpse of what the nation may look like at the turn of the next century, though a forecast decades into the future can’t predict the unexpected like a global pandemic

The projections can help the U.S. prepare for change, from anticipating the demands of health care for seniors to providing insight into the number of schools that need to be built over the coming decades, said Paul Ong, a public affairs professor at UCLA.

“As most demographers realize, population projection is not an inevitable destiny, just a glimpse into a possible future,” Ong said. “Seeing that possibility also opens up opportunities for action.”

Population changes due to births and deaths, which are more predictable, and immigration, which is more uncertain. Because of that, the Census Bureau offers three different projections through 2100 based on high, medium and low immigration.

Under the low-immigration scenario, the U.S. population shrinks to 319 million people by 2100 from the current population of 333 million residents. It grows to 365 million people at the end of the century under the medium immigration scenario and to 435 million residents with high immigration. In each immigration scenario, the country is on track to become older and more diverse. 

Americans of college age and younger are already part of a majority-minority cohort.

Aliana Mediratta, a 20-year-old student at Washington University in St. Louis, welcomes a future with a more diverse population and believes immigration “is great for our society and our economy.”

But that optimism is tempered by existential worries that things seem to be getting worse, including climate change and gun violence.

“I feel like I have to be optimistic about the future since, if I’m pessimistic, it disables me from doing things that I want to do, that are hard, but morally right to do,” Mediratta said.

Here’s a look at how the U.S. population is expected to change through 2100, using the medium immigration scenario.

2020s

By 2029, older adults will outnumber children, with 71 million U.S. residents aged 65 and older and 69 million residents under age 18.

The numeric superiority of seniors will mean fewer workers. Combined with children, they’ll represent 40% of the population. Only around 60% of the population that is of working age — between 18 and 64 — will be paying the bulk of taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

2030s

“Natural increase” in the U.S. will go negative in 2038, meaning deaths outpacing births due to an aging population and declines in fertility. The Census projects 13,000 more deaths than births in the U.S., and that shortfall grows to 1.2 million more deaths than births by 2100.

2050s

By 2050, the share of the U.S. population that is white and not Hispanic will be under 50% for the first time.

Currently, 58.9% of U.S. residents are white and not Hispanic. By 2050, Hispanic residents will account for a quarter of the U.S. population, up from 19.1% today. African Americans will make up 14.4% of the population, up from 13.6% currently. Asians will account for 8.6% of the population, up from 6.2% today.

Also in the 2050s, Asians will surpass Hispanics as the largest group of immigrants by race or ethnicity.

2060s

The increasing diversity of the nation will be most noticeable in children. By the 2060s, non-Hispanic white children will be a third of the population under age 18, compared to under half currently.

2080s

Under that medium immigration scenario, the U.S. population peaks at more than 369 million residents in 2081. After that, the Census Bureau predicts a slight population decline, with deaths outpacing births and immigration. 

2090s

By the end of the 2090s, the foreign population will make up almost 19.5% of U.S. residents, the highest share since the Census Bureau started keeping track in 1850. The highest rate previously was 14.8% in 1890. It currently is 13.9%.

FOREIGN BORN AND IMMIGRATION

Experts say that predicting immigration trends is more difficult than in the past when migration was tightly linked to the pull of economic opportunity in the U.S. 

When immigration is instead driven by the push of climate change, social tensions exacerbated by authoritarian rulers and gangs, as well as fluctuating anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S., it is harder to predict, said Manuel Pastor, a professor of sociology and American Studies & Ethnicity at the University of Southern California.

“In the past we would say we get immigration from economics, and you can make some reasonable projections,” Pastor said. “Now, we have these push pressures for people to come to the U.S., and we have a further racialized reaction to migration, we have a much wider band or error, or the potential to make mistakes.”

RELIABILITY

How reliable will the numbers be, especially as race and ethnic definitions change, and immigration levels are hard to predict?

While there is an extreme level of uncertainty projecting almost eight decades into the future, it is a good starting point, said Ong, the UCLA professor.

“Over 80 years, birth and death rates, fertility rates and migration rates can be changed through policies, programs and resources,” Ong said.

Mediratta, the college student, imagines that 20-year-olds like her two centuries ago were also concerned about the future, but they didn’t have TikTok or Instagram to amplify their worries. 

“It seems like things are bad all the time,” Mediratta said. “I feel that things were probably bad all the time 200 years ago, but nobody could tell everyone about it.”

Source: The Census Bureau sees an older, more diverse America in 2100 in three immigration scenarios

Advocates in Geneva to denounce discrimination against Canada’s Black public servants

A reminder that the data they use is less solid than presented, based upon the past 6 years of disaggregated data for employee groups and EX, with Black public servants doing as well or in some cases, better than other visible minority groups:

How well is the government meeting its diversity targets? An intersectionality analysis

A delegation from Amnesty International Canada is in Geneva, Switzerland, this week to highlight the country’s human rights failings, including the systemic discrimination of Black workers in the federal public service.

The team is speaking about the issues with various countries ahead of Canada’s participation in the fourth Universal Periodic Review (UPR) on Friday. The UPR is a peer-review process where UN Member States have the opportunity to review the human rights records of others. At the UPR, Canada will be required to share the progress it has made on recommendations provided at the last UPR in 2018.

“Tomorrow, Canada will hear recommendations from all member states,” said Ketty Nivyabandi, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada’s English-speaking section on Thursday. “As of yesterday, there were 164 countries who wanted to speak and wanted to make a recommendation to Canada.”

Discrimination within the public service is an issue that has been top of mind for unions and organizations for the past several years, with a class-action lawsuit filed by thousands of Black public service workers in 2020, alleging workers faced decades of employee exclusion and discriminatory hiring practices.

The Employment Equity in the Public Service of Canada for Fiscal Year 2021 to 2022 report found that Black employees represented 20.6 per cent of the visible minority population, or 4.2 per cent of the entire core public service. Despite growing numbers of workers in equity groups, those employees were over-represented in the lowest salary levels and under-represented at the highest. Though not included as an equity group, the report found that Black employees were disproportionately earning salary ranges below $75,000.

Most recently, a report released by the office of Canada’s auditor general last month, found that government departments and agencies weren’t doing enough to measure inequalities and improve the experiences of racialized employees in the workplace. Despite having established equity, diversity, and inclusion action plans, the report found that the organizations weren’t effectively reporting on progress, sufficiently using data to identify barriers faced by staff and that, at the manager level, there was not enough accountability for behavioural and cultural change.

Nivyabandi said the issue of Black public servants is one of several issues that it’s raising, on top of the rights of Indigenous peoples, migrants and women. She said the organization is also calling for better oversight of how human rights obligations are implemented in Canada.

“We’re very concerned and very little progress has been made,” Nivyabandi said, adding that Amnesty International Canada prepared its own review titled “Canada: Human Rights in Peril” ahead of the UPR. She added that, since the last cycle, Canada has only fully implemented five of the almost 100 recommendations that were made.

“Progress is stalling and we’re here to talk to other member states to make sure that they add pressure on Canada to ensure that Canada finally takes its obligations more seriously.”

Representatives from the Indigenous Nations of Pessamit and Wet’suwet’en as well as Nicholas Marcus Thompson, executive director of the Black Class Action Secretariat (BCAS) joined Amnesty International Canada’s delegation.

Thompson said one of his main goals during the trip was to bring attention to the “egregious conduct” of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the government agency responsible for dealing with complaints of discrimination in employment which itself was found earlier this year to have discriminated against its own employees.

“Our position is that the Canadian Human Rights Commission needs to be held accountable for its human rights violations and that it is violating the Paris Principles which it’s required to adhere to as a human rights body,” Thompson said.

During a speech on Wednesday, Thompson announced BCAS was submitting a complaint to the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions, a body that has the power to decertify or downgrade human rights commissions’ ratings, looking to review the CHRC’s accreditation. Thompson said a formal complaint will soon be filed.

“We’re essentially talking to as many member states as possible, bringing to their attention Canada’s human rights track records, the Canadian Human Rights Commission violating human rights, its poor standing essentially, before the member states deliver recommendations on Friday,” Thompson said.

Action is needed now to address discrimination in the public service, said Thompson, noting the lack of representation in executive positions and little opportunity for workers to advance within the government. And while the federal government recently announced a new panel to help address discrimination in the public service, which is expected to write a public report on its findings in early 2024, a statement from BCAS said there is a need for “immediate and critical policy changes,” rather than more studies.

BCAS is also calling for Canada to release of the Employment Equity Act review, for its recommendations to be implemented, and for the appointment of a special representative to combat anti-Black racism, said Thompson.

“The case of anti-Black racism in the federal public service is very very powerful and emblematic one precisely because it’s happening within the public service where the state has the greatest possibility and opportunity to rectify it,” Nivyabandi said. “It’s very telling when you have a situation of anti-Black racism that has been raised over and over again, it’s still not being resolved.”

“We’re here to make sure that Canada finally takes action.”

After the UPR process takes place on Friday, Canada will have until March to decide what recommendations it will commit to and implement over the next five years.

Source: Advocates in Geneva to denounce discrimination against Canada’s Black public servants

Ontario to ban Canadian work experience requirement in job postings

Significant:

Ontario plans to ban employers from requiring Canadian work experience in job postings or application forms.

Labour Minister David Piccini says newcomers deserve a meaningful chance to contribute in their respective fields, and this change would stop employers from screening out certain workers before the interview process.

Piccini says the new rule will be contained in legislation with a slew of labour law changes he will introduce on Tuesday, including requiring employers to disclose salary ranges in job postings and boosting benefits for injured workers.

Two years ago, the Ontario government passed a law prohibiting certain non-health professions from requiring Canadian work experience for licensing.

The new legislation would also increase the number of international students in Ontario eligible to apply to the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program by revising eligibility requirements for one-year college graduate certificate programs.

As well, it would change how regulated professions such as accounting, architecture and geoscience use third-party organizations to assess international qualifications, which the government says would improve oversight and accountability.

Source: Ontario to ban Canadian work experience requirement in job postings