StatsCan: Housing conditions among racialized groups: A brief overview

Of note:

In response to Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy, Statistics Canada’s Centre for Gender, Diversity and Inclusion Statistics is releasing a second set of five data tables on social inclusion. Over 20 new indicators, for a total of over 120 indicators, can now be used to examine various socioeconomic facets of racialized Canadians. For more information on the new indicators released today, please see the Note to readers. 

Using data from the 2016 and 2021 censuses, this release presents some indicators of the social inclusion of racialized groups under the theme of basic needs and housing, more specifically, the population in core housing need and the population living in a dwelling owned by one or some members of the household.

Living in acceptable housing can play a key role in the satisfaction within a given community and in the social connections in the neighbourhood. Housing is also an anchor that offers security and access to local and essential services, such as transportation, education services, public facilities and green space for leisure.

For these reasons, housing characteristics, such as core housing need and home ownership, are indicators of social inclusion relevant to developing anti-racism and anti-discrimination policies that aim to improve inclusivity.

The proportion of racialized Canadians in core housing need is on the decline 

The COVID-19 pandemic shook the housing and rental market and, in many ways, redefined the needs for and functions of housing in the world of work, education and health. For some population groups, including racialized groups, finding adequate and suitable housing that is within their budget and meets their space requirements may have been particularly challenging.

The term “core housing need” refers to a household whose dwelling does not meet the threshold of at least one of the housing adequacy, affordability or suitability indicators and that would have to spend at least 30% of its total before-tax income on the median rent of another acceptable dwelling. For more information on the measure of each indicator, see Core housing need in the Dictionary, Census of Population, 2021.

Living in core housing need can have a negative impact on a variety of aspects. For example, unaffordable housing can constrain a household’s financial capacity to cover other essential expenses, such as groceries, transportation and clothing, especially for those with lower incomes. Poor housing conditions, such as the need for major repairs and overcrowding (i.e., unsuitable dwelling), can increase the risk of infectious or chronic diseases and injuries and affect children’s development and educational attainment.

In 2021, 11.3% of racialized Canadians lived in a household in core housing need, a decrease of 6.5 percentage points from the 2016 Census.

However, these proportions were higher than those observed in the total population in both the 2016 and 2021 censuses.

Among racialized groups, West Asian, Korean and Arab populations have the highest proportions of people in core housing need 

Among racialized groups, West Asian (19.5%), Korean (18.7%) and Arab (14.9%) Canadians were the most likely to be in core housing need, while Filipino (5.1%), South Asian (9.1%) and Japanese (9.4%) Canadians posted the lowest proportions.

Just as the overall trend, the percentage of each racialized group in core housing need saw a decline from 2016 to 2021. West Asian, Arab, Korean, South Asian and Black Canadians reported the largest declines in percentage points.

These results can be explained in large part by the temporary pandemic income supports, especially for people with lower income. In 2016, the West Asian, Korean and Black racialized groups were among those that posted the lowest average employment income and average weekly earnings of full-time employees. The additional source of income during the pandemic reduced the share of income dedicated to housing cost and contributed to improved housing conditions by allowing some people to live in more affordable housing.

Chart 1  
Racialized groups living in core housing need, by group, 2016 and 2021

Chart 1: Racialized groups living in core housing need, by group, 2016 and 2021

Racialized Canadians who came to Canada as immigrants are more likely to be in core housing need than their non-immigrant counterparts 

One of the factors behind the prevalence of living in core housing need is related to the socioeconomic situation that can be transitory for certain population groups, such as those who were born outside Canada and recently arrived through the immigration process.

Overall, and for most racialized groups, core housing need was higher among individuals who were members of racialized groups and were also immigrants (11.4%) than among their non-immigrant counterparts (9.8%).

In terms of the period of immigration, the gap was larger between immigrants who have established in Canada in the past 10 years (13.2%), from 2011 to 2021, and immigrants who came to the country more than 10 years ago (10.5%).

The Arab, Chinese and West Asian Canadians who have established in Canada in the past 10 years were among the racialized groups that posted the largest differences in percentage points compared with their counterparts who have been in the country for more than 10 years.

Among racialized Canadians who settled in Canada in the past 10 years, West Asian (22.3%), Arab (21.5%) and Chinese (19.4%) people were also among the groups that were most likely to be in core housing need.

The prevalence of living in core housing need is lower in urban centres of Quebec 

The housing conditions of racialized groups varied by census metropolitan area (CMA).

In 2021, among the 10 CMAs with the highest proportion of the racialized population in core housing need, 6 were in Ontario: Ottawa–Gatineau (Ontario part) (14.3%), Toronto (14.2%), London (12.4%), Barrie (11.8%), Guelph (10.9%) and St. Catharines–Niagara (10.2%). Conversely, 6 of the 10 CMAs with the lowest proportion of the racialized population living in core housing need were in Quebec. The proportions ranged from 5.5% (Drummondville) to 2.7% (Trois-Rivières). 

Chart 2  
Racialized groups living in core housing need, by census metropolitan areas, 2021

Chart 2: Racialized groups living in core housing need, by census metropolitan areas, 2021

Among racialized groups, Chinese, South Asian and Southeast Asian populations are most likely to live in owner household

In addition to being an investment, home ownership may provide stability and indicate a long-term settlement in a given community. However, it can also constitute a larger financial burden. The 2021 Census results on housing show a decline in the proportion of Canadian households that own their home.

While the racialized population is no exception to this general trend, some groups have remained more likely over time to live in a dwelling owned by one or some members of the household.

In 2021, among racialized groups, Chinese (84.5%), Southeast Asian (71.9%) and South Asian (70.3%) populations had the highest proportions of home ownership.

In contrast, the Black (45.2%), Arab (48.0%) and Latin American (48.6%) populations were least likely to live in a dwelling owned by one or some members of the household. For the total Canadian population, the proportion was 71.9% in 2021.

Chart 3  
Racialized groups living in a dwelling owned by one or some members of their household, by group, 2016 and 2021

Chart 3: Racialized groups living in a dwelling owned by one or some members of their household, by group, 2016 and 2021

Looking ahead 

The indicators published today complement those currently available in the Gender, Diversity and Inclusion Statistics Hub. They are part of a broader conceptual framework that covers a total of 11 themes for the analysis of the social inclusion of racialized groups. These themes are participation in the labour market, representation in decision-making positions, civic engagement and political participation, basic needs and housing, health and well-being, education and skills development, income and wealth, social connections and personal networks, local community, public services and institutions, and discrimination and victimization.

Statistics Canada will continue to update the indicators using the latest available data. The currently available tables are based on the 2006 and the 2016 censuses, 2011 National Household Survey, 2021 Canadian Housing Survey, 2021 Uniform Crime Reporting Survey, 2020 Canadian Community Health Survey, 2020 General Social Survey – Social Identity and 2019 General Social Survey – Victimization. 

Source: Housing conditions among racialized groups: A brief overview

Dutrisac: La vulnérabilité perpétuée par le système (Temporary Foreign Workers and closed work permits)

Of note::

Le nombre d’immigrants temporaires a explosé au Québec, tout comme dans le reste du Canada d’ailleurs. Et parmi eux, des travailleurs étrangers à bas salaire, qu’ils se trouvent dans les entrepôts ou dans les champs, sont à la merci d’employeurs sans scrupule.

Discuter d’un seuil de 50 000 immigrants reçus, le chiffre programmé par le gouvernement Legault, c’est discourir sur un portrait bien partiel de l’immigration au Québec. Comme l’a rapporté Le Devoir récemment, ce seuil est largement dépassé par l’afflux d’immigrants temporaires. Ainsi, le nombre de ressortissants étrangers détenteurs de permis de travail et d’études présents sur le territoire québécois dépassait les 180 000 en 2022. En tout, selon l’Institut de la statistique du Québec, au 1er juillet dernier, on comptait 290 000 résidents non permanents, toutes catégories confondues. Ce nombre a presque doublé en dix ans.

Le gouvernement caquiste n’en a que pour les professionnels et les travailleurs qualifiés, réunis sous le vocable d’immigration économique et commandant les hauts salaires que favorise François Legault. Il en faut, de cette main-d’oeuvre bien formée que recherchent des employeurs aux prises avec des difficultés de recrutement.

Mais on ne saurait occulter le fait que le Québec a aussi besoin de travailleurs sans grandes études, disposés à prendre des emplois dont les Québécois ne veulent pas et à se contenter des bas salaires qui vont avec. Des emplois ingrats, souvent exigeants physiquement, qui représentent pourtant un rouage important de l’économie. On parle de manoeuvres, de manutentionnaires, de préposés à l’entretien, d’ouvriers dans des usines de transformation alimentaire, de travailleurs agricoles.

Depuis 2015, la main-d’oeuvre recrutée par les entreprises québécoises par le truchement du Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires (PTET) a plus que triplé pour atteindre les 34 000 personnes.

Quelles que soient leurs compétences, les travailleurs étrangers temporaires, s’ils veulent prolonger leur présence au pays, ce qui, souvent, est aussi le souhait de leur employeur, doivent renouveler leur permis de travail, une démarche souvent angoissante compte tenu de l’incurie administrative des autorités fédérales. Certains de ces immigrants sont ici pour trois ans, cinq ans, dix ans même. C’est la grande hypocrisie du système : de nombreux travailleurs temporaires occupent des postes permanents. Plusieurs souhaitent immigrer au Québec.

Contrairement aux étudiants et aux personnes admissibles au Programme fédéral de mobilité internationale, les travailleurs peu qualifiés recrutés par le PTET ne disposent pas d’un permis de travail ouvert, mais d’un permis « fermé » qui lie leur présence au Québec à un employeur unique. Ils sont placés dans une situation de vulnérabilité qui les expose à des abus et à une exploitation éhontée de la part d’employeurs. Ces travailleurs hésitent à porter plainte de crainte de perdre leur emploi et de se voir forcer de retourner dans leur pays, ce dont on les menace, d’ailleurs.

C’est ce genre de situations que montre l’enquête Essentiels. La face cachée de l’immigration, un documentaire présenté à Télé-Québec, réalisé par Ky Vy Le Duc et signé par la militante Sonia Djelidi et la journaliste du Devoir Sarah R. Champagne. On constate que des travailleurs agricoles ont été forcés de s’échiner dans les champs jusqu’à 17 heures par jour et qu’ils ont passé plusieurs semaines sans prendre une seule journée de congé. Logés sur la ferme, ils doivent s’entasser dans des baraques exiguës et invivables qu’on dit conformes aux normes fédérales. On y voit des travailleuses immigrantes se faire exploiter par une agence de placement sans permis. Ou encore ce travailleur qui est employé depuis dix ans par les serres Savoura et qui n’a vu sa famille, restée au Guatemala, que trois mois et demi pendant la décennie, ne réussissant pas à obtenir un certificat de sélection du Québec.

Contrairement à la Charte canadienne, la Charte québécoise des droits et libertés protège les étrangers. Il faudrait s’en souvenir. Se rappeler aussi que les normes minimales de travail, c’est pour eux aussi. Sur la ferme, Québec peut remédier à la discrimination perpétuée par Ottawa et leur garantir un hébergement digne de ce nom, sujet aux mêmes normes qui régissent l’hébergement fourni par les employeurs aux travailleurs québécois.

Pour que cessent les abus et les mauvais traitements dont les travailleurs étrangers sont l’objet, les permis fermés devraient être abolis et remplacés par des permis ouverts liés à un secteur d’activité et possiblement à une région. Ces changements essentiels dépendent malheureusement de la bonne volonté du gouvernement fédéral. C’est Québec qui devrait se charger des travailleurs étrangers temporaires sur notre territoire, ce que prévoyait l’entente Canada-Québec sur l’immigration. S’assurer du respect de la dignité de tout travailleur en sol québécois, c’est en somme sa responsabilité.

Source: La vulnérabilité perpétuée par le système

How fraud artists are exploiting Canada’s international education boom

Good long but disturbing read, highlighting the complicity of governments and institutions, particularly private colleges, in such exploitation. Tighter eligibility and monitoring of DLI status for private colleges needed:

… For more than a decade, the feds have been pitching the world’s young people on a pie-in-the-sky vision of the Canadian Dream, branding the country as a land of tolerance, opportunity and first-rate education.

In 2012, the federal government declared its intention to double the number of international students to 450,000 within the next decade. The following year, the government committed to an ongoing annual expenditure of $5 million, largely to be spent on advertising and promotion: glossy promotional videos, higher-ed fairs and online marketing. In 2016 it launched the EduCanada website and brand (tagline: “A world of possibilities”), plastered with feel-good messaging about Canada’s cultural diversity and welcoming nature. And in 2019, the government announced nearly $150 million in spending over five years, including $29.5 million for targeted digital advertising alone.

These efforts have paid off enormously. The federal government estimated that in 2018, international students spent $21.6 billion on tuition, accommodation and other expenses—an economic infusion supporting 170,000 domestic jobs and exceeding the impact of major exports like lumber, auto parts and aircraft. At that point, foreign students contributed nearly 40 per cent of tuition revenues at Canadian universities. Those numbers may well be higher now; as of 2022, international student enrolments in Canada surpassed 600,000, far exceeding the government’s 2012 targets.

And well-known public institutions aren’t the only schools benefiting from the boom. As the cohort of students travelling to Canada has swelled, so has the number of small, private-sector colleges emerging to capitalize on them. Many operate out of inauspicious-looking storefronts, strip malls and office parks, where they specialize in short-term programs with clear paths to the workforce: accounting, secretarial studies, IT support, truck driving.

And their numbers are growing fast. In Quebec, those include 48 non-subsidized private colleges in 2022, up from 28 in 2015. (Non-subsidized schools are similar to for-profit career colleges found in other provinces.) The number of study permits issued to international students in the province has more than doubled from 4,900 between 2016 and 2018 to 11,500 between 2019 and 2021.

The international student explosion of the past decade has created fertile ground for shoddy schools and fraud artists. “Money drives these schools, not education,” says immigration lawyer Ho Sung Kim.

Meanwhile, education agents—like the one who recommended M College to Nisha—are funnelling students straight into these schools. According to global education organization ICEF Monitor, as many as half of international applicants to Canadian schools use recruiters. Universities and colleges pay recruiters a commission for each student, typically 10 or 15 per cent of first-year tuition, and sometimes more. (Students themselves generally don’t pay recruiters directly.) Yet the industry remains essentially unregulated, as do recruiters’ relationships with the fast-growing private college sector. According to Montreal immigration lawyer Ho Sung Kim, this is why so many business people are interested in the industry: “Money drives these schools, not education.”

Will Tao, an immigration and refugee lawyer in Vancouver with a special interest in international students, says agents and recruiters often peddle misinformation about the quality of schools. While there are respectable private colleges across Canada, he says, the international student explosion of the past decade has created fertile ground for shoddy schools and exploitative operators.

And when things go awry, students pay the price. In 2015, provincial regulators shut down Fraser Valley Community College, a private college in a strip mall in Surrey, B.C. The government had received dozens of complaints from students about misleading promotions that guaranteed jobs after graduation, plus promises of high-quality facilities the school didn’t have and tuition refunds the college allegedly refused. The government decided the institution could no longer be trusted to comply with regulations and revoked its registration.

In 2020, the Ontario Provincial Police charged owners and employees at the Royal Institute of Science and Management in Markham, Ontario—another storefront career college—with fraud, forgery and other offences. Police allege that the college recruited students to apply for a government funding program to help pay for tuition. The students then simply handed the money to the college and received a diploma without attending any classes.

But little in recent years can match the debacle that Nisha—and hundreds of other students—endured. The story of M College isn’t just about one failed school. It’s about a booming international education machine that’s commodified the hopes and dreams of young people, mostly from the Global South. It’s an industry that has been aggressively stoked by Canadian governments—which have done little to protect students when things go terribly wrong.

***

Caroline Mastantuono is a woman with a knack for both the slow burn and the big swing. In 2004, Mastantuono, then 41, was a support staffer in Montreal’s sprawling Lester B. Pearson School Board, which serves students in grade schools, high schools, adult education centres and adult vocational schools throughout the city. It’s the vocational programs—like auto mechanics, hairdressing and accounting—that are the board’s biggest money-makers, with tuition in some cases topping $18,000.

In 2004, Mastantuono—who did not respond to interview requests sent to her lawyer—received a promotion from the board, putting her in charge of a new international student department. Her mandate was to boost international admissions to those vocational and adult education programs. In 2012, she partnered with a Toronto businessman named Naveen Kolan, who ran a student recruiting company called Edu Edge Inc., which focused on students from India. The partnership soon bore fruit: between 2010 and 2016, the number of international students enrolled in the board jumped from seven to 777, supercharging the department’s revenue from $91,000 to $5.5 million.

“What happened with the students in India is a tragedy. I spoke with one girl who tried to end her life twice in January of 2022,” says Alain Tardif of the law firm McCarthy Tétrault.

Then, in the spring of 2014, Mastantuono’s daughter Christina, who worked on her staff, came to her with a problem: some students were being denied Quebec Acceptance Certificates because they didn’t have enough money to cover tuition. In June, Mastantuono and Kolan allegedly gathered the department’s staff and laid out a creative solution: they would create false receipts of tuition payment. The false receipts were kept secret from students and submitted to the provincial government. Edu Edge then billed the board a recruiter’s fee for 81 forged chits, representing a total of $1.65 million in tuition.

Soon, another alleged scheme came to light. Two staffers in the department began noticing that a numbered company in British Columbia was being credited for recruiting students who the employees knew had applied independently. The pair started digging and found that the company was registered to Kolan’s wife. In total, 25 students were falsely linked to the B.C. firm, which received $119,000 in fees from the school board between 2014 and 2016.

By then, the board’s finance department, as well as its chair and its assistant director, were asking questions. An internal investigation, which concluded in 2016, found that Mastantuono “lacked transparency” in regards to her department’s activities and its financial arrangement with Edu Edge. She and her daughter were both fired, and the minister of education and higher education ordered an audit of the board’s international program. That December, the Quebec government’s anti-corruption squad launched a parallel investigation that found evidence of fraud, fabrications, use of forged documents and abuse of power at the Pearson board. The investigation was code-named “Projet Pandore.”

For the Mastantuonos, this was just a temporary setback. By March of 2017, Caroline had leveraged her knowledge of the international student market to launch a new recruiting firm: Rising Phoenix International, or RPI. She hired her son, Joseph, along with Christina. The new RPI team travelled to China, the Philippines and Mexico on recruitment trips and signed deals with private and public colleges in Quebec, Ontario, B.C. and New Brunswick. In 2018, as president and CEO of RPI, Caroline took part in the Canada-India Business Forum in Mumbaias a member of the Canadian delegation, a trip that included photo ops with Justin Trudeau, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau and celebrity chef Vikram Vij.

By 2020, the Mastantuonos had also taken over operations of three private colleges. There was M College, Nisha’s would-be alma mater, which the family itself founded. It was licensed by Quebec’s Ministry of Education and Higher Education in 2019. The family purchased two other schools: CCSQ, with one campus in the Montreal suburb of Longueuil and another in Sherbrooke. And there was CDE College, also in Sherbrooke. RPI had already served as the schools’ recruiters, drawing the vast majority of students from abroad, almost exclusively from India. There were well over 1,000 students at the colleges, and only six were Canadian. Joseph Mastantuono was named president of all three schools.

***

In January of 2020, Ravneet Kaur Mand stepped off a city bus on Curé-Poirier Boulevard West in Longueuil, on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River, across from Montreal. It was her first day of classes at CCSQ—and immediately, she was confused. The neighbourhood was mostly residential, and the building at the college’s address looked like a plain three-storey walk-up. My apartment building is bigger than this, she thought. Ravneet checked Google Maps on her phone again.

It was no mistake. She made her way inside, which was just as dispiriting. With the exception of a cafeteria in the basement, there was nothing more to the school than bathrooms and a few classrooms with desks, chairs and laptops. Her family was paying $30,000 for her to attend the college’s two-year medical office specialist program, which Ravneet found through a recruiter in her small hometown in Punjab. Once she saw what the college had to offer—an unresponsive administration, mediocre facilities and an educational experience generally unworthy of her steep tuition—she became convinced that her recruiter was financially incentivized to get her to enrol by exaggerating its prestige and the quality of its facilities.

Each year, Quebec’s advisory commission on private education releases a report that evaluates conditions at private colleges across the province. According to its 2020–21 report, only three of the 14 teachers at CCSQ in Longueuil were technically qualified to teach, and turnover was extremely high—the average level of seniority was one year. At CCSQ in Sherbrooke, only one teacher was qualified. Both colleges were warned to stop overcharging for tuition or other services. A provincial inspection at CDE in 2021, meanwhile, revealed that several classrooms were overcrowded. By most accounts, CCSQ’s sister school, M College—the one Nisha virtually attended—wasn’t much better. Located on a busy thoroughfare in the borough of LaSalle in Montreal, it was housed in a nondescript office building nestled among a rotisserie chicken joint, a mattress store and a pair of car dealerships.

Even as students like Ravneet and Nisha were plowing through their underwhelming studies at the RPI schools, the alleged schemes and frauds at the Pearson board were about to come roaring back for the Mastantuonos. After nearly four years of digging, the Projet Pandore investigators concluded their work. In late November of 2020, Caroline and Christina Mastantuono were arrested and charged with fraud. The pair stepped aside from their RPI roles and pleaded not guilty. (Kolan, who’d seemingly vanished, turned himself in two months later. He also faces fraud charges and has pleaded not guilty, and did not respond to a request for comment sent to his lawyer.) That was just the beginning of what would turn out to be a very bad 12 months for the family—though most RPI students were completely unaware of the mounting troubles.

When Caroline and Christina were arrested, RPI was still expecting $10.6 million in financing from TD and the Business Development Bank of Canada to cover the purchases of CDE and CCSQ. After the arrest, the financing was cancelled. Then, during the first two weeks of 2021, the province’s Ministry of Education and Higher Education stopped processing study permit applications from M College and CDE (along with eight other Quebec colleges, unrelated to RPI) while it investigated questionable recruitment practices, among other problems. In retrospect, the family appears to have been aware of a looming financial reckoning: in March of 2021, Caroline Mastantuono gifted a lakefront house she owned in the Laurentians, valued at $750,000, to a family trust—a move that protected it from creditors.

In November of 2021, Caroline came back aboard as RPI president. At the end of that month, students received emails insisting that they had to pay their fees by early December—not January, as they’d previously been told.

Ravneet, who’d already paid her tuition, watched as stressed-out classmates and friends scrambled to secure funds and navigate bank limits on transfers. “I still don’t know how they managed,” she says. The students were perplexed by the colleges’ sudden need for immediate tuition payments.

Things became clear in early January of 2022, when Joseph Mastantuono, president of the colleges, emailed students to inform them that they had filed for creditor protection. (CDE and M College filed the previous day.) He blamed the financial troubles squarely on the pandemic: the cost of delivering new laptops to students abroad, getting the campuses COVID-safe and a drop in enrolment due to travel delays. He said the college would work with a court-appointed monitor, which would oversee the finances. Students close to graduating would continue. Everyone else would be on “extended pause.”

***

After 10 months of studying day and night, sometimes 12 hours straight, Nisha wrapped up her final exam in August of 2021 at home in India. All that was left was to get her study permit, still only approved in principle, and travel to Canada to complete an internship.

Only moments after finishing the exam, an email popped into her inbox from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Her heart sank: her permit had been rejected. The agent who reviewed her application wasn’t satisfied that she’d leave Canada at the end of her stay and didn’t think that the proposed studies—now nearly completed—were consistent with her previous education and qualifications.

Nisha was beyond confused. Neither of these problems were raised in the first stage of the process, when she received her approval in principle. How could the same country that accepted her, and took her money, refuse her almost a year later?

Her first priority was to get a refund from M College, which had previously told students that even in the event of a study permit rejection, they could get their money back, minus administrative fees. Through the summer and fall, the college put her off, citing COVID-related processing delays. When RPI applied for creditor protection, she finally realized that her money was gone for good unless the schools could find a new buyer willing to refund her.

More than 500 other students in India were in a similar situation: their tuition was paid but their study permits or visas had been rejected. About 125 of those had received an approval in principle for their study permit, just like Nisha, and had been studying online for more than a year, with every expectation that their permits would be approved.

Hundreds more were still waiting on their paperwork, or were already studying in Canada, only to find those studies indefinitely paused. All told, approximately 2,000 current or prospective students were affected. Panicked and angry, the RPI students organized protests in Canada and India to raise awareness. They wrote to MPs across the country, especially those with Punjabi backgrounds, like Jagmeet Singh, MP Anju Dhillon from LaSalle, and MP Sukh Dhaliwal from Surrey, B.C.

In February of 2022, they met with the law firm McCarthy Tétrault, which the court had appointed to represent them in the insolvency proceedings. The lawyers’ goal: to ensure affected students got their study permits or visas extended or approved, or received a refund of their fees.

McCarthy Tétrault reached out to the federal government. When no answer came by mid-March, the firm petitioned the Superior Court of Quebec to extend the students’ Quebec Acceptance Certificates and study permits and reconsider student visas for students still in India who had been rejected. The application was dismissed in mid-April; the judge ruled that he couldn’t compel the provincial and federal governments to do what McCarthy Tétrault was asking. Instead, the firm would need to apply to the federal court. According to Alain N. Tardif, a partner at McCarthy Tétrault, that’s a much more complex and expensive undertaking.

To Tardif, Nisha’s case was among the most critical of all. The government had granted her permission to study, only to snatch it away after she’d paid tuition and almost entirely finished her studies. She and her family stood on the precipice of financial catastrophe due to the failure of the RPI schools. According to the McCarthy Tétrault team, the federal and provincial governments were partly responsible for the financial fallout.

“What happened with the students in India is a tragedy,” says Tardif. “I spoke with one girl who tried to end her life twice in January of 2022. Victims of fraud always believe that it’s their fault, but there’s nothing they could have done. The federal government told them to pay those fees in advance. The students keep telling us to get a court order so they can be reimbursed, but what they don’t understand is the money is gone.”

The province’s responsibility—and its culpability—began long before students even paid their fees, adds Tardif. Quebec’s Ministry of Education and Higher Education signs off on which colleges become designated learning institutions, which are approved to enrol international students. The ministry signed off on CCSQ and CDE after the Mastantuonos acquired them—despite a 2020–21 report by Quebec’s advisory commission on private education that flagged financial problems, such as the family’s inability to demonstrate that the colleges had sufficient funds for adequate operations.

But there was another clear red flag the government overlooked, adds Tardif. If one of the permit holders or directors has a judicial record that demonstrates issues that could impede their ability to run an educational institution, he says, the ministry can revoke their permit. That didn’t happen after Caroline and Christina Mastantuono were charged with fraud.

“The first shortcoming is the Quebec government allowing these colleges on that list,” he says. “They had warning that there were issues with the ownership, there were issues with insolvency. Those colleges should not have been on that list.”

***

Today, Ravneet lives with three roommates in Montreal’s Côte-des-Neiges neighbourhood. After struggling to land the internship she needed to complete her program, she found a placement as a technician at a pharmacy. She’s now been approved for a post-graduation work permit, allowing her to stay in Canada for the time being.

Despite everything, she doesn’t have a problem with recruitment agents in general. “Recruiters translate all this English information into Hindi and Punjabi, which is especially helpful for the parents, who often aren’t very educated,” she says. But she does have a problem with agents getting big commissions for pushing certain schools, and students paying the price.

Manitoba is the only province to regulate recruiters. In 2016, it introduced legislation requiring schools to properly train recruiters and review the information they provide to students. It outlines ethical standards for recruiters and requires schools to terminate partnerships with recruiters when those standards are breached. In 2017, the provincial audit on the Mastantuono situation made 15 recommendations to improve the way international student programs conduct business, including accrediting recruiters. No action was taken. Then, last February, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration made a similar recommendation, suggesting that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada introduce new regulations to govern recruiters, working with provinces, territories and schools to enforce ethical behaviour.

Last June, CDE, CCSQ and M College were transferred to the privately owned Cestar College of Business, Health and Technology. Cestar has operated in Ontario since 2007 without incident, and the acquisition allowed enrolled RPI students, like Ravneet, to finish their studies. Still, the collapse of the schools made many students skittish—about Montreal, about Canada and about private colleges.

Varun Khanna, who’s 32, moved to Canada from India in 2015 to attend a private college. Today, when he’s not busy running the small trucking company he owns, or studying mobile application development at one of Montreal’s public colleges, he volunteers with the Montreal Youth Student Organization. He co-founded the organization in response to the RPI collapse, advocating for South Asian students.

“The headlines in Punjab right now are discouraging people from applying to Canada, because they’re going to be defrauded. That’s very, very bad publicity.”

He says that he’s heard many stories of recruiters telling students they won’t be able to get into a particular well-known college or university and directing them to private institutions instead. Some may be good, but others turn out to be little more than a few floors, or a few rooms in a cheap office building, with underpaid teaching staff. The RPI colleges fit that bill. After the disaster there, he says his organization is recommending students go to public colleges and universities—“just to be safe.”

Caroline and Christina Mastantuono, and Naveen Kolan, are standing trial early this year on charges of fraud stemming from the Pearson school board case, but the outcome will have no bearing on the fate of the RPI students.

Tardif would like the federal government to contribute to a fund for them—it would be the right thing to do, as well as a small step toward rehabilitating Canada’s image abroad. “Our reputation in India is damaged by this,” he says. “The headlines in Punjab right now are discouraging people from applying to Canada because they’re going to be defrauded. That’s very, very bad publicity.”

Nisha wishes someone had given her that kind of warning. “It was my dream to come to Canada, to become something,” she says. “But it would have been better if I’d never applied.” For a while, Nisha just wanted a resolution, in the form of a refund, or entry to Canada. If the school won’t pay us back, then it is the responsibility of the Canadian government to allow us to complete our education, she would tell herself. We’re not criminals; we’re students. Even months after the Superior Court of Quebec dismissed McCarthy Tétrault’s application, she retained some hope.

Now she knows there will be no Canada and no money. Some other Indian students who’d been in similar situations have since managed to gain entry to Canada. Others have found the money to start over again in a new program, at a new school in a new country. There are few people left who truly understand everything she’s gone through.

Nisha’s family doesn’t speak of the financial strain of remortgaging the family home; they want to protect her, and they want her to forget her terrible luck. Their faith in her remains unshakable.

She’s doing her best to turn a profoundly negative experience into something positive—not just for her, but for others. She’s tutoring friends, and friends of friends, in English, on a volunteer basis. At any time, she has 10 or so students between the ages of 18 and 30, across India, taking her classes online, all people who can’t afford the cost of traditional language classes. She wants to help them improve their English and pass their language proficiency exams so they can eventually do what she couldn’t: study abroad and build a new future for themselves.

Source: How fraud artists are exploiting Canada’s international education boom

No deal expected on ‘irregular’ border crossings when Justin Trudeau hosts Joe Biden

Of note:

The Liberal government does not expect to resolve concerns about the northward flow of refugees at unofficial Canada-U.S. border crossings when President Joe Biden visits Canada in March, says Immigration Minister Sean Fraser.

Biden’s visit to Ottawa, his first official trip to Canada since becoming president, will likely be in the first half of March, although no date has been set for the bilateral meeting, sources say.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Biden met recently in Mexico and at several international summits, as well as virtually since the Democratic president’s 2021 inauguration, and the two leaders set out a so-called “road map” in 2021 to guide bilateral actions in areas of co-operation.

But that road map of priorities does not expressly include any revision of a 2004 agreement called the Safe Third Country Agreement, even though the agreement itself requires continual review.

The agreement applies to refugee claimants entering at official border crossings and requires them to make asylum claims in the first “safe country” they arrive in. However, it doesn’t apply to those who sneak across or arrive at unofficial or “irregular” crossings, such as Roxham Road, near Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle at the Quebec-New York border.

Those asylum-seekers are permitted to remain in Canada and file refugee claims. As a result, during the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigrants south of the border, a flood of refugee claimants poured into Canada via irregular crossings. Asylum-seekers also try to enter the U.S. irregularly from Canada.

Canada has been trying, unsuccessfully, to get the U.S. to expand the agreement to all border crossings, which would close the loophole and end the incentive to use irregular crossings.

Quebec Immigration Minister Christine Fréchette told La Presse she hoped the issue would be resolved during the Biden visit, calling it is “essential” to “correct” the agreement to stem the flow of irregular migrants into Quebec.

Fraser downplayed any prospect of a resolution soon.

“There’s not necessarily a giant point of disagreement that we need to overcome” in talks with the U.S., Fraser said.

He said only that there is an “opportunity to potentially advance” the discussions, adding there are “regulatory” and “legislative” issues to resolve, which he declined to identify.

“There’s a mutual expectation that there can be open and frank and confidential conversations between parties, but there are regulatory processes as well that will have to take some time to play out before changes can be made official,” Fraser said.

Meanwhile, migrant and refugee advocates have challenged the constitutionality of the Safe Third Country Agreement at the Supreme Court of Canada, saying it violates the constitutional rights of those seeking asylum by turning them back to the U.S., where critics say they face detention if not outright deportation to unsafe countries of origin. The high court has reserved judgment.

Source: No deal expected on ‘irregular’ border crossings when Justin Trudeau hosts Joe Biden

Canada’s passport backlog ‘virtually eliminated,’ minister says

Welcome development but government failed to plan for surge in demand, despite having been noted in various planning documents:

Families, Children and Social Development Minister Karina Gould says the passport backlog has been “virtually eliminated” and processing times in passport offices are back to pre-pandemic levels.

The announcement comes amid a three-day Liberal cabinet retreat in Hamilton, Ont.

“Since its peak in June 2022, after dedicating resources to ensure these Canadians receive their passports, approximately 98 per cent of the backlog of applications have been processed,” Gould said, speaking in a press conference on Tuesday.

“The backlog is virtually eliminated.”

Passport offices were snowed under by applications as COVID-19 restrictions eased last year.

Canadians eyeing sunny vacations and international visits needed passports that gathered dust during the pandemic to be renewed — and the requests inundated the service.

Since April of 2022, Service Canada has issued more than two million passports, according to a press release from Gould’s office. By the end of the fiscal year, she added during her press conference, the government is expecting that number to reach between three and three and a half million.

“That’s more than double what we would have done in the previous year,” Gould said.

Another key contributor to the backlog, she added, was the fact that between 80 to 85 per cent of applications were for new passports for first-time passport holders. Gould explained it is “more complex” to issue these kinds of documents.

Going into the summer, however, she said the government is expecting a higher level of requests for passport renewals — which are “much simpler” to do.

The passport office is also anticipating to receive between three to five million passport applications per year for the next “couple of years,” the minister added.

There are two standards for the delivery of passport applications in Canada. The government aims to delivery in-person passport applications within 10 days, and holds itself to a 20 day standard for applications received by mail or dropped off at a Service Canada Centre.

The months-long waiting periods for passports led critics to accuse the Liberals of being unable to deliver even basic services to Canadians.

At the peak of the backlog, most Canadians were waiting up to 40 working days to get their hands on a new passport.

“To those Canadians and others who have shown such admirable patience during this difficult situation, I once again apologize,” Gould said, speaking on Tuesday.

Looking forward, the government intends to focus its efforts and resources on maintaining service standards, especially as a growth in applications looms just around the corner. Canada started issuing 10-year validity passports in the summer of 2013 — and some of those will be eligible for renewal starting this summer.

The planned announcement comes as Liberals are trailing the Conservatives in most polls of late.

The choice of Hamilton for the retreat is electorally strategic as it is in one of the most competitive regions in the country, and one the Liberals must win big in if they want to stay in power.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau started the second day of his retreat by meeting with Hamilton Mayor Andrea Horwath.

The Liberal cabinet has a lengthy to-do list over the three-day gathering, including tackling inflation and making the country more competitive.

Source: Canada’s passport backlog ‘virtually eliminated,’ minister says

Head: Focus on service delivery, not where bureaucrats’ work is done

Good column as service delivery is the poor cousin to policy and program development. And the TBS office return policy seems driven more by bureaucratic and political concerns than service delivery and outcomes:

I continue to be intrigued by the ongoing debate about the in-office work regime going on between the Treasury Board and federal public service unions. I want to say up front that both sides are entitled to their views and perspectives about what is required, and there are some legitimate arguments to be made on both sides. However, neither the Treasury Board nor the unions have focused on the needs of Canadians.

Most Canadians continue to be concerned about the access, quality, timeliness, and cost of services that are provided by the federal public service. There is no question that these elements have become more important since the onset of the pandemic. Consequently, where a public service employee performs their work is the least important issue for the public as opposed to the quality of the services received in an easily accessible and timely manner that does not create any additional costs to taxpayers.

There have been many examples in the media where the level of access and the quality of services have been at a standard that is unacceptable to Canadians and does not reflect experiences in previous years. While certain departments have established service delivery standards, those standards are not being met on a regular basis or are being changed to reflect the reality that has developed since 2020. One just has to phone some of the federal service agencies today only to be put on hold for lengthy periods of time. If you are lucky enough to get through to a service agent, you are likely to experience frustration because the quality of the phone connection is poor for a multitude of reasons, or the agent is not versed enough to deal with the issue being raised and you have to be put on hold again for a lengthy period time while being transferred to a more senior agent.

It is clear that some of these issues are directly related to federal public service employees working from home. The equipment they are using is not appropriate for providing the quality of service Canadians expect. As well, many service agents sound like they are working in a tin can. It is also not uncommon to be distracted by the background noise at the home of the service agent. In addition, public service employees do not have ready access to their expert network to assist with more complicated issues being raised by Canadians. These are not isolated issues as they are recurring examples of Canadians’ experiences dealing with the Canada Revenue Agency, the passport office, Service Canada agents, Veterans’ Affairs Canada, etc.

While these issues are real and significant, they are not insurmountable. Addressing these and other issues related to access, quality, and timeliness of services will truly make the discussion about where the services are provided a moot point. While this will require strong, effective leadership from the Treasury Board and all government departments, it also requires the unions to recognize that while the needs of employees are important, they do not trump the needs of Canadians.

Moving forward, there needs to be a major reformulation of the delivery of services to Canadians which reflects emerging and evolving societal needs, and how and when taxpayers access government services. While federal public service employees’ needs have evolved, so have the needs of Canadians. Accessing services between Monday and Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., with no access on federal statutory holidays or weekends, is a construct of the past. The evolving work-life balance needs of Canadian families must drive a new vision for service delivery in the federal public sector. This requires developing a service delivery model that is responsive, flexible, and adaptive to the evolving and changing dynamics of Canadian families.

Where these services are delivered from is a factor for consideration, but it is not the primary decision-making point. Any decisions regarding in-office hybrid models must be seen as an interim solution until a new, reformulated service delivery model is defined by the needs of Canadians and developed in a collaborative manner. Tinkering with one element of the terms and conditions of employment of public service employees while ignoring the need to evolve the basic service delivery model for Canadians will only lead to greater deterioration of support and confidence in the federal public service overall.

There is no question the Treasury Board and the unions must work together in moving forward on the larger agenda with constant and direct input from citizens. Tackling the service delivery model will truly instill greater confidence in Canadians that government services are accessible, timely, cost efficient, and of the highest quality. The definition of a new model will then logically lead to the development of meaningful dialogue and solutions between the Treasury Board and unions in relation to the needs of public service employees including their work locations, hours of work, compensation, and overall work-life balance.

There is no question that the pandemic and its effect on Canadians and the federal public service have actually created a unique opportunity. The time is now for reformulating, revitalizing, and reinvigorating the federal public service delivery model for the next decade and beyond—but it will only occur with determined commitment, dedicated collaboration, and effective leadership.

Don Head had a 40-year career in the public service, beginning in 1978. From 2008 until he retired in 2018, Head was the commissioner of the Correctional Service Canada and served on various deputy minister-level committees that were actively involved in various aspects of public service delivery. Head currently assists the Aleph Institute, which is a non-profit Jewish organization dedicated to assisting and caring for the well-being of members of specific populations that are isolated from the regular community.

Source: Focus on service delivery, not where bureaucrats’ work is done

Wernick: The pull and push of the centre that haunts the public service

Of note (my experience with Service Canada and the shift from initial ambition to provide a cross government platform for service delivery to returning to the more narrow focus on ESDC programs, with passports being an exception, is emblematic of the currents):

The federal public sector has been shaped by two easily identifiable democratic forces – the views of the people we elect about the role of the state in society and the economy as well as the federal government’s role within the federation. Federal institutions, direct programs and transfers to other levels of government have waxed and waned in response to these two forces and the public service has constantly adapted.

There is a third force that get far less attention but has driven fierce debates and waves of change initiatives within the public service itself. This third force is the ongoing tension between two perspectives. One sees the federal public service as a coherent entity that requires consistency, mobility and portability. The other argues for a public service that has more autonomy and flexibility for both the managers and their organizations. You can always find proponents of both camps and often it’s seen through the lens of “centralizing” or “decentralizing.” The debate is likely to go on forever.

Since 1970 the federal government has had a central management board – Treasury Board ministers and the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS). It is the guardian of a wide swath of policies governing financial management, internal controls, risk management, human resources, information management, asset management, contracting, real property, transfer payments, and more. It makes it the vortex where both centralizing and decentralizing viewpoints meet. I have been part of countless committees and task forces over the years where they clashed.

Recently this tension has been revealed in heated discussions of post-pandemic workplaces. Should the “centre” impose consistency on hybrid-work arrangements or leave the discretion to individual deputy heads who could in turn delegate decisions further down in their organizations? The policy that came out tries to have it both ways, creating a common framework but leaving a lot of flexibility within it.

This debate about workplaces will continue in collective bargaining. That’s a centralizing process for drafting common rules and standards to apply across multiple organizations. The approach to collective bargaining in the Canadian public service is a choice to centralize bargaining and put it in the hands of a few specialists on each side, while other countries may let each department bargain by itself.

For many years there have been regular updates from the TBS to guide externally facing services. The 2000 policy was updated in 2014 and again in 2020. Service Canada was created in 2005 to create a single point of access for a range of key programs. Norms have been applied across all federal entities to ensure bilingual programming and more recently to ensure services meet the needs of persons with disabilities.

The drive toward coherence built upon the Federal Identity Program has evolved since the 1970s to bring greater order to signage and other visual identifiers. Successive governments have brought ever greater central control on paid advertising by federal entities. By now you are familiar with the Canada wordmark and jingle.

The most recent update of service policies includes a heavy emphasis on “digital.” The ongoing shift to digital platforms regularly triggers a fresh wave of debate along the age-old centralist/decentralist axis. Shared Services Canada was created in 2011 to upgrade information technology infrastructure and keep ahead of the rising threats of cybersecurity breaches. It was overtly centralist in intention.

At the time it was resisted, openly or passive-aggressively, by some managers in the largest organizations. They argued that they needed to retain control of their IT to be able to innovate. Frankly, I was never persuaded how hundreds of organizations could manage the transition to digital separately – including cloud computing, cyberhacking by foreign actors and the shift to hybrid work during the pandemic. How would it ever work in practice? This is one area where a centralist approach makes sense.

Indeed, I have argued elsewhere that the failure to be as rigorous on information management behind the digital agenda is starting to show up elsewhere. The TBS should pay more attention to the disparate state of information and records management across the public service.

The landmark Federal Accountability Act of 2006 subtly strengthened the decentralist camp. By clarifying the “buck stops here” accountability of deputy heads, it bolstered the hand of those who would argue some version of “if I am accountable, I have to have full decision making authority over…”

Another line of argument used by the decentralist camp was the need for flexibility and customization, or the need to innovate. They argued that decentralizing was more conducive to innovation. The centralist camp, of which I was usually a member, argued that the friction costs were adding to costs, slowing down government, impeding internal mobility, leaving smaller organizations behind while the big departments looked out for themselves. In my view, decentralization often served the interests of vendors and consultants, not public servants.

Treasury Board has reached different landing spots between the two camps over the years, as have individual departments and organizations. Over the past decade there have been the creation of common service hubs and the standardization of basic work processes for human resources, financial and accounting practices and linking management information. Standardizing and centralizing pension services to public servants has gone well, but pay services? Not so much.

There are still battles being fought in many departments about who regional staff should report to and how much autonomy their leaders should have. And the tides go in and out.

More battles are to come. One is about how much autonomy departments and agencies should have over buildings and real estate. Another is about how much autonomy and decentralization there should be in the areas of contracting and procurement. Yet another is about how much autonomy line managers should have over recruitment and hiring processes. “Let the managers manage” is an old slogan that sounds good but in practice the outcome of highly decentralized staffing has been far from optimal. Middle managers and HR shops continue to take infuriatingly long to perform basic staffing transactions.

Interestingly, major spending reviews can work both ways. The centralist camp uses them to argue for rationalization and efficiency by bringing things together while the decentralist camp uses them to argue for getting rid of administrative burden and oversight. There is a very rough analogy here to the private sector and its ever-shifting fashions about unlocking value by breaking things up versus creating value by bringing things together.

Anyone serving on a hypothetical Royal Commission would bring conscious or unconscious bias and preferences to this debate about centralization vs decentralization. They would have to declare on the future of staffing, procurement, real estate and information management. In the real world of practitioners, the public service is pulled back and forth between impulses to standardize and centralize versus arguments for autonomy by departments, agencies and for line and regional managers within larger organizations. Each camp argues its case fiercely convinced of the rightness of their views, fuelled by the ever-shifting fashions in management literature and private sector practice.

Source: The pull and push of the centre that haunts the public service

Hopper: Why immigrant-loving Canada is suddenly worried about immigration

Another critical look at immigration levels given housing and healthcare pressures:
Canada, by virtually any metric, is the most pro-immigration country on earth.

A 2019 global survey by Pew Research found that Canada was the one country most supportive of the notion that immigration “makes our country stronger.” In 2020, a Gallup survey ranked Canada as the world’s most migrant friendly nation. Last September, a poll by the Environics Institute found that 58 per cent of Canadians backed the notion that their country “needs more immigrants.”

Source: Why immigrant-loving Canada is suddenly worried about immigration

Angus-Reid: Canadians strongly support COVID-19 test requirement for travellers from China, but also question its efficacy

Of note. 13 percent call the policy racist, perhaps an indicator of the more activist and woke portion of the population (my understanding of the testing requirement is that it is partly due to the unavailability of credible Chinese government data):

China abandoning its COVID zero strategy has caused a ripple of concern around the globe as the world’s second-most populous country faces an unprecedented wave of infections affecting as many as four-in-five people.

In response to rising cases in China, Canada, alongside other countries, set a new requirement this month that travellers form China must produce a negative COVID-19 test prior to takeoff.

Data from the non-profit Angus Reid Institute finds a majority of Canadians supportive of this policy, but unsure if it will be effective at reducing the spread of COVID-19 in their country. Indeed, Canadians who support the policy (77%) outnumber those who are opposed (16%) by nearly five-to-one.

However, those who believe the policy will be effective at reducing COVID-19 infections in Canada (34%) are in the minority. More Canadians believe it will be ineffective (38%) or are unsure (28%). And even among Canadians who support the policy, fewer than half (44%) say they believe it will be effective at preventing the spread of COVID-19.

There are other concerns with this policy. Some, including the Chinese government, have called it “discriminatory”. Others have gone further and called it “racist”. The pandemic has produced plenty of negative side effects, including discrimination and racism experienced by Canadians of Chinese descent. Some worry this new policy of testing travellers from China will rekindle those ugly sentiments. 

One-in-eight (13%) Canadians call the policy racist. However, more (73%) believe it’s not. Canadians who identify as visible minorities are twice as likely to label the policy racist (23%) than those who don’t identify as such (10%). Still, majorities of those who identify as visible minority (62%) and those who don’t (76%) say the policy is not racist.

More Key Findings:

  • Nearly all (94%) of those who oppose the COVID-19 testing policy for travellers from China believe it won’t be effective at reducing the spread of the virus in Canada.
  • One-in-five (19%) Canadians say they are not travelling at all because they are worried about COVID-19. A further 33 per cent say they have approached their recent travel with caution. Two-in-five (41%) are less worried about the risk of COVID-19 when it comes to travel.
  • Two-in-five (37%) of those who have not travelled at all outside of their province since March 2022 say they aren’t travelling because they worry about catching COVID-19.

Source: Canadians strongly support COVID-19 test requirement for travellers from China, but also question its efficacy

Ibbitson: Why should Sir John A. take all the blame for Canada’s injustices to Indigenous peoples?

Valid points:

In the latest indignity visited upon the memory of Canada’s first prime minister, Ottawa’s National Capital Commission has announced plansto substitute an Indigenous name for what is now the Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway.

Why does everyone pick on Sir John A. and not Sir Wilfrid?

Wilfrid Laurier, one of Canada’s most beloved prime ministers, expanded the residential-school system and suppressed a 1907 report that revealed the schools were cruel and unsafe. His interior minister, Clifford Sifton, dispossessed First Nations of their lands in order to promote settlement in the Prairies. His governments also blocked Black and Chinese immigrants from entering Canada.

But although Ryerson University has been renamed Toronto Metropolitan University on the grounds that Egerton Ryerson helped establish the residential-school system, Wilfrid Laurier University has no plans to change its name. Laurier streets across the nation remain untouched. Renaming Ottawa’s Chateau Laurier hotel is unthinkable.

Macdonald’s likeness has been banished from the 10-dollar bill, replaced by Viola Desmond. Laurier remains on the five.

Macdonald statues have been toppled or removed in Charlottetown, Montreal, Kingston, Hamilton, Regina, Victoria and elsewhere. But I can find no record of a Laurier statue being carted off to storage.

Tearing Indigenous children from their parents and forcing them to attend schools far from their communities, where they were subjected to disease, abuse and efforts at assimilation, and where some died, was an act of cultural genocide by our lights. But by the lights of both Macdonald and of Laurier – and, for that matter, of Robert Borden, Mackenzie King, R.B. Bennett, Louis St. Laurent, John Diefenbaker and Lester Pearson – it was sound policy. And newspapers across the land, including this one, agreed.

King’s governments deserve particular scrutiny. Not only did his administration maintain the residential-schools system, the King government in 1923 enacted legislation banning Chinese immigration. The act was rescinded in 1947 but King continued to maintain that “large-scale immigration from the Orient would change the fundamental composition of the Canadian population.” He also turned away Jews fleeing Europe on the St. Louis; an estimated 254 of its passengers later died at the hands of the Nazis. And his government dispossessed more than 21,000 Japanese Canadians during the Second World War.

Pierre Trudeau’s government began phasing out residential schools. But that same government produced a white paper under Indian Affairs minister (and future prime minister) Jean Chrétien that would have eliminated special status for First Nations, converted reserves into private property and wound down treaty rights. The government retreated in the face of First Nations outrage.

Injustice toward Indigenous peoples long predated Confederation and continues to this day. The record of racism toward non-European immigrants is lengthy and sordid. What makes Macdonald more culpable than the rest?

The answer could be that, as the first prime minister and a Father of Confederation, Macdonald personifies Canada. In pulling down his statue, some people are not simply protesting the legacy of residential schools – they are pulling down the symbol of an oppressive, colonizing state.

In that sense, to pull down a Macdonald statue is to pull down the statue of every prime minister and every leader who contributed to oppression of Indigenous peoples. And given what they’ve been put through, who could blame them?

But Macdonald and a handful of others also gave us Canada. They crafted a dominion unique in its balance of powers between federal and provincial, English and French. Immigrants from Britain and Eastern Europe came here. Italians and Portuguese and Chinese and South Asians and Filipinos came here. Muslims and Jews came here. Refugees came here, the latest from Afghanistan and Ukraine.

Canada is far from perfect, but it is arguably the least imperfect country on Earth, if the embrace of diversity is your measure.

There are lots of John A. Macdonald things in Ottawa. Replacing one of them with an Indigenous name won’t hurt anyone. Reconciliation will take time and be hard, but we must reach for it.

Let’s be careful, though. Sir John A. is part of who we are, good and bad. Let’s talk to each other about that. Talking is always better than tearing down.

Source: Why should Sir John A. take all the blame for Canada’s injustices to Indigenous peoples?