McWhorter: Don’t Call Ibram X. Kendi a Grifter and Paul: An Overdue Lesson on Antiracism

2023/10/06 Leave a comment

Starting with the more charitable take by McWhorter:

The headlines lately have been full of the news that Ibram X. Kendi of Boston University has dismissed about half of the staff of the Center for Antiracist Research, which he has headed since 2020. Meanwhile, the university has initiated an investigation into the operations of the organization, which has taken in tens of millions of dollars in funding with almost no research to show for it.

Kendi, after three years of megacelebrity as America’s antiracist guru of choice, is being widely described as having imploded or fallen. Many are evincing a painfully obvious joy in this, out of a conviction that he has finally been revealed as the grifter or hustlerhe supposedly is. But this analysis is a strained and even recreational reading of a story that’s much more mundane.

I am unaware of a charge that Kendi has been lining his pockets with money directed toward the center. Rather, the grift is supposed to be that he has profited handsomely from the dissemination of his ideas, including best-selling books, especially “How to Be an Antiracist” and its young reader versions; high speaking fees (reportedly over $30,000 for a lecture at this point); and various other media projects.

But Kendi’s proposals seek to face, trace and erase racist injustice in society to an unprecedented degree. What makes it sleazy that he be well paid for the effort? How many of us, if engaged in similar activity and offered fat speaking fees and generous book royalties, would refuse them? (As someone in the ideas business, too, I certainly wouldn’t.)

The idea that Kendi is wrong to make money from what he is doing implies that his concepts are a kind of flimflam. In this scenario, he is a version of Harold Hill out of “The Music Man,” using star power to foist shoddy product on innocent people to make a buck. The River City residents now are educated white people petrified of being called racists and susceptible to the power of books and speeches that encourage them to acknowledge and work on their racism in order to become better people.

Surely, one might think, Kendi doesn’t actually believe that one is either racist or antiracist with nothing in between or that, as he wrote, “the only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination” or that all discrepancies between white and Black people are due to racism or that the United States should establish a Department of Antiracism with “disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.”

There is no mutual admiration society between Ibram Kendi and me. He has criticized my writings in his book “Stamped From the Beginning” and in several harsh social media posts. To say that I find his ideas less than compelling would be an understatement, and I’ve publicly expressed as much.

The thing is that, whatever one makes of his beliefs, there is all evidence that Kendi is quite sincere in them. If some of us perceive duality and circularity in his thinking, that’s fine. A public intellectual is entitled to his views, and if an interested public wants to pay, in some form, to consider those views, then that should be fine, too.

He became a celebrity by chance. In the wake of the murder of George Floyd, America developed a sudden and passionate interest in racial justice, sustained by the lockdown’s affording Americans so much downtime to reflect on the issue, as well as conditioning a yearning for connection in a common purpose.

Kendi happened to write “How to Be an Antiracist” in 2019, and it stood out as a useful guide to the new imperative. It became a runaway best seller, assisted by his star power, and he became one of the most in-demand public speakers in the country, soon founding the new Center for Antiracist Research. He simply ran with what he was given, as any of us would have.

Deliberate immorality is exceptional. It should be a last resort analysis, not the first one. Accusing Kendi of being a bad man is symptomatic of how eager we tend to be to see bad faith in people who simply think differently from us. To delight in Kendi’s failure as the head of the Center for Antiracist Research is small.

Source: Don’t Call Ibram X. Kendi a Grifter

And the harsher take by Paul, both with respect to Kendi and his enablers:

The recent turmoil at Ibram X. Kendi’s Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, with more than half its staff laid off and half its budget cut amid questions of what it did with the nearly $55 million it raised, led to whoops of schadenfreude from Kendi’s critics and hand wringing from his loyal fans.

Kendi had become a symbol of what was right or wrong with America’s racial reckoning since the police murder of George Floyd. To some, he was a race-baiting grifter; to others, he was a social justice hero speaking harsh truths.

With little administrative experience, Kendi may simply have been ill equipped to deal with a program of that magnitude. He may have been distracted by a nonstop book tour and speaking engagements. Or maybe he just screwed up.

More interesting is that many major universities, corporations, nonprofit groups and influential donors thought buying into Kendi’s strident, simplistic formula — that racism is the cause of all racial disparities and that anyone who disagrees is a racist — could eradicate racial strife and absolve them of any role they may have played in it.

After all, this reductionist line of thinking runs squarely against the enlightened principles on which many of those institutions were founded — free inquiry, freedom of speech, a diversity of perspectives. As one Boston University professor wrote last week in The Wall Street Journal, that academia backs Kendi’s mission amounts to a “violation of scholarly ideals and liberal principles,” ones that betray “the norms necessary for intellectual life and human flourishing.”

Yet Kendi’s ideas gained prominence, often to the exclusion of all other perspectives. Kendi was a relatively unknown academic when his second book, “Stamped From the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America,” was a surprise winner of a National Book Award in 2016. It helped catapult him from assistant professorships at State University of New York campuses, and the University of Florida, to a full professorship at American University, where he founded the Antiracist Research and Policy Center.

In 2017, The New York Times Book Review, which I was then editing, asked Kendi to create a reading list, “A History of Race and Racism, in 24 Chapters,” for our pages. I interviewed Kendi, who is a very charismatic speaker, about the essay on the Book Review’s podcast and again, about his reading life, on a panel, in 2019.

In “Stamped From the Beginning,” Kendi asserted that racist ideas are used to obscure the fact that racist policies create racial disparities, and that to find fault with Black people in any way for those disparities is racist. People who “subscribed to assimilationist thinking that has also served up racist beliefs about Black inferiority,” no matter how well-meaning and progressive, were themselves racist. In Kendi’s revisionist history, figures who had been previously hailed for their contribution to civil rights were repainted as racist if they did not attribute Black inequality solely to racism. Kendi accused W.E.B. Du Bois and Barack Obama of racism for entertaining the idea that Black behavior and attitudes could sometimes cause or exacerbate certain disparities, although he notes that Du Bois went on to take a what he considered a more antiracist position.

In 2019, Kendi took the ideas further, pivoting to contemporary policy with “How to Be an Antiracist.” In this book, Kendi made clear that to explore reasons other than racism for racial inequities, whether economic, social or cultural, is to promote anti-black policies.

“The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination,” Kendi wrote, in words that would be softened in a future edition after they became the subject of criticism. “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” In other words, two wrongs do make a right. As practiced, that meant curriculums that favor works by Black people over white people is one way to achieve that goal; hiring quotas are another.

Among the book’s central tenets is that everyone must choose between his approach, which he calls “antiracism,” and racism itself. It would no longer be enough for an individual or organization to simply be “not racist,” which Kendi calls a “mask for racism” — they must instead be actively “antiracist,” applying a strict lens of racism to their every thought and action, and in fields wholly unrelated to race, in order to escape deliberate or inadvertent racist thinking and behavior. “What we say about race, what we do about race, in each moment, determines what — not who — we are,” Kendi writes.

Kendi’s antiracism prescription meant that universities, corporations and nonprofits would need to remove all policies that weren’t overtly antiracist. In the Boston University English department’s playwriting M.F.A. program, for example, reading assignments had to come from “50 percent diverse-identifying and marginalized writers” and writers of “white or Eurocentric lineage” be taught through “an actively antiracist lens.” Antiracism also requires a commitment to other positions, including active opposition to sexism, homophobia, colorism, ethnocentrism, nativism, cultural prejudice and any class biases that supposedly harm Black lives. To deviate from any of this is to be racist. You’re either with us or you’re against us.

Yet, as the psychologist and author Jonathan Haidt points out, Kendi’s dichotomy is “incorrect from a social-science perspective because there are obviously many other remedies,” including ones that address social, economic and cultural disparities through a more fair distribution of resources.

When a Minneapolis police officer murdered George Floyd in May 2020, Kendi’s book, with its propitious, here-is-what-you-must-do-now title, became the bible for anyone newly committed to the cause of racial justice. Schools and companies made it required reading. So many campuses made it their “class read” “all-school read” or “community read” that the publisher created a full set of reading and teaching guides to help foster them. (Employees at the publishing house, Penguin Random House, were told to read it as the first “true companywide read” to begin “antiracism training mandatory for all employees.”) Universities used Kendi’s antiracist framework as the basis by which applicants’ required “diversity statements” would be judged.

Kendi’s vision of antiracism had considerable influence in shaping the national conversation around race. As Tyler Austin Harper wrote in The Washington Post last week, “No longer a mere ambassador for academic antiracism, Kendi became a brand.”

Yet the same year “How to Be an Antiracist” was published, Henry Louis Gates’s “Stony the Road: Reconstruction, White Supremacy, and the Rise of Jim Crow,” presented a more nuanced assessment of the relationship between past and present. With its vivid examples of crude prejudice (the photos are not for the fainthearted), Gates’s historical excavation allows the reader to see a clear line between the pervasive bigotry of the past and the kind of ugly but marginal brand of white supremacy on display in 2017 Charlottesville. In contrast to Kendi’s contention that racial progress is consistently accompanied by racist progress, numerous memoirs, firsthand accounts, biographies and histories of the civil rights movement also document clear progress on race.

Contra Kendi, there are conscientious people who advocate racial neutrality over racial discrimination. It isn’t necessarily naïve or wrong to believe that most Americans aren’t racist. To believe that white supremacists exist in this country but that white supremacy is not the dominant characteristic of America in 2023 is also an acceptable position.

And while a cartoon version of colorblindness isn’t desirable or even possible, it is possible to recognize skin color but not form judgments on that basis. A person can worry that an emphasis on racial group identity can misleadingly homogenize diverse groups of people, at once underestimating intra-racial differences and overemphasizing interracial ones. The Black left-wing scholar Adolph Reed, for example, decries the emphasis on race-based policies. “An obsession with disparities of race has colonized the thinking of left and liberal types,” Professor Reed said in an interview with The New York Times. “There’s this insistence that race and racism are fundamental determinants of all Black people’s existence.”

In short, a person can oppose racism on firm ethical or philosophical or pragmatic grounds without embracing Kendi’s conception of “antiracism.” No organization can expect all employees or students to adhere to a single view on how to combat racism.

Kendi asserts that whether a policy is racist or antiracist is determined not by intent, but by outcome. But the fruits of any efforts toward addressing racial inequality may take years to materialize and assess.

In the meantime, the best that could come out of this particular reckoning would be a more nuanced and open-minded conversation around racism and a commitment to more diverse visions of how to address it.

Source: An Overdue Lesson on Antiracism

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with , ,

Barker: Oath of citizenship is archaic and needs to go away – Smithers Interior News

2023/10/06 Leave a comment

One could argue that the proposed shift to “citizenship on a click” through self-affirmation of the oath will likely lead to more proposals like this. Presumably, Barker would not argue for reduced residency, knowledge and language requirements.

While unclear from his op-ed, unclear whether he has ever attended a citizenship ceremony with the reciting the oath (and he doesn’t even reference the current oath with its reference to Indigenous treaties):

Recently Marc Miller, Canada’s new immigration minister, reiterated that adding the option for new citizens to take their oath of citizenship with the click of a button was still on the table.

I’ve got an even better idea for the minister.

Do away with the oath of citizenship altogether.

It is a pointless exercise at best and demeaning to our new co-citizens at worst.

First of all, by the mere act of forcing this upon new citizens, we are effectively making them second-class citizens. Canadians by birth don’t have to take the oath, nor should we have to, nor should naturalized ones.

And the oath, to put it bluntly, sucks.

“I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the third, King of Canada, His Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, and fulfil [sic] my duties as a Canadian citizen.”

I wouldn’t take this oath, would you? Maybe, if the reference to Charles was removed, but even then, why should I? My right not to is protected by the Constitution.

Secondly, there is no specific consequence for breaking the oath. There are plenty of consequences for committing crimes, which, in essence, amounts to breaking the oath, but the Crown can’t add an additional charge of breaking the oath of citizenship.

And even if you do break the law, thereby effectively breaking the oath, they can put you in jail, but they can’t revoke your citizenship. They can’t do that to citizens by birth and they can’t do it to naturalized citizens either.

There is only one provision for revoking citizenship and that is if it was obtained by false representation, fraud or knowingly concealing material circumstances.

Interestingly, the same applies to renouncing your citizenship. In other words, the minister can say, ‘no, you cannot renounce your citizenship, because you are doing so under false pretenses.’

New citizens have to go through a lot of rigamarole for years to obtain citizenship. When they are naturalized, they know more about their roles and responsibilities as citizens than most of the rest of us do and are obligated to “faithfully observe the laws of Canada” and fulfill their duties as citizens by becoming citizens.

Taking an oath is redundant.

Finally, the very second a new citizen takes the oath and becomes a citizen, it is perfectly legal for them to disavow it, or at least the offensive parts of it (i.e., pledging allegiance to the King and, even worse, his unnamed successors).

The oath is an archaic practice that just needs to go away.

Source: Oath of citizenship is archaic and needs to go away – Smithers Interior News

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

‘It’s a new party’: How Conservatives try to rebuild trust among Muslim communities

2023/10/05 Leave a comment

Of note. Repeat of the Bricker-Ibbitson and Jason Kenney arguments, but targeted towards a group traditionally less inclined to vote Conservative. But opportunistic given the controversies among some members of religious groups regarding LGBTQ+ and gender issues in the school system:

When Pierre Poilievre pitches the Conservative party to Muslim Canadians, he talks about “faith, family and freedom.”

For months he has been pointing out what he sees as their overlapping values during visits to mosques, at community celebrations, with businesses and in conversations with ethnic media outlets.

It’s part of an effort to grow the party’s presence, particularly in larger cities that are home to many racialized Canadians whose support for the Conservatives plummeted during the final months of Stephen Harper’s government and his divisive 2015 campaign.

Poilievre has also fine-tuned his message to appeal to growing concerns from some parents, echoed by several prominent Muslim organizations, about what their children are learning about LGBTQ+ issues in schools.

He is gaining some traction with his acknowledgment of such worries, but whether he will take action through party policy remains unclear, given his firm view that education is a provincial matter.

Some also wonder what he would do to address the Islamophobia that many feel his party exacerbated the last time it was in power. “This is where we have that sort of cautious optimism,” said Nawaz Tahir, a lawyer who chairs Hikma, an advocacy group for Muslims in southwestern Ontario. Tahir met Poilievre with other community leaders this summer.

“While it might be resonating in the short term, there are long-term questions about whether or not people will continue to listen, or latch on, in the absence of some concrete policy proposals.”

Poilievre has chosen to walk a careful path on the issue of “parental rights.” The term, which speaks to the desire by parents to make decisions regarding their children, has been popularized by people with wide-ranging concerns about efforts to make schools more inclusive for LGBTQ+ students, such as by raising Pride flags or including discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in the curriculum.

New Brunswick and Saskatchewan now require parental permission for transgender and nonbinary students to use different names or pronouns at school. Court challenges have ensued, with teachers’ unions and provincial child advocates saying the policies put vulnerable students at risk.

The Conservative leader has said that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should “butt out” of the issue and “let parents raise kids,” but otherwise Poilievre has stayed mum on how he might respond.

At last month’s policy convention in Quebec City, Conservative party members voted overwhelmingly in favour of a policy change to prohibit minors experiencing gender dysphoria from receiving “life-altering” pharmaceutical or surgical treatment.

A video posted online shows that Poilievre said during a Punjabi media event in Surrey, B.C., several days later that he was “taking some time to study that policy to come to the right solution.”

He said the party would have to consider “jurisdictions,” in the sense of “which level of government is responsible for it” — but ultimately, “I will be making my position clear.”

Poilievre’s office did not respond to a question about whether he has come to any conclusions.

His office was also silent in July when a photo circulated online that showed Conservative finance critic and Calgary MP Jasraj Singh Hallan with two men who wore T-shirts that read “leave our kids alone.” The shirts featured an image of stylized figures beneath an umbrella shielding them from the rainbow of colours associated with LGBTQ+ Pride flags.

One of the men in the photo, Mahmoud Mourra, a Muslim father of five, has for months been protesting school policies and activities that acknowledge students’ sexual orientation and gender identity.

As he and thousands of others took to the streets in recent countrywide demonstrations against “gender ideology” in schools on Sept. 20, Trudeau posted on X, the platform previously known as Twitter, that “transphobia, homophobia, and biphobia have no place in this country.”

Poilievre’s office, meanwhile, instructed MPs to keep quiet.

Two days later, Poilievre also posted on X, accusing Trudeau of “demonizing concerned parents” with his statement about the protests.

The Muslim Association of Canada also condemned Trudeau’s remarks, saying Muslim parents who participated in protests showed up “to be heard, not to sow division.” The organization said it feared Muslim kids would face “increased bullying and harassment” at school —a statement Poilievre and many of his MPs shared online.

Dalia Mohamed, who leads public affairs at the Canadian chapter of the Islamic Society of North America, said her organization has heard from parents who worry their children face pushback when opting out of certain lessons or activities related to LGBTQ+ issues.

“What they’re seeing more and more is that their kids are facing repercussions,” she said.

An audio recording surfaced online in June alleged to be an Edmonton school teacher chastising a Muslim student about missing class to avoid Pride events. The unidentified teacher says respect for differences “goes two ways,” adding that if the student thinks same-sex marriage should not be legal, then he “can’t be Canadian” and does not “belong here.”

The National Council of Canadian Muslims called it “deeply Islamophobic, inappropriate and harassing behaviour.” The school board said it was dealing with the issue.

Tahir, with Hikma, said it comes down to respecting religious freedom, adding that it is “not part of our faith teaching” to hate the LGBTQ+ community. “We condemn that,” he said.

Tahir said he and other community leaders told Poilievre the Conservatives have an opportunity to regain the support of Muslim Canadians.

He argued that the “vast majority” of Muslims voted for Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives in the 1980s and early ’90s.

“There was a lot of alignment on a number of issues. And that seems to have gone by the wayside,” he said.

Still, while there is frustration that the governing Liberals have failed to take enough action against Islamophobia,including within its own government agencies, Poilievre faces an uphill battle against long memories.

“He was around the table during the Harper years when there were some things that happened that were not well received by the Muslim community,” said Tahir.

In 2011, then-immigration minister Jason Kenney brought in a rule requiring Muslim women to remove face coverings, such as niqabs, when swearing the oath during citizenship ceremonies. During the 2015 federal election campaign, the Conservatives asked the Supreme Court to hear a request to appeal a court decision to overturn that policy, and Harper mused about extending it to all public servants. The Conservatives also promised to create a tip line to enforce a law against “barbaric cultural practices,” which they said at the time included forced marriages.

Eight years later, Conservatives are still apologizing.

“Mistakes were made. No doubt about that,” Conservative MP Garnett Genuis said in August of the 2015 campaign at a Greater Toronto Area breakfast meeting with members of the Pakistani community.

“There’s rebuilding of trust,” he said in a video shared online. “And I understand people saying, ‘Well, we’re not sure yet because of some of the things that happened in the past.'”

He described a “deep fundamental connection” between the Conservative party and the wider Muslim community. He said a “renaissance” of that relationship is underway.

“We’re trying to reach out to the community and tell them, ‘It’s a new party, that was eight years ago,'” Conservative Sen. Salma Ataullahjan said at the same event. Her office did not respond to a request for comment.

In a written statement, Genuis said the party’s message around lower prices, affordable housing and safer communities is “resonating with Canadians of all walks of life.

So is its defence of “faith, family and freedom,” he added.

Poilievre addressed the criticism of the Conservatives’ unsuccessful 2015 campaign during last year’s leadership race. Rival candidate Patrick Brown, who at the time was counting on heavy support from Muslim communities, accused Poilievre of having never “publicly stood against” the divisive policies, such as a “niqab ban.” Poilievre pushed back by noting the policy was limited to swearing the citizenship oath.

Since winning the leadership, Poilievre has travelled extensively to meet with immigrant and racialized communities that Conservatives had long ago credited with delivering them a majority victory in 2011.

Historically, the party has believed that many in these groups tend to be more religiously conservative, that they will prioritize public safety and that they are looking for policies, such as lower taxes, that can help them gain an economic foothold in Canada.

Tahir said Poilievre was told during his meeting this summer that if he comes back with concrete plans to address Islamophobia, there would be “a strong willingness” from the community to vote Conservative.

In 2017, Poilievre voted alongside other Conservative MPs against a motion from a Liberal MP to condemn Islamophobia, citing concerns it could infringe on free speech.

During Ramadan this spring, Poilievre said in an interview with Canada One TV that he believes the country must “combat bad speech with good speech, not with censorship, but with good speech.”

He also spoke of bolstering a security fund for mosques and talked about combating Islamophobia through a stronger criminal justice response, part of a broader push by the Conservatives for tough-on-crime policies.

Earlier this year, Poilievre addressed long-standing allegations that the Canada Revenue Agency is discriminating against Muslim charities.

The agency “has been abusing our Muslim charities and the immigration system has been discriminating against our Muslim immigrants,” he said in a video shared by the Muslim Association of Canada.

The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency announced in March it would be investigating allegations of bias and Islamophobia at the CRA.

Saleha Khan said she believes Poilievre is using the debate around LGBTQ+ issues in schools to his advantage. She also worries the surrounding rhetoric could ultimately bring more harm to the community.

The London, Ont., woman and nearly 700 other people, many of whom are members of the Muslim Canadian community,have asked in an open letter that their leaders “help separate fact from fiction” by speaking out about misinformation they see fuelling a lot of the discourse, placing both Muslim and LGBTQ+ students at risk, as well as those who identify as both.

She said the debate is “gut-wrenching” and risks making life even more dangerous for average Muslim families and their children, who already experience Islamophobia and live their life under high alert.

“We will become the poster children for transphobia and homophobia when we are not the poster children for homophobia and transphobia.”

In the Ramadan interview with Canada One TV, Poilievre acknowledged that his party has done a lousy job of fostering better ties.

He pledged to be different.

“I’m coming here with my hand extended in a spirit of friendship,” he said. “It’s not the duty of the Muslim community to come to us. It’s our duty to come to you.”

Source: ‘It’s a new party’: How Conservatives try to rebuild trust among Muslim communities

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , , , ,

McKinnon: The India debacle should prompt Canada to rethink the naive way we engage with the world

2023/10/05 Leave a comment

From a former colleague of mine.

Always been a challenge with large diaspora communities and will likely remain so, to a greater or lessor cost depending on the issue and situation:

The implosion of the Canada-India relationship, only months after our Indo-Pacific Strategy described India as a “critical partner,” is stunning. Canada’s relationship with a democratic and pluralistic India was intended, at least in part, to be a counterweight to our troubled relationship with authoritarian China. But after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced last month that there were “credible allegations” that the Indian government was involved in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Surrey, B.C., the two countries engaged in a tit-for-tat expulsion of senior diplomats; now, Delhi is reportedly further demanding the removal of 41 of Canada’s 62 remaining envoys.

The immediate cause of the breakdown may rest with Delhi, but the dysfunction has deep roots. A serious rethink is needed to get the relationship back on track. This includes consciously balancing national interests – Canada’s security and prosperity – against special interests, including the diasporas, in our relationship with India.

If the allegations are true, there will be implications for India’s international standing. It would no longer be seen as a largely benign democratic counterweight to China and Russia. Instead, it would prove that it is what it has always been: a complex giant focused on taking its place in the world and advancing its interests, albeit now under a leader in Prime Minister Narendra Modi who has overtly sidelined Jawaharlal Nehru’s original vision of a secular and tolerant democratic India. Canada and its allies must grapple with the contradictions of developing closer relations with an important country with an increasingly illiberal leadership – a more difficult task if there is serious evidence India is behind extrajudicial killings abroad.

A real challenge for Canada is that our allies have enough at stake in their own relations with India that they are unlikely to countenance their own serious ruptures with Delhi, even if they accept our version of events and want to be supportive. Despite tough talk in Canada, holding Indian officials accountable will be hard, to say the least, particularly if no one is put on trial. Nonetheless, a message needs to be sent that this cannot happen again.

But while I am shocked by this turn of events, I am not surprised that the long-standing misalignment in the relationship led to a deep cleavage.

As Canada’s trade and investment relationship with a booming India grew in the 2000s, a visit to the country became a priority for politicians from all levels of government. In my experience from that time, it was clear that for the most part, their interests were at least as much in the prospect of photos from an India trip playing well with voters in Canada than in seriously engaging the country. Politicians from across the spectrum wanted to see the country and the relationship in terms they could understand easily and convey to audiences at home, especially from Indian-originating diasporas. And so official visitors routinely described the Canada-India relationship as based on shared values of democracy and human rights, as well as strong people-to-people links.

Indeed, those links were seen by most Canadians to be an undiluted positive. From the Indian perspective, though, it was much more complex – the Indian diaspora, like the country itself, is diverse. The Indian diaspora in Canada is very large, with perhaps half of it Sikh, even as Sikhs represent only 2 per cent of India’s population. I recall reminding politicians who were heading to photo-ops in the city of Amritsar that it was important to remember that Sikhs, an impressive and distinguished community, made up about the same percentage of India’s population as that of their home provinces, so they needed to appreciate how much of India they were not seeing.

Even then, though, little attention was given to the complex history of the relationship, or our more substantive and enduring interests (economic, geopolitical, etc.) in a growing country that is home to 20 per cent of humanity. Or that it is in Canada’s interest to develop a substantive relationship with India, whether or not our values are precisely aligned. Instead, we mistakenly assumed that, because the relationship was based on shared values and our large India-originating diaspora, our relationship was assured.

But whatever pleasantries the Indian hosts might have offered visiting Canadians, you can be sure that they were much more focused on the hard edge of their interests and advancing them. Our view of the relationship would inevitably conflict with those of a country located in a difficult region where national interests were seen as paramount, and where the focus of the otherwise limited relationship with Canada touched on India’s national security.

Indeed, while the Canada-India relationship has difficult elements to its history – including the discovery that a Canadian nuclear reactor provided to India for peaceful purposes in 1954 had been used to launch India’s nuclear weapons program in 1974 – the most significant continuing irritant is the support in Canada for the cause of Khalistan, the concept of a separate Sikh homeland. In the 1970s, Canada developed a reputation as a base for the Khalistani movement. While simply voicing support would clearly be protected speech under Canadian law, violence in Canada quickly became a problem, including the 1986 attempted murder of Punjab minister Malkiat Singh Sidhu, who was visiting Vancouver Island, and the 1985 bombing of an Air India flight travelling from Montreal to London in which 329 people were killed, overwhelmingly Canadian citizens. The failures of the Canadian security services to disrupt the plot and the ultimate inability of the Canadian justice system to hold the perpetrators to account are well-known in India; at the same time, memory of the bombing in Canada is shamefully weak.

Those failures are exacerbated by Canadian politicians frequently being photographed at events where violent Khalistani extremists are lauded as martyrs. By and large, this is excused as carelessness while in pursuit of votes in diaspora communities. In India, it is viewed altogether differently, and not just by the hardline Hindu nationalist supporters of Mr. Modi.

Diasporas are an important part of Canada’s diversity and dynamism, and they reinforce our links overseas. But they also complicate them. Members of diasporas from other countries often have their perspectives frozen at the time they left, without full appreciation of current realities. This is not to say the views of diasporas should not be heard; of course they should be. But politicians and policymakers need to have a broader and up-to-date understanding of a country into which they can contextualize the views of individuals or groups from whom they are hearing. That’s especially true if those groups are advocating for the breakup of their country of origin. We need to tread very carefully around separatism, particularly given our own experience.

While the Sikh population in Canada is the largest in the world outside of India, other countries that have significant Sikh populations and active groups of Khalistan supporters – notably the U.K., Australia and U.S., – still manage to have constructive strategic bilateral relationships with India. That is essentially because those countries have developed substantial political, economic and security links to New Delhi that underscore their importance to a broader set of India’s interests. They have not simply rested on the naive assumption that (supposedly) shared values and having a diaspora are a sufficient base for an enduring relationship.

Canada’s lack of broader links with India means that Delhi believes it can act in a heavy-handed way on this file. Little else is at stake for the Indian government; in fact, the domestic political benefits to taking action against Canada are potentially significant for Mr. Modi. Our long-term interests in the purely bilateral relationship are relatively greater than India’s, given its size and status as a rising global power, and so we need to find a way out. That said, the stakes for India rise considerably as this becomes a global reputational issue that has the potential to damage its broader interests, and so at the end of the day, it must realize it cannot act with impunity in Canada or other countries.

So how do Canada and India get out of this situation?

Diplomacy, supported by high-level political engagement, is crucial to limit the broader fallout as much as possible. Effective diplomacy requires a clear understanding and acknowledgment of the issue at hand, along with a thoughtful strategy to make progress. Integral to this will be a willingness to listen more, and not just to friends, but also those with whom we do not regularly see eye-to-eye.

Our team in India needs to be able to do its job. The same is true for Indian representatives here, who can help Delhi understand better the situation in Canada. Hopefully, Delhi will soon realize how counterproductive a forced, rapid and significant drawdown of our diplomatic staff in India would be.

Ottawa needs to work with friends to whom Delhi will pay attention. We also need to understand, at the highest level, what Canadian interests are at stake, and to lift these above transactional or very short-term considerations. Presumably, our allies and other potentially influential countries (beyond our Five Eyes intelligence-sharing partners) have been made aware of the evidence we have about alleged Indian complicity in the murder, and if not, they should be, because we will need support from more than just the usual “like-minded” countries. Ideally, there should be at least some cross-party understanding of the way forward too, as this will be a long game. It also goes without saying that the police investigation into the Nijjar murder and any subsequent legal process must continue unhindered here.

The credibility and reputations for both India and Canada are now at stake, but perhaps especially for us. We make a lot of assertions about our importance, but our lack of substantive commitments compared to our rhetorical flourishes on the global stage over the years has been noticed.

Our governments – both politicians and officials – need to engage with Canadians about our national interests and international priorities, not just deliver pre-scripted sound bites or limit engagement to special interest groups or particular diaspora communities. Such engagement can encourage Canadians to think about the challenges that our country faces and to be supportive of serious debate about Canada’s place in the world, including what we need to secure our future as a country. The Indo-Pacific Strategy provides a good basis for such a discussion about the region with Canadians, but there must be an openness to differing views.

Values are important, but they should guide how we pursue our interests, rather than define them. Too much focus on values rather than other common interests inevitably marginalizes Canada’s influence in the very relationships where we might want to encourage improvement in human rights or governance. We are taken less seriously because we are seen as primarily interested in broadcasting our judgments rather than engaging with other countries to find common ground.

The world has dramatically changed, and it will continue to do so. Without a serious rethink of how we engage internationally, it will be difficult to ensure Canada’s security and prosperity in an ever more uncertain world.

David McKinnon is a former Canadian diplomat who has been posted to New Delhi, Canberra, Bangkok and, most recently, Colombo, where he served as Canada’s high commissioner to Sri Lanka.

Source: The India debacle should prompt Canada to rethink the naive way we engage with the world

Filed under foreign policy, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Why immigration numbers don’t add up – The Australian Financial Review

2023/10/05 Leave a comment

Similar issues to Canada:

Anthony Albanese says his government inherited a migration system that was “not fit for purpose”. That’s true. Just how Labor expects to fix the biggest issues in migration is still not clear after the release of its response to visa fraud and exploitation on Wednesday.

According to Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil, she is getting on with the job of cleaning up the mess left by one particular ministerial predecessor – Peter Dutton – who she claims presided over a failing migration system that facilitated “some of the worst crimes in our society”.

The government’s commitment is to crack down much harder on visa rorts and fraudulent agents while offering up some dramatic expulsions of criminal sex and drug traffickers.

Naturally, Dutton denounces all this as a distraction on the eve of the Voice referendum, arguing he cancelled 6000 visas of criminals – far more than O’Neil has managed. He won’t be taking lectures from Labor, he insists, given its previous record of “losing control of the borders”.

The Opposition leader also blames O’Neil for “presiding” over 105,000 asylum seekers without acknowledging most arrived in the Coalition era. Labor is about to announce reforms in this area too.

But beyond trading political barbs over criminality or abuse or asylum seekers, the larger policy dilemma for the government is surging legal net overseas immigration numbers.

These are running at well over 450,000 to the year to March relative to the official annual delivery of 190,000 permanent visas for migrants.

Immigration numbers are always a sensitive issue domestically, especially in Sydney and Melbourne which attract the majority of new migrants.

How this official 190,000 permanent annual intake will work with the much higher number of temporary visa holders remains to be explained.

Successive Australian governments have always expressed pride in a highly successful multicultural society given nearly 30 per cent of people were born overseas – far more than the comparable figures in the US (14 per cent), the UK (17 per cent) or Canada (23 per cent). Another 20 per cent plus of people in Australia have at least one parent born overseas in a country that has relied heavily on waves of immigration over generations.

Given the low unemployment rate and the extreme labour shortages, business certainly wants to encourage more immigration now, whether temporary or permanent. The union movement is traditionally reluctant to endorse this rather than providing more training and jobs for Australians. But when housing supply is so scarce and rents so expensive, the politics of today’s record numbers become ever more difficult generally.

Federal governments are careful never to express detailed opinions on what the long-term targets for net overseas migration should be, wary of reviving the “big Australia” debate and, more recently, of risking Australia’s lucrative export revenue from international students.

The intergenerational reports under both the Coalition and Labor simply nominated the figure of 235,000 as a Treasury “assumption”.

O’Neil maintains that one of the real drivers of today’s high figure for net overseasmigration is lower departure numbers.

“People are coming and they are staying for longer and in some instances they are not leaving,” she said. “We can’t run a sustainable migration system in that way.”

Yet, the obvious benefits in making it easier and quicker to expel criminals and dodgy long-term visa holders or blocking highly dubious international student applications will do relatively little to reduce overall numbers in Australia.

As of July this year, there are just over 2.5 million people here on temporary visas. This figure, though, includes around 700,000 New Zealanders who will now find it easier to get Australian citizenship after Labor agreed to this pathway for those who have lived here for more than four years.

As well as around 650,000 international students, 200,000 graduates, 330,000 visitors and 130,000 working holidaymakers, there are 130,000 temporary skilled workers and 190,000 temporary visa holders who are also employed.

Labor’s immigration policy reforms to be announced this month will focus on encouraging the particular skills the workforce badly needs while also allowing more temporary visa holders to become permanent residents.

Measures will include simplifying the plethora of categories and visas, reforming the current complicated “points” system and fast-tracking approvals for both highly paid professionals and for lower paid workers in aged care. Temporary visa holders won’t have to remain with their sponsor employer.

Yet how this official 190,000 permanent annual intake will work with the much higher number of temporary visa holders remains to be explained.

Some of those on temporary visas and already here, including international students, will be granted permanent status from that annual quota, for example. But many more temporary visa holders have been staying despite having no real prospects of being granted permanent residency while new temporary visa holders continue to flood in. There are 200,000 more international students who have arrived since the beginning of the year.

The government’s tougher compliance and education standards for student visas – as well as a reduction in work hours permitted – may reduce that imbalance over time. But it’s hard to imagine Labor can engage in mass deportation, especially when many of those here can legally extend their stay by enrolling in more courses.

Such training should logically fit with Australia’s desperate need for more skills and trained workers – assuming, of course, that the courses are appropriately tailored and adequate to address the real shortages.

So far, meeting that goal, too, has proven elusive.

Jobs and Skills Australia’s report released on Wednesday notes Australia faces a skills challenge not seen since the 1960s. It predicts that as well as building the necessary training and skills in the vocational and higher education sectors, the government’s migration reforms will allow skilled migration to effectively address labour shortages and boost productivity.

That’s the harder test to come.

Source: Why immigration numbers don’t add up – The Australian Financial Review

Filed under Immigration Tagged with

Le cours Culture et citoyenneté québécoise répond davantage à une commande politique qu’éducative

2023/10/05 Leave a comment

Plus ça change. But experts also need to be aware of how their background and ideological leanings can influence their expertise:

L’instauration d’un programme éducatif représente le bien commun d’une nation et concerne tous les citoyens. Il est donc particulièrement important de suivre un processus démocratique et transparent pour décider de ses orientations et de ses contenus. 

Ainsi, dans le cadre de changements à apporter à un programme d’enseignement, il est nécessaire de s’appuyer sur des avis d’experts reconnus de cette discipline, afin de comprendre les éventuels dysfonctionnements et les améliorations à y apporter, et ce, à partir d’une démonstration scientifique rigoureuse. Or, la transition du programme d’éthique et culture religieuse (ECR) vers le cours Culture et citoyenneté québécoise (CCQ) constitue un intéressant contre-modèle de ces principes, d’autant plus surprenant qu’il se présente comme un modèle d’éducation à la citoyenneté. 

Professeure en éducation à l’Université de Montréal et spécialiste du programme d’éthique et culture religieuse, je souhaite partager ici quelques réflexions sur la façon dont celui-ci, au Québec, a récemment été supprimé et remplacé par le cours Culture et citoyenneté québécoise. Certaines écoles ont déjà fait le choix d’offrir ce programme depuis septembre 2023, mais ce n’est qu’en 2024 qu’il sera enseigné de façon obligatoire dans toutes les écoles.

Une absence de délibération politique et citoyenne transparente

En janvier 2020, le ministre de l’Éducation du Québec d’alors, Jean-François Roberge, déclare sa volonté de réformer le cours ECR et, en particulier de réduire la culture religieuse qui occupe à ses yeux une place trop importante. Il souhaite la remplacer par l’éducation à la sexualité de même que par un ensemble de nouvelles thématiques. 

Il annonce mettre aussitôt en place un processus de consultation citoyenne par la diffusion d’un questionnaire en ligne et la possibilité pour toute personne de déposer un mémoire. Or, tout ce processus est marqué à chaque étape par une grande opacité de la part du ministère de l’Éducation. Il refuse non seulement de communiquer les résultats du questionnaire, mais aussi de rendre public les mémoires déposés par les citoyens et les associations et de diffuser les conclusions du bilan qu’il a lui-même réalisé sur l’enseignement du programme ECR dans les écoles. 

De plus, contrairement à ce qui avait été fait pour l’instauration du programme ECR, aucune commission parlementaire avec des auditions publiques n’est organisée, ni aucune délibération politique et citoyenne transparente n’est engagée pour discuter des contenus du nouveau programme CCQ. 

Cette façon de procéder, plutôt inhabituelle, témoigne d’une volonté du ministre d’imposer ses propres choix sans les soumettre à la discussion. Elle tend à accréditer l’idée que les résultats et les analyses qui ne vont pas dans le sens de ce que le gouvernement souhaite sont mis de côté. Le témoignage de la première responsable de la révision du programme au ministère de l’Éducation, qui a choisi de démissionner suite aux interventions répétées du cabinet ministériel, le montre clairement.

La délégitimation des experts

Lors de l’annonce de sa volonté de réviser le programme ECR et d’en supprimer la culture religieuse, le ministre Roberge affirme s’appuyer sur des avis d’experts. 

Cependant, il ne révèlera jamais qui sont ces spécialistes, sur quoi repose leur expertise et en quoi consistent précisément leurs analyses critiques. L’ouvrage que je viens de publier à ce sujetanalyse le contexte de ces critiques, tout particulièrement les différentes conceptions de la laïcité et des libertés de conscience et de religion, ainsi que les nombreux défis éducatifs que représente l’implantation d’un nouveau programme scolaire. 

Il montre que bon nombre d’études critiques du cours ECR, s’affranchissant aisément des critères qui guident la recherche scientifique, relèvent du discours militant et du registre de la dénonciation : le programme est tour à tour accusé d’inviter au relativisme religieux, mais aussi d’être un outil de propagande confessionnelle. Il est vu comme une imposition du multiculturalisme et une promotion des accommodements raisonnables, et est jugé comme portant atteinte aux libertés de conscience et de religion. 

Malgré leurs faiblesses, en particulier méthodologiques, ces discours ont tellement saturé l’espace médiatique qu’ils en sont venus à s’imposer comme une parole de vérité. Au même moment, dans les décisions ministérielles de modifier le programme ECR, on assiste à une mise à l’écart délibérée des spécialistes qui possèdent une réelle expertise, tant les universitaires experts de ce domaine que les enseignants, en particulier du secondaire. Ce sont pourtant eux qui mettent en œuvre au quotidien le programme dans les écoles. Ils ne sont ni consultés ni même informés en amont des décisions du ministre de l’Éducation. 

Même un avis d’une institution aussi importante que le Conseil supérieur de l’éducation, qui a pris le temps de mener une consultation sérieuse, est ignoré. Or, un programme d’enseignement devrait être élaboré sur la base d’analyses rigoureuses et bien informées. Ce n’est clairement pas le cas ici. Pour quelles raisons alors ignorer l’avis des experts et refuser la délibération scientifique et démocratique ? 

Un projet éducatif politique

Le but de cette réforme du programme ECR est à la fois d’exclure la culture religieuse du champ des connaissances scolaires et de réaffirmer un certain type de laïcité. 

Cette décision s’appuie sur les discours des associations militantes que sont le Mouvement laïque québécois et le groupe féministe Pour le droit des femmes, qui portent sur les religions un regard fort négatif, les considérant comme irrationnelles, archaïques, inégalitaires, sexistes. Ces groupes considèrent qu’il est préférable de ne plus en parler à l’école. 

De plus, ces associations jugent que la Loi 21, votée en 2019, qui proclame que l’État du Québec est laïque, est incompatible avec le cours ECR, comme si le respect de la laïcité exigeait l’invisibilisation du religieux, y compris dans le champ des connaissances scolaires. Pourtant, historiquement, l’étude des faits religieux comme objets de culture s’inscrit dans une perspective scientifique, voire laïque, qui la détache de ses ancrages confessionnels.

Par ailleurs le cours Culture et citoyenneté québécoise cherche à répondre à un grand nombre de problématiques sociales qui se trouvent dans l’air du temps : écocitoyenneté, citoyenneté numérique, prévention de la violence sexuelle, engagement politique, etc. Il s’inscrit dans une perspective où l’école est vue comme devant remédier à des problèmes de société jugés prioritaires à un moment donné. Il s’agit alors de promouvoir le développement chez les élèves de compétences comportementales et sociales, plutôt que cognitives, dans le but de favoriser des conduites considérées comme acceptables. 

Ce modèle relève davantage de la mission de socialisation de l’école que de celle de l’instruction. Le principe même de transmission aux élèves d’un noyau significatif de connaissances dans l’élaboration d’une culture humaniste, par exemple sur les religions, semble alors dépassé au profit du développement des compétences des jeunes, afin qu’ils deviennent des citoyens efficaces dans leur siècle.

Source: Le cours Culture et citoyenneté québécoise répond davantage à une commande politique qu’éducative

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Petition e-4511 – Opposing self-affirmation of the #citizenship oath “citizenship on a click” – Signatures to October 3, one week to go

2023/10/05 Leave a comment

The chart below breaks down the 1,534 signatures as of 3 October by province. No significant change but small overall uptick.

And if you haven’t yet considered signing the petition, the link is here: https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-4511

Petition closes 10 October.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

New ICC research lifts lid on declining naturalization rates

2023/10/04 Leave a comment

I really enjoyed working on this analysis with the ICC. Check out the report and tables:

The proportion of permanent residents taking up Canadian citizenship within ten years of arrival declined 40% between 2001 and 2021. Today, the Institute for Canadian Citizenship is publishing a new analysis conducted by expert researcher Andrew Griffith, which examines this trend more closely. 

Key findings from the research

1. Naturalization is declining across all major source countries 

Less than 50% of citizenship-eligible permanent residents from top immigration source countries are becoming Canadian citizens within ten years of arrival. This is the case for permanent residents from China (30%), India (49%), South Korea (35%), United Kingdom (43%) and United States of America (48%), among other top source countries. 

2. Source country restrictions on dual nationality have a limited impact on naturalization rates 

A prevailing theory on the cause of declining naturalization rates is that a growing number of immigrants to Canada come from countries that prohibit multiple citizenships. This research debunks this claim. The proportion of permanent residents from countries that prohibit naturalization has grown, but the increase in the number of permanent residents choosing not to become citizens is higher amongst source countries that allow dual citizenship. Between Census 2016 and Census 2021, the number of permanent residents from India choosing not to become Canadian citizens increased by 47%. For permanent residents from China, it increased by 40%. Both countries prohibit dual nationality. For those from the Philippines, which allows dual nationality, the number of permanent residents choosing not to become Canadian citizens increased by 64%. 

3. Permanent residents are taking longer to become citizens 

For those who do become citizens, the time between arrival and naturalization has increased significantly. Between 2005 and 2022, permanent residents who arrived under the Economic category took 21% longer to naturalize at 6.1 years on average. For the Family Reunification Class, time increased 17% to 7.4 years on average. Among source countries, time to naturalization for permanent residents from China increased almost 70% to 7.9 years, while for the Philippines it increased almost 30% to 6.6 years. India remained relatively stable at 6.1 years on average. Permanent residents from Iran saw the largest increase overall, 181%, taking 12.5 years to naturalize, on average. 

4. The ten years following arrival are critical 

While fewer permanent residents are naturalizing overall, 92% of naturalizations take place within ten years. In other words, if a permanent resident chooses not to become a Canadian citizen within ten years of arriving in Canada, it is unlikely that they will ever choose to do so. This finding highlights the first ten years as a critical period to intervene.

Source: New ICC research lifts lid on declining naturalization rates

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

Douglas Todd: How to woo immigrant voters in Canada. And how not to

2023/10/04 Leave a comment

Suggestions on how to navigate or manage diaspora politics:

The number of federal ridings in which immigrants make up more than half of all voters has grown to 33 in Canada, almost all in pivotal Metro Vancouver and Toronto.

Politicians are desperate to find ways to appeal to the “immigrant vote” in those 33 exceptional ridings — as well as in 122 more electoral districts where the share of immigrants ranges from a consequential 20 to 50 per cent.

Efforts to woo immigrant groups were on display last month when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau inflamed India with the accusation that its agents appeared to be involved in the slaying of a pro-Khalistan activist in Surrey.

One of Trudeau’s unstated aims seemed to be to show support for the country’s 770,000 Sikhs, most of whom are in immigrant families. Unfortunately, Trudeau also alienated many of Canada’s 828,000 Hindus.

Chasing after immigrant voters is a tricky, fraught business.

How best can politicians appeal to immigrants, who have become a force to be reckoned with in almost half of the country’s federal ridings? It’s not easy when immigrants come from disparate countries, ethnicities and religions. Political parties are constantly trying to figure out what appeals to immigrant populations through their private polling, which they resolutely decline to share with journalists.

Here are a few thoughts from experts on working with voters who are immigrants:

Focus on across-the-spectrum issues

Regardless of whether immigrants come from India, China or the Philippines, many issues affect both immigrants and non-immigrants in roughly the same way: All people relate to policies on taxation, employment, education and cost of living.

Defend immigrants against intimidation, foreign and domestic

Since many immigrants not only come to Canada to take advantage of economic opportunities, but also to escape discrimination in their homelands, Andre Machalski, whose company Mirens monitors Canada’s more than 800 ethnic media outlets, says politicians can benefit by defending immigrants’ rights.

That’s a tack Trudeau took when he declared there were “credible allegations” that Indian agents were involved in the June murder of a pro-Khalistan activist outside a Surrey gurdwara.

“Trudeau’s unassailable message to all immigrants is, ‘We will stand up for you,’” said Machalski.

That message can hit home for people who have left behind all sorts of conflict-ridden nations, whether China, Ukraine or Nigeria.

Andrew Griffith, a former high-level director in Canada’s immigration department, says politicians believe they benefit electorally by defending immigrants, 70 per cent of whom are people of colour, from hate or discrimination.

Be in power

It’s conventional political theory that a party draws votes by being in office when a newcomer obtains citizenship status, which includes the right to vote.

B.C. radio talk-show host Harjit Singh Gill is among those convinced one reason Trudeau has hiked migration to record levels is he realizes immigrants and refugees, whether from Iran, Syria or India, “will vote for him because of it. They will worship him, think he’s a hero.”

Since the Liberal party has been in power more than the Conservatives in the past three decades, many say that’s one reason polls generally show immigrants lean toward the Liberals.

The Liberals have raised the immigration target to 500,000 a year, double the number when they came into office. Canada’s population grew by a record 1.1 million last year, 98 per cent due to migrants. CIBC Capital Market economist Benjamin Tal adds Ottawa has also allowed in two million foreign students and guest workers, most of whom yearn to be citizens.

Recognize both pros and cons of migration policy can draw votes

It’s time for politicians to get over the idea immigration is a “third rail,” too controversial to touch, Griffith writes in Policy Options.

Many immigrant families, like many other Canadians, are concerned about immigration levels, Griffith says. While generally pro-immigration, they fear the negative effects of Ottawa inviting too many newcomers too rapidly, particularly because they contribute to demand on housing and medical services, both of which are in crisis.

Sponsoring older immigrants is a winner. And loser

Trudeau’s cabinet ministers often boast they have quadrupled the number of parents and grandparents that can be sponsored to move to Canada. The expanding program aims to bring in 28,500 older family members this year, 34,000 next year and 36,000 in 2025.

“It’s both a real vote getter, and a real vote loser,” says Griffith.

While many immigrants want to bring their parents or grandparents here, others worry about the drain on publicly funded health services, since they arrive as seniors and haven’t had the chance to pay significant taxes in Canada.

Informing parents on pronouns

Since polls show immigrants tend to come from socially conservative cultures, it’s not surprising many Canadian Muslims, most of whom are immigrants, have been at the forefront of opposition to school districts refusing to tell parents if their children want to change their gender pronouns at school.

An Angus Reid poll found 78 per cent of all Canadians believe parents should be informed if their child wants to change their gender identity or pronoun at school.

Support ethnocultural groups, and be honest

The ethnic media in Canada, Machalski says, is full of examples of politicians saying one thing to one ethnic group and another to the wider public. That plays out whether the contentious subject is Khalistan or attending a banquet hosted by an organization that is a mouthpiece for China. When courting immigrant groups, politicians should avoid speaking out of both sides of their mouths.

Show up

The old-fashioned way of wooing a group, whether immigrant or otherwise, might still be best. Show up at town halls, shake some hands, get to know people. For what it’s worth, Machalski, who was born in Argentina, believes these days that Conservative party Leader Pierre Poilievre is showing up the most — “making serious inroads” into immigrant communities.

The timing for Poilievre is also auspicious, Machalski says. “He is going up in the polls, and like most people, immigrants like to back a winner.”

Source: Douglas Todd: How to woo immigrant voters in Canada. And how not to

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Canada’s immigration department is undergoing major changes

2023/10/04 Leave a comment

Good overview of the report and departmental plans. Of course, like all reorganizations, these take time before any benefits can be seen:

Last week, Canada’s immigration department implemented major changes that have been influenced by a recent study it commissioned.

The purpose of the changes is to improve the operations of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).

Earlier this year, IRCC received a report from one of its previous Deputy Ministers, Neil Yeates, on how IRCC can become a more effective and efficient department. Yeates’ report was commissioned by IRCC to evaluate whether the department’s current structure best enables it to achieve its mandate. The Deputy Minister is the senior-most civil servant in a government department. Serving in a non-political role, they oversee the management of their department, including implementation of policies and strategies and managing people and budgets.

IRCC’s current Deputy Minister, Christiane Fox, corresponds with the department’s minister, who is a politician, and is currently Immigration Minister Marc Miller. The Immigration Minister’s role is to implement the elected mandate of the government.

Yeates: IRCC’s organizational model is broken

In his report, which CIC News has been able to obtain a copy of, Yeates concludes “the current organizational model at IRCC is broken but is being held together by the hard work and dedication of staff.”

He recommends “a series of steps need to be taken to realign the organizational structure (including a major shift to a business line-based structure), reform the governance system, implement stronger management systems (especially planning and reporting) and facilitate the development of a culture to better support the department’s goals and objectives (including consideration of an overall review of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and measures to better leverage the experience and expertise of diverse staff groups).”

Yeates explains there are numerous reasons why IRCC’s current model is broken, but highlights two that stand out in particular: a difficult operating environment in Canada and globally; and secondly, IRCC has grown exponentially since its current organizational structure was introduced over 20 years ago. To highlight this point, Yeates notes IRCC’s total workforce has grown from 5,352 employees in March 2023 to 12,949 employees as of January 2023.

Fox: IRCC “felt like crisis”

In an interview last week with journalist Paul Wells, Fox, stated the Yeates report will influence significant changes the department plans to pursue. Upon assuming her role at IRCC in July 2022, Fox explained to Wells the new job “felt like crisis” and that her colleagues at the department were under duress and exhausted. She concluded that departmental changes were necessary, and while she didn’t want to make them immediately, she also didn’t want to wait two years.

In June 2023, Fox had a plan of action after receiving the Yeates report and consulting with public stakeholders including IRCC applicants. Since then, she has been gradually rolling out the changes.

IRCC reorganized to business-line model

Among the changes is that last week, the department was re-organized across the following sectors:

  • Asylum and Refugees Resettlement
  • Citizenship and Passport
  • Chief Financial Officer
  • Chief Information Officer
  • Client Service, Innovation, and Chief Digital Officer
  • Communications
  • Corporate Services
  • Economic, Family, and Social Migration
  • International Affairs and Crisis Response
  • Migration Integrity
  • Service Delivery
  • Settlement Integration and Francophone Affairs
  • Strategic Policy

Fox explains that, as was recommended by Yeates, the department is now being organized across lines of business. What this means is IRCC employees will be divided across the various clients that the department services, as well as divided in a way to be response to changes around the world. For example, the department has a new International Affairs and Crisis Response sector, which Fox noted to Wells is meant to help IRCC better plan for humanitarian crises and shape a plan of action. IRCC routinely deal with these, such as with Ukraine since last year, and recent Afghanistan and Syrian refugee resettlement initiatives, just to name a few examples.

Fox also stresses the importance of IRCC taking more of a client focus moving forward whereby the department incorporates the experiences of its applicants more strongly into the decisions it makes.

IRCC’s operating environment

Yeates elaborates on the various forces impacting IRCC, the main ones being:

Hybrid Work Environment and COVID-19: The nature of work appears to be changing permanently due to the pandemic, and as such, more workers, including IRCC employees, are working remotely, with a general direction to return to the office 2-3 days per week. Yeates explains while work-from-home has been effective, it remains to be seen what the impacts will be on IRCC’s organizational culture.

Demand for IRCC Services: Demand for IRCC’s programs often exceeds the department’s processing capacity as measured by its service standards (the goals the department sets for itself to process applications for each line of business). Although IRCC has tools and resources at its disposal to manage its inventory, such as caps for certain programs, its inventories can grow very quickly whenever demand for its programs exceeds its processing capacity.

Growth of IRCC: As demand for IRCC’s program has grown, so too has its workforce. Yeates characterizes its workforce as “medium sized” in 2013, with 5,217 non-executive staff, which has more than doubled by 2023 to 12,721 staff. Executives at the department have grown from 135 employees in 2013 to 227 today. However, despite the program and staff growth, the organizational structure at IRCC, which was designed for a smaller department, has largely remained the same.

Immigration Policy Review: The dominant immigration narrative in Canada has not generally been challenged, and that the actual impact of immigration is not generally well documented. As such, an immigration policy review at IRCC may be beneficial in helping IRCC shape the department’s future direction.

Digital Transformation: IRCC has received significant funding for its Digital Platform Modernization, and such transformations are always challenging, particularly at a place like IRCC which has many significant responsibilities. However there is little doubt that IRCC needs to become a fully digital department.

Global Uncertainty: Global armed conflicts are on the rise, democracy is under threat, and factors such as climate change are impacting global demand to migrate, which will continue to have a significant impact on IRCC.

IRCC departmental culture is “committed”

While stressing the purpose of his report is not to be critical, Yeates observes IRCC currently has limited department-wide planning, lacks a multi-year strategic plan, and planning across the department is inconsistent, all of which pose a variety of challenges such as the inability to achieve the department’s goals and lack of accountability among staff.

IRCC staff described the departmental culture as “committed, collaborative, and supportive”, which has helped to overcome the department’s organizational structure, governance, and management systems shortcomings.

Moreover, Yeates pointed to a tension within the department between what he calls the “IRPA school” and the “client service school.” He observes that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was introduced in 2001 with a framework to exclude applicants, with many reasons listed as to why an applicant may be denied. Immigration officers are trained to enforce IRPA, but little attention has historically been paid to the potential for these officers to have “unconscious bias” which may impact their decision-making.

On the other side are those who fall under the “client service school” and are willing to waive requirements and more open to compromise in order to improve the service that IRCC clients receive.

Highlights of Yeates’ recommendations

Overall, Yeates makes recommendations across four areas: Organizational Structure; Governance; Management Systems; and Culture. Highlights of the recommendations are as follows:

Organizational Structure Recommendations:

  • IRCC move to a business line organization
  • IRCC develop protocols for crisis and emergency management that identify Assistant Deputy Minister leads in various scenarios

Governance Recommendations:

  • The Executive Committee assume responsibility for finance and corporate services and absorb the functions of the Corporate Finance Committee
  • A new Operations Committee be established, chaired by the Deputy Minister’s Office, that will absorb the functions of the Issues Management Committee
  • That the membership of these committees be reconsidered as part of the re-organization process and that membership be no larger than 12
  • A review be conducted on the split of responsibilities between IRCC and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) under IRPA in order to rationalize and streamline roles and accountabilities

Management System Recommendations:

  • Deputy Minister lead a new planning and reporting regime
  • Develop a 3 to 5 year strategic plan
  • Undertake an annual planning cycle across all areas of the department, including HR, IT, Financial and Program plans
  • Implement a quarterly reporting regime
  • Ensure linkages with the department’s performance management work

Culture Recommendations:

  • Undertake a review of IRPA to determine whether amendments should be made to better support desired outcomes, including improved service delivery.
  • Review the training provided to staff involved in the administration of IRPA to ensure if reflects the desired philosophy and approach of the department.
  • Examine means to integrate the voices of IRCC’s diversity communities into the departmental governance regime

Source: Canada’s immigration department is undergoing major changes

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →