Roy: Pour une politique québécoise de la population

Similar call for a commission of enquiry, but broader than just immigration. A pan-Canadian enquiry, covering both national and regional perspectives and issues, would provide a better basis for policy debates and discussions current governmental approaches:

On aura beau actionner tous les recyclages, et on doit le faire, la société québécoise est et sera aux prises avec un manque de main-d’œuvre chronique aussi loin que l’on puisse voir dans l’avenir. Près de 100 % des entreprises québécoises font face présentement à un manque de main-d’œuvre, et la situation n’est pas meilleure dans le secteur public. Se pourrait-il que le manque de main-d’œuvre actuel annonce, pour demain, un déficit de la quantité de citoyens requis pour un développement interne harmonieux et un rayonnement externe dont le Québec a besoin pour la vitalité de son économie et de sa culture ?

Manque de citoyens ?

La question doit être posée.

Il est inexact de prétendre que la pénurie de main-d’œuvre est du même ordre au Québec qu’ailleurs dans le monde, et notamment en Amérique du Nord. La différence se situe dans la croissance démographique attendue d’ici 2050 ; plus 60, 20, 9 et 5 millions de citoyens respectivement pour les États-Unis, le Mexique, le Canada et l’Ontario comparativement à un peu plus d’un demi-million pour le Québec. En 2045, la population de l’Ontario totalisera 20 millions de personnes, celle du Québec, un peu moins de 10 millions.

Nos voisins et principaux partenaires économiques disposeront de réserves pour le renouvellement et l’enrichissement de leur main-d’œuvre. Tel ne sera pas le cas pour le Québec. Faut-il prendre acte sans plus ou pousser plus loin l’analyse relative à notre avenir démographique ? Le temps est-il venu de créer une commission d’enquête comme on l’a fait, dans le passé et, avec succès, quand il nous a fallu éclairer notre avenir en matière d’éducation, de santé et de bien-être social, de politique linguistique, de relation entre les Autochtones et certains services publics, de liberté syndicale, etc.

Besoins démographiques

Le mandat de cette commission pourrait comprendre les sujets suivants : (1) l’analyse des besoins démographiques du Québec d’ici le milieu du siècle. Seraient pris en compte le vieillissement accéléré de sa population et la baisse continue de la population en âge de travailler conjugués au besoin de produire biens et services économiques, écologiques, sociaux et culturels ; (2) l’analyse des besoins démographiques des régions, de chacune d’elles, dont le développement ne se fera pas sans une masse critique de citoyens ; (3) l’évaluation de la part escomptée des technologies avancées dans la production économique, écologique, sociale et culturelle québécoise pour assurer le maintien voire la croissance du taux d’activité dans les prochaines décennies ; (4) l’analyse de la politique d’immigration comprenant le solde migratoire interprovincial négatif du Québec depuis trente ans ; l’examen des causes du départ des immigrants venus au Québec après les dix-huit premiers mois de leur arrivée et la révision de nos systèmes d’accueil, y compris l’offre de francisation qui doit devenir, en quantité et en qualité, l’une de nos politiques les plus avancées. (5) Enfin, l’analyse des effets politiques prévisibles d’une croissance démographique basse, moyenne ou haute.

Si la proportion de personnes âgées (65 ans et plus) est présentement de 20 % et totalise 1,7 million de Québécois, elle croîtra progressivement jusqu’à 27 %, en 2050, pour totaliser 2,6 millions de Québécois. De quelle main-d’œuvre aurons-nous besoin alors pour offrir à ces aînés les services à domicile ou institutionnels exigés par leur situation ?

Quelles sont les masses critiques de citoyens requises d’ici 2050 pour le déploiement d’une vie économique, sociale et culturelle forte dans les régions du Québec ? Pour que chaque région demeure viable, dynamique et attrayante.

Une politique de la population ?

Au terme des travaux de la commission, le Québec disposerait des données relatives à sa situation démographique à venir, des éléments d’une éventuelle politique québécoise de la population. Ce faisant, le Québec rejoindrait de nombreux pays qui poursuivent ces recherches les concernant.

Si rien n’est entrepris pour construire autrement l’avenir, il faut craindre l’affadissement d’une société diminuée par sa faiblesse démographique et son vieillissement ; craindre aussi l’effondrement de son modèle social et la perte du dynamisme qui a porté son élan économique, ce dernier demi-siècle. Dans le passé, le Québec a trouvé, dans la recherche sur lui-même, la connaissance des meilleures pratiques et la concertation, les leviers de son affirmation durable. Ces démarches convergentes l’ont bien servi. Il doit urgemment les réanimer pour se doter d’une politique démographique susceptible de combler son manque de main-d’œuvre et de conforter sa première richesse, sa richesse humaine.

Source: Pour une politique québécoise de la population

Hijab controversy and multiculturalism: Lessons from Canada

One Indian perspective, further to my earlier post on the Essential Religious Practice (ERP) India: Why is Karnataka HC deciding if the hijab is an ‘essential religious practice’ in Islam?:

India has traditionally been recognised as a country where “unity in diversity” reigns supreme. Food, festivals, attire, language, religion, and other aspects of culture are all diverse throughout. In his classic poem, Bharat Tirtha (Indian pilgrimage), Rabindranath Tagore echoed the same philosophy where the fundamental belief underlying the definition of Indianness is its assimilative, cosmopolitan, and compassionate nature. Jawaharlal Nehru wrote about this diversity extensively in his book, The Discovery of India. Winston Churchill had commented: “India is not a country or a nation; it is rather a continent inhabited by many nations.”

Although it is true that there is no explicit provision in the Constitution of India recognizing this multiculturalism, it is spread across implicitly. The Preamble, the Equality principle, the right to Freedom of Religion, protection of Cultural and Educational rights of the minorities, recognition of 22 official languages under Schedule VIII – all bear testimony of the same.

Unfortunately, we have been forced to believe in the notion of ‘uniformity’ in the recent years – the imposition of one culture, one religion, and so on. As the hijab debate rages across the country in the name of school ‘uniform’, I prefer to look into the matter through the lens of the multicultural ethos, rather than the Essential Religious Practice (ERP) test. And here I will be speaking about Canada, which has placed a strong focus on equality and inclusion for all of its people.

With 37 million inhabitants, Canada is the world’s second-largest country geographically. It is ranked 16th in the Human Development Index (India is ranked 131st) and has one of the fastest growth rates of any G7 country. While ethnic Canadians account for 32.3 percent of the population, other prominent ethnic groups include English, Scottish, French, Irish, German, and Chinese. Between 1971 and 2011, immigration expanded in Canada as a result of the modification of the Immigration Act. On one hand, 4 percent of the population is aboriginal; on the other hand, 60 percent of new immigrants are from Asia, mainly China and India.

While the majority of Canadians (67 percent) are Christians, a significant proportion (24 percent) declares that they have no religious connection. Muslims account for 3.2 percent of the minority, while Sikhs account for 1.4 percent. Sikh migration began in the early twentieth century, and they now wield significant political power. Notwithstanding the fact that Sikhs make up 1.7 percent of the Indian population, just 13 Sikh MPs have been elected to India’s 543-seat Lok Sabha, compared to 18 in Canada’s 338-seat House of Commons.

Canada is a liberal democracy having a Charter of Rights and Freedoms under the Constitution Act of 1982 (analogous to ‘Part III: Fundamental Rights’ of our Constitution) where it is explicitly noted that the Charter “shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians” (Section 27).

The judiciary in the country has jealously preserved this heritage while upholding the Charter rights for various minority groups.

Similar to the current hijab controversy, an orthodox Sikh student once intended to wear a kirpan to school. The school and his family agreed that he would seal the kirpan in his clothing while at school. However, the school board’s council of commissioners objected that he could not wear it to school because bringing dangerous objects to school was against the school’s code of conduct.

In Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys (2006),the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the council’s decision infringed Multani’s religious freedom. School board members failed to demonstrate that a complete prohibition is a reasonable limit on religious freedom. The kirpan had never been involved in any violent incidents at school and there was no evidence that it was a symbol of violence. The total ban of wearing kirpans in schools ignores the value of respecting minorities and tolerance in Canada’s diverse culture.

Gobinder Randhawa, a Sikh immigrant from India and former Ontario Sikhs and Gurdwara Council president, tells Ashleigh Stewart of Global News that turbans were uncommon when he arrived in Toronto in 1972. Toronto’s public transit agency, the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), faced confusion over its dress code after he applied for a job there. TTC modified the uniform code to accommodate him. He spent 31 years working there.

Canada has given equal powers to exercise one’s religion to all sects and cultures and diverse religious ethnicities. Stewart reports instances of Syrian immigrants narrating as to how the country has allowed them carry on their Islamic lives, e.g., school principals arranging prayer halls for their kids.

In another instance, a lady who had been sexually assaulted was testified during her accused attackers’ preliminary inquiry. She was ordered by the judge to remove her niqab, a head scarf covering her face except the eyes. She argued that doing so would violate her religious freedom.

In R. v. N.S. (2012), the SC ruled that if wearing the niqab does not significantly impair trial fairness, the witness may do so. The case highlights the need for public institutions to accommodate religious differences as much as possible while upholding other Charter-protected rights and freedoms.

Earlier in R. v. Big M Drug Mart (1985), the police charged a store for violating the Lord’s Day Act because it refused to close on Sundays. That law prohibited conducting business on Sunday as it reflected the Christian tradition of reserving Sunday for rest. The SC found that the Act violated the Charter’s fundamental freedom of religion by forcing all Canadians to follow one religion – Christianity.

Quite surprisingly, unlike ours, the Canadian Constitution allows suspension of the Charter rights and freedoms even without an emergency being declared (Section 33). Yet the federal Parliament has never utilised this power till date. No wonder that Canada has remained a preferred destination for many Indians migrating abroad in search of prosperity. They have truly nurtured the philosophy of “live and let live”.

Hijabs (or kirpans) did not compromise the sanctity of the education but the nefarious acts that followed certainly did. The fervour and severity with which the hijab issue has being tackled, I wish the concerned individuals had responded in a same manner in relation to the quality of education imparted in those institutions in Karnataka and elsewhere. Our educational institutions would have been substantially superior.

When people are forced to refrain from selling or eating non-vegetarian food in the name of religion (read here), to remove hijab, and to abandon religious norms of offering prayers, we are not only interfering with individual choices/freedoms, we are also denying the diversity that exists in this country and embarking on an elusive quest of uniformity. We yearn for a “universal civil code” for all religions, when there is no uniformity of civil customs among Hindus across the country! We should aspire to be equal rather than identical.

Multiculturalism has always been a source of pride and strength for us. For heaven’s sake, let’s not demolish it, regardless of the Karnataka High Court’s verdict!

Source: Hijab controversy and multiculturalism: Lessons from Canada

West targets Russia’s elite by limiting ‘golden passport’ citizenship sales as it applies pressure on the coun

Of note, along with other measures. Eliminating ‘golden passport’ citizenship should be permanent, not just for Russian oligarchs:

Western leaders are increasing the pressure on Russia by imposing further economic measures that target the country’s wealthiest.

In a joint statement published by the European Commission on Saturday, the US, UK, Europe, and Canada announced they will limit the sale of “golden passports,” which enables Russia’s richest individuals to invest in a country in exchange for citizenship.

Western allies wrote in the statement: “We commit to taking measures to limit the sale of citizenship—so called golden passports—that let wealthy Russians connected to the Russian government become citizens of our countries and gain access to our financial systems.”

The move comes in response to Russia’s attack on Ukraine early Thursday morning, in what was termed a “full-scale” invasion.

President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said in a tweet that the measures intend to “cripple Putin’s ability to finance his war machine.”

She added: “Putin embarked on a path aiming to destroy Ukraine. But what he is also doing, in fact, is destroying the future of his own country.”

A golden passport comes with multiple benefits, which Russia’s elite now stand to lose. This includes freedom of movement within the Schengen Zone for all family members.

The new wave of sanctions comes immediately after Western forces announced that select Russian banks will be ejected from the SWIFT banking system. The decision underscored a change of stance from some countries that initially opposed Russia’s removal from SWIFT.

For example, Germany’s foreign minister said Friday she did not believe a ban was the best course of action, per Reuters.

In the Saturday statement, the US, UK, Europe, and Canada vowed to “collectively ensure that this war is a strategic failure for Putin” with the new penalties.

Source: West targets Russia’s elite by limiting ‘golden passport’ citizenship sales as it applies pressure on the country

Foreign Investor Immigrants Stymied By Restrictive U.S. Border Entry Rule

Even though not a great believe in the value of investor immigration, still notable these restrictions under USMCA:

Foreign investors investing in the United States today are being stymied by a U.S. immigration border policy that is preventing them from looking after their businesses in the country. The policy is particularly aggravating to Canadian investors, but is also a problem for other foreign investors that are not visa exempt, that is, from countries where the applicant must apply for a B-1/B-2 visitor’s visa to come to the USA. The relevant rule could be easily changed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (USCBP) through a policy directive. The question is what useful purpose does the current policy serve if it is needlessly interfering with foreign investments in the United States?

The Problem

The problem has arisen largely due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Foreign investor appointments for E-2 treaty investor visas under the USMCA, formerly the NAFTA free trade agreement, are taking an inordinate period of time to schedule. Indeed, at one point, consular officials in the past were even unable to say how long it would take to get interviews for E-2 visas. This left foreign investors having to come to the U.S. in some other way until they could finally get their E-2 visas. While applying for a change from visitor to E-2 status inside the U.S. is a possibility, some time ago the Consul General at the Toronto Consulate advised U.S. attorneys to avoid that option, implying such applications are likely to be denied. It appears that U.S. officials saw resorting to a change from business visitor to E-2 status inside the U.S. as playing the system because processing of E-2 visas are normally in the purview of U.S. Consulates abroad. So the only reasonable way has been to enter the U.S. as business visitors.

The key snag is the limitation in the amount of time that E-2 investors are allowed to stay in the U.S. in visitor status. Current border policy is to grant a maximum of six months. Indeed, the policy is to refuse entry to business visitors who have already been physically present in the U.S. for six months in any year.

Unwritten Policy Rule

In a previous Forbes article I described the rule as follows:

“For Canadians, one of the issues that often arises is whether the visitor has already spent more than 183 days in a year in the USA. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (USCBP) officers have been enforcing what Ira Kurzban, the Dean of American immigration attorneys and author of the authoritative book Kurzban’s Immigration Law Sources, diplomatically calls an “unwritten rule” that visitors may not spend more than 183 days in any year in the USA. Written or not, the USCBP custom at the U.S.-Canada border is to prevent visitors from entering in most cases when it is determined that the visitor has already accumulated 183 days of U.S. physical presence in the last year.

The rationale for the rule comes from the way USCBP officers assess visitors coming to the U.S. As a general rule, such officers consider the following elements in making a decision about allowing a visitor to enter the U.S. Firstly, is the applicant a security threat? Secondly, is the applicant a criminal? Thirdly, is the applicant working illegally in the U.S.? Finally, is the applicant really living in the United States permanently but only saying he is visiting? A convenient way of implementing the policy considerations raised by such thinking is to prohibit visitors from entering the U.S. for more than 183 years in any year. After all, how many people can live without earning income for six months or more?”

Serious Hardships

Until visa wait times at the U.S. consulate in Canada are reduced to reasonable levels, however, this rule is imposing serious hardships on E-2 investors. To qualify for E-2 visas, investors have to make more than a marginal commitment of their funds into the United States. Usually this takes the form of a purchase of a business, a hotel for example. Sometimes it takes the form of a start-up where the investor hires employees or commences offering products or services. Whatever the form taken, foreign investors want to be able to be where their money is to be on top of what is going on.

What is needed is for the USCBP to realign its policy with the needs of investors and with the processing times of the U.S. consulates abroad, including the ones in Canada. At the present time, scheduling interviews at U.S. consulates in Canada for E-2 visas for example, are taking at least eight months or more. Applying the current USCBP 180-day policy means that Canadian investors can be shut out of the United States for at least two months or more while awaiting approvals. Clearly these investors need to be granted more than six months time in the U.S. under these circumstances. In the normal course of events the USCBP has the authority to grant business visitors up to one year’s time on an entry. So why not grant these investors such approvals?

A False Alternative

It is true that such investors can apply to extend their visitor’s status for another six months from inside the U.S. But that is a needless extra hardship that is fraught with uncertainty and possible unpleasant future consequences while the investor awaits a ruling. Why put the investors in that position?

What E-2 Visitors Can Do

While business visitors are constrained in what they can do while being in the United States, still such a visitor is at least entitled, “to examine or monitor potential qualifying investments” so as to be ready to apply for an E-2 visa. True, the investor must behave as a business visitor and is “precluded from performing productive labor or from participating in the hands-on management of the business.” Still, there is a list of things such a visitor can do. For example, a business visitor can observe the conduct of business, negotiate contracts, undertake study incidental to the purpose of the stay, consult with clients or business associates, participate in conventions, conferences, or seminars, make phone calls, give employees instructions, take clients to their cars and even engage in commercial transactions outside of gainful employment. The key is no “hands-on-work” and no salary being paid. This can all work if handled properly.

Being Reasonable For A Change

Assuming the USCBP officers applied a more reasonable time frame policy for business visitors dealing with E-2 investments by matching visiting times with likely consular processing times of E-2 visa application, and assuming officers were reasonable in how they viewed what these investors are doing while complying with their periods of authorized stay, these headaches could be avoided and a more reasonable business-friendly environment could be created for E-2 investors.

Why not give it a try?

Source: Foreign Investor Immigrants Stymied By Restrictive U.S. Border Entry Rule

#COVID-19 Immigration Effects: December Update with 2018 baseline comparison

Key trends from December IRCC operational data, which reflect in part a normal seasonal decline:

Overall, comparing 2021 with 2018 data, most immigration programs have largely recovered from the steep impact of COVID travel and other restrictions, with the exceptions of the Provincial Nominee Program, asylum claimants, citizenship and visitor visas.

As trumpeted by the Minister, the number of permanent resident admissions slightly exceeded the 2021 target: 403,540, compared to 401,000. Compared to 2018, admissions have increased by 26 percent.

As seen throughout the year, this is largely due to two-step immigration by temporary residents, largely from the International Mobility Program and the Post-Graduate Work Program. The percentage of the economic class increased to 63 percent, up from 58 percent. 

While on a monthly basis, permanent residency applications increased, compared to 2018, applications declined by 43 percent. This likely reflects recognition by potential applicants of large backlogs and two-step immigration.

Temporary Residents – IMP: While on a monthly basis, IMP declined in December, compared to 2018, numbers increased by 35 percent. 

Temporary Residents – TFWP: While December numbers remained stable, compared to 2018, numbers increased by 24 percent, with the greatest increase in LMIA.

Students: Study permit applications increased slightly in December while study permits issued almost tripled. Compared to 2018, applications increased by 64 percent, and permits issued by 27 percent. 

Asylum Claimants: The number of asylum claimants continued to increase in December, mainly due to the reopening of Roxham Road. Compared to 2018, the number of claimants decreased by 55 percent. 

Citizenship: The citizenship program continues to recover with traditional numbers of new citizens on a monthly basis. Compared to 2018, the number of new citizens declined by 38 percent..

Visitor Visas: While on a monthly basis, the number of visitor visas issued continues to approach traditional levels. However, compared 2018, the number of visas has decreased by 82 percent.

Canada Admits 3 Times More Non-College Immigrants per Capita than the U.S.

Useful comparative data:

Many Americans want a more “merit‐​based” legal immigration system, and the country most commonly associated with this framework is Canada. Former‐​Attorney General Jeff Sessions, for example, characterized U.S. immigrants as largely “illiterate”, with “no skills”, and argued that America “should be like Canada” on immigration, evaluating them on their skills. But while Canada does favor economic‐​based paths to residence, it still admits far more non‐​college educated immigrant workers than the United States does as a proportion of its population—and it is planning to let in even more in the coming years.

According to Canada’s statistics, 244,800 non‐​college‐​educated immigrants over the age of 25 in the labor force entered Canada from 2015 to 2019, 0.65 percent of the Canadian population. During the same period, 729,797 immigrants with the same characteristics entered the United States, 0.22 percent of the U.S. population (Figure 1). In other words, Canada saw nearly three times more entries into its labor force from lower‐​skilled workers than the United States did in recent years on a per capita basis. This disparity would be greater if illegal immigrants were excluded from the calculation.

Despite admitting far more non‐​college‐​educated immigrant workers, Canada also admitted nearly 5 times as many immigrant workers with bachelor’s degrees and 4 times as many immigrant workers with advanced degrees as the United States did from 2015 to 2019 on a per capita basis. This means that overall, Canada admitted nearly 4 times more immigrant workers into its labor force than the United States did from 2015 to 2019. Note that the Canadian share of lesser‐​educated workers would be even higher if they were not also admitting so many higher skilled immigrants.

While it is true that Canada admits a much larger share of immigrants through economic channels than the United States does, it also makes it easier for them to qualify based on jobs where a college education is not required. It also admits as a share of its population more immigrants based on family ties and humanitarian grounds than the United States. Canada has just announced its largest ever legal immigration targets for the next several years, which will increase the rate of admission for both skilled and lesser‐​skilled workers.

While college‐​educated immigrants offer the United States the greatest productivity boost, the fact that a majority of job growth will come from jobs not requiring a bachelor’s degree provides a strong basis for the United States to increase both skilled and lesser‐​skilled immigration in tandem.

Source: Canada Admits 3 Times More Non-College Immigrants per Capita than the U.S.

Black immigrants are more likely to be denied US citizenship than White immigrants, study finds

Unfortunately, only the overall rejection rates with no other data on other factors or reasons for the differences. In Canada, factors explaining differences in naturalization rates are income and education (see Trends in the Citizenship Rate Among New Immigrants to Canada):

Black male immigrants are less likely to be approved for United States citizenship than White immigrants, a new study released this week shows.

Researchers at the University of Southern California analyzed more than 2 million citizenship applications filed by US permanent residents between October 2014 and March 2018, and found racial disparities among those whose applications were approved.

Black immigrants, researchers say, have been denied citizenship more often than any other racial and ethnic group.

About 94% of White women and about 92% of White men were approved for US citizenship while Black men and women received an approval rating at or below 90%, the study shows. Black Muslim immigrants also had lower approval ratings at around 86%.

The data analyzed by researchers did not include details about reasoning behind each application denial — a key piece of information that would help determine what leads to the disparities, said Emily Ryo, the lead author for the study and a professor of law and sociology at the USC Gould School of Law.

CNN reached out to US Citizenship and Immigration Services for comment on the study’s findings.
 

May: Federal paymasters struggle to rise from Phoenix

Ongoing so many years lager:

Thousands of workers are still owed money when they leave or retire from Canada’s public service, and some are still waiting years to get paid. Thousands more move to jobs in other departments and wait months, if not years, for their paperwork to catch up with them.

It’s been six years – and more than $1.4 billion in fixes – since the disastrous Phoenix launch. The government wanted the pay system to be stabilized this year, meaning the backlog of erroneous pay cases would be eliminated permanently. It’s not there yet.

The spotlight on the Phoenix fiasco all but disappeared when the pandemic took the national stage and the number of pay hardship cases fell. The errors that remain aren’t as egregious as they were in the early days when people were getting underpaid or overpaid massively, or not paid at all. However, despite improvements, a backlog of trouble remains.

The Office of the Auditor General found an overall error rate of 47 per cent in the pay of employees it sampled in 2020-21. That’s slightly lower than the 51 per cent error rate the prior year. It also flagged that 41 per cent still had pay errors waiting to be fixed at the end of the year – compared to 31 per cent the year before.

https://e.infogram.com/8f90a011-7f3b-4010-b28e-93934a78fead?parent_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpolicyoptions.irpp.org%2Fmagazines%2Ffebruary-2022%2Ffederal-paymasters-struggle-to-rise-from-phoenix%2F&src=embed#async_embed

With $910 million in funding in 2020, Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) put together a three-year plan to get rid of the backlog by December 2022.

The backlog-reduction strategy was built around using technology, boosting the productivity of pay advisers and reducing the volume of cases coming in. The idea is to help pay advisers plow through the flow of transactions every pay cycle and also have enough time to work on the backlog.

The size of the backlog steadily decreased for more than two years, from the peak in January 2018 of 384,000 transactions, to a low of 98,000 in April 2021. The number of people affected dropped. The pay centre also improved its wait times, meeting the service standard of dealing with most pay requests within 20 days at least 80 per cent of the time.

But then it started to backslide.

Phoenix’s processing started to hiccup and sputter for a couple of months before it inched back up throughout the summer and fall of 2021. The active backlog of transactions settled at 141,000 cases by late January 2022.

“When it comes to Phoenix, it is two steps forward, one step back. The backlog of outstanding transactions has reduced since 2016, but whenever a new collective agreement or MOU is signed, it slows down the progress,” said Dany Richard, president of the Association of Canadian Financial Officers.

PSPC officials argued the backslide was nothing more than the normal flux in the volume of work.

They said the number of transactions processed each month varies depending on the complexity of transactions, the pay centre’s capacity, any new collective agreements being implemented, and the normal seasonal spikes in demand, such as hiring summer students.

The size of the public service has also grown 24 per cent since 2015 and there’s been a considerable amount of churn – with people moving in and out of jobs, creating more transactions.

“Although we have made significant progress this past year in reducing the number of transactions in the backlog and queue from 2016-2020, we have seen an increase in new transactions received at the pay centre in 2021, which challenged our ability to reduce the backlog,” said PSPC spokesperson Michèle LaRose in an email.

Some say public servants, many safely working from home, aren’t complaining as loudly about pay errors when so many Canadians lost their jobs during the COVID-19 crisis. Some argue that unions backed off on Phoenix after winning $560 million in damages to compensate workers for pay gaffes. Others say public servants are now so used to pay errors that they have simply become inured to them.

“As the backlog of Phoenix pay issues continues to grow, it seems the government has quietly accepted that Phoenix can’t be fixed, “said Chris Aylward, president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.”

“We’re nearing the six-year anniversary of the Phoenix fiasco, and thousands of workers are still having pay problems while waiting years for their previous issues to be resolved…Over the past few months, we’re seeing more and more members turn to us for help.”

The auditor general found that 141,100 employees had at least one outstanding “pay action request” last June, down from more than 182,000 in 2018.

https://e.infogram.com/024cf035-20d8-49ab-83a5-b359b93bfbc4?parent_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpolicyoptions.irpp.org%2Fmagazines%2Ffebruary-2022%2Ffederal-paymasters-struggle-to-rise-from-phoenix%2F&src=embed#async_embed

The improvements made to Phoenix came partly through technology, such as automating retroactive payments like backpay for 2018 collective agreements. Processes were streamlined, programs introduced to speed up processing of routine work. This was all aimed at freeing up pay advisers to be deployed on the backlog.

The next focus was the culture change around timeliness and accuracy, which should have happened before Phoenix was launched. Managers, human resource and employees had to learn how to manage pay differently. The old pay system could handle late transactions – largely because pay advisers manually fixed things. But Phoenix runs in real time and can’t digest late or after-the-fact transactions.

That cultural shift from late to on-time transactions is slowly taking hold but problems remain around the timeliness and accuracy of requests for terminations and transfers.

At last count, 30,000 terminations were waiting to be processed, either in the queue or dumped into the backlog after the 45-day service standard is missed. Terminations are issued for anyone who leaves the public service.

About 34 per cent of the cases in backlog are less than a year old, but 12 per cent are more than four years old and the rest are between one and four years old. Employees could be owed vacation pay, overtime, allowances and/or severance pay.

About 10,000 transfers are waiting to catch up with employees in their new departments. Those who move to new jobs with raises or promotions could wait months or years for that extra money to kick in – and then discover they have other pay adjustments such as higher pension premiums.

Overpayments are another headache. Departments are racing to recover salary overpayments to employees in 2016, when Phoenix went live. By law, the government has six years to collect salary overpayments from employees – after which they become unrecoverable and are written off as debt. The government has collected about $2.3 billion so far but has another $552 million to collect.

Sources familiar with Phoenix say the problems dogging the system can be fixed with more pay advisers. PSPC has already quadrupled its pay workforce— to about 2,500 people—since Phoenix was launched.

Source: Federal paymasters struggle to rise from Phoenix

India: Why is Karnataka HC deciding if the hijab is an ‘essential religious practice’ in Islam?

Very different approach from Canada where the basis is “sincerely held” religious beliefs, not pronouncing on the religion itself:

As the Karnataka High Court hears petitions by Muslim women seeking wear the hijab to college, the case has included debates about whether the headscarf is an essential religious practice of Islam.

Senior advocate Devdatt Kamat, who is representing a petitioner, has argued that the hijab is indeed an essential religious practice. But the Karnataka Advocate General, Prabhuling Navadgi contesting the claim.

While the Constitution does not draw a distinction between “essential” and “non-essential” practices of a religion, courts have formulated this test starting from the 1950s in cases involving disputes over religion. They have held that the constitutional guarantee of the freedom of religion applies only to practices that are essential to that religion, conventions without which the nature of the faith would be transformed.

As a result of this emphasis, in cases involving the freedom of religion, parties often argue on whether a practice is essential to a religion or not.

What is the essential religious practices test?

Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to practise religion. Article 26(b) also gives religious denominations the right to manage their “own affairs in the matters of religion”.

Over the years, the courts have held that only the practices that are essential to a religion will be protected under these provisions. Thus courts are often called to test whether something is an essential religious practice or not.

While there is no precise definition of what constitutes essential religious practice, courts have laid down some principles. The Supreme Court has held that the essential part of a religion refers to the “core beliefs upon which a religion is founded”. The test for essential religious practice is to see if the “nature of the religion will be changed without that” practice.

The Supreme Court has said that if taking away that practice results in a “fundamental change in the character of that religion”, then that practice is an essential practice.

The Supreme Court has also said that the determination of what qualifies as essential has to be made “according to its tenets, historical background and change in evolved process etc”.

How did the essential religious practice test start?

Initially, essential religious practices were bought in by courts in order to distinguish between what is secular and what is religious. Since Article 25(2)(a) gives the government power to enact a law to regulate or restrict “any economic, financial, political or other secular activities which may be associated with religious practice” this distinction was important.

As a result, in 1954, when the Supreme Court first used the term “essential part of a religion” it was to separate an “essentially religious” activity from a secular activity in a case that involved government control over temples. Here the court gave the power to the religious denomination to decide what would constitute an essential practice.

However, the courts went beyond this in the next few years.

A 1958 Supreme Court judgment looked into ancient texts to determine if temples had the right to determine which ceremonies and rituals were essential in a case relating to the entry of Dalits. This was a shift in the court’s approach in dealing with religious cases, as noted in later judgments as well.

Thus from differentiating religious practices from secular ones, the essential religious practices test morphed into determining what practices are “essential to a religion”. With this, the courts also started looking into texts and the practices themselves to determine if a religious practice was essential.

What are some examples of essential practices?

The doctrine of essential religious practices has since been used in multiple instances, often with major consequences. The first instance of the Supreme Court deciding on a ban on cattle slaughter, in 1959, was tested on whether it was essential for Muslims to sacrifice cows on Bakr-Id. If it passed the essential religious practises test, it could then be protected under Article 25. The court looked at various scriptures and texts and decided that cow slaughter was not a compulsory practice in Islam.

In 1994, while deciding on the acquisition of property in and around the site of the Babri Masjid, the Supreme Court said that a mosque is not an essential part of Islam and prayers could be offered anywhere, even in the open. It also said that the government could acquire the site on which the mosque stood and that would not be prohibited by the Constitution.

In 2017, the Supreme Court held that instant triple talaq is not an essential practice of Islam.

In the Sabarimala case from 2018, where women between the ages of 10 and 50 were prohibited from entering the Sabarimala temple, the judges held that this was not an essential religious practice and thus women could be allowed to enter.

In 1962, the court held that the religious head of the Dawoodi Bohra sect of Islam has the power to excommunicate members while in 1983, it ruled that the tandava dance was not essential to the Ananda Margi sect of Hinduism.

Currently, the essentiality of different religious practices such as female genital mutilation and entry of Muslim women in mosques is pending before the Supreme Court.

What are the criticisms of the essential religious practices test?

The essential religious practices test developed by the Supreme Court has come under significant criticism. In the Sabarimala verdict, Justice DY Chandrachud spent an entire section talking about why this test is problematic and could be replaced with better tests given that courts don’t have the competence to rule on faith.

He pointed out that the essentiality test is a “judicial creation” and the court’s legitimacy to decide on the faith of people “may be questionable”. Other authors have pointed out that our judicial system exists to adjudicate on “secular constitutional statutory and common law issues” and not on theology.

Criticism has also revolved around the allegations that courts apply the test arbitrarily. For instance, Chandrachud said that the tandava dance in public was “prescribed in a religious text by the founder of the sect [Ananda Margis]”. Yet the Supreme Court disregarded that to rule that the practice was not essential since the practice did not date to the founding of the sect and the founder had not provided justification for it.

Currently, a review of the Sabarimala verdict from 2018 is pending before the Supreme Court. In that case, it will reconsider the legality of the essential religious practices test, amongst other issues.

How has essential religious practices been used in the hijab case?

The essential religious practices test has taken the centre stage in the hijab case. Although the petitioners have also argued that disallowing the hijab is discriminatory and affects freedom of speech, the primary argument from their side is based on the essentiality of the hijab to Islam.

This, in turn, has been challenged by the government. They have said that such a declaration would force other Muslim women to wear the hijab. “In a case like this, where you want to bind every Muslim woman, and which can give rise to religious sentiments and division, you should have shown more circumspection to lay a foundation,” the advocate general said.

He also added that the government has left the choice to institutions on what uniform they want to prescribe. The advocate general has further pointed out that the petitioners should have framed this issue not as a denial of a “religious symbol” but as a denial of a “head scarf”.

The government has also said that the burden is on the petitioners to show why the hijab is an essential religious practice. As part of its arguments, the government drew attention to instances where the court held certain Islamic practices to not be essential – such as cow slaughter, triple talaq and praying at a mosque.

Earlier, lawyers like Gautam Bhatia had also pointed out that framing the hijab as an essential religious practice takes away the individual agency of the woman to decide if they wish to wear the hijab. Rather, arguments along the lines of freedom of speech, right to privacy and freedom of conscience would respect individual agency better in this case.

Source: Explainer: Why is Karnataka HC deciding if the hijab is an ‘essential religious practice’ in Islam?

Les établissements francophones ontariens eux aussi plus touchés par les rejets de permis d’études

Of note. Would really be helpful to have more in-depth analysis of the factors that underlie these differences, rather than just the differences:

Les établissements postsecondaires francophones et bilingues de l’Ontario peinent à recruter des étudiants étrangers. Leur taux de refus de permis d’études auprès d’Immigration Canada est de loin supérieur à ceux observés dans les collèges et universités anglophones, a constaté Le Devoir.

Des directions francophones disent devoir travailler beaucoup plus fort que leurs collègues anglophones pour pouvoir atteindre leur cible de recrutement. Les deux seuls collèges de langue française de l’Ontario ont vu respectivement 67 % et 73 % des demandes de permis d’études de leurs futurs étudiants être refusées en 2021, d’après des données fournies par Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté Canada (IRCC). Il s’agit d’une amélioration par rapport à 2020, où la moyenne pour les deux s’élevait à 79 %. Dans les 22 collèges anglophones répertoriés dans la base de données d’IRCC, ce sont en moyenne 40 % des demandes qui ont été refusées en 2021 et 50 % en 2020.

L’écart est similaire entre les universités francophones et bilingues d’un côté, et celles anglophones de l’autre. À l’Université de Hearst, au nord de la province, par exemple, 72 % des demandes de permis d’études pour étudiants étrangers ont été déclinées en 2021 et 86 % l’année précédente. Quelque 85 % des demandes l’ont été au cours des deux dernières années à l’Université Laurentienne. À Thunder Bay, à l’Université Lakehead, la plus grande du nord de l’Ontario, un établissement anglophone, la situation est tout autre : en 2021, seulement 28 % des demandes de permis d’études ont été refusées.

Bululu Kabatakaka, le directeur des programmes postsecondaires et de l’intégration au collège Boréal, ne comprend pas ce qui cause cet écart. « Est-ce qu’il y a un biais inconscient par rapport aux pays francophones ? » se demande-t-il. Le Devoir révélait en novembre qu’Ottawa refusait de plus en plus d’étudiants de l’Afrique francophone.

Le dirigeant estime qu’il doit travailler considérablement plus fort que ses collègues pour atteindre ses cibles. « Quand nos collègues [d’autres collèges] travaillent 35 heures, nous, on travaille 150 heures », dit-il.

Le même phénomène se produit au collège La Cité d’Ottawa et à l’Université de Hearst. Le recteur de l’université, Luc Bussières, critique le gaspillage associé aux taux de refus élevés : des ressources sont dépensées inutilement pour le recrutement, et des rêves d’étudiants sont gâchés, dit-il. « Ça rendrait notre travail plus efficace si on avait un meilleur taux, explique le recteur. Si on veut 100 personnes, il faut faire 500 offres. »

« Nous devons généralement faire de 15 à 20 offres aux candidats pour que 10 étudiants acceptent notre offre et que 3 de ces étudiants obtiennent un permis d’études », raconte pour sa part Pascale Montminy, directrice des communications de La Cité. En 2021, 67 % des demandes de permis d’études au collège ont été refusées. À quelques kilomètres à l’ouest du centre-ville d’Ottawa, au collège Algonquin, qui est anglophone, le taux tombe à 40 %.

Problème difficile à régler

Ce type de problème dure depuis environ quinze ans, estime Martin Normand, directeur de la recherche stratégique et des relations internationales à l’Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne (ACUFC). « Les établissements interpellent IRCC et ses prédécesseurs pour demander des explications et des modifications, ou à tout le moins plus de transparence », fait savoir le directeur.

Le gouvernement fédéral souhaite depuis 2003 que les immigrants francophones représentent 4,4 % des nouveaux arrivants à l’extérieur du Québec. L’échéancier pour atteindre la cible avait d’abord été fixé à 2008, mais il a ensuite été reporté de 15 ans. Pourtant, Martin Normand remarque que les agents du ministère « reprochent souvent aux étudiants leur intention de rester au Canada à la fin de leurs études », explique le directeur de l’association. L’intention de faire une demande de résidence permanente après les études constitue un motif de refus pour les permis d’études, soutient-il. Le directeur était du groupe de témoins qui ont récemment critiqué l’approche d’Ottawa, qu’ils estiment contradictoire, devant le Comité permanent de la citoyenneté et de l’immigration.

Selon IRCC, même s’il existe une possibilité pour un étudiant étranger d’éventuellement devenir un résident permanent, chaque demandeur de permis doit convaincre l’agent d’immigration qu’il a l’intention de respecter ses obligations à titre de résident temporaire. Ainsi, chaque demandeur « doit être capable et désireux de quitter le Canada à la fin de sa période de séjour autorisé », explique Julie Lafortune, porte-parole du ministère, par courriel.

L’exercice d’analyse des établissements en ce qui concerne les motifs de refus est encore plus compliqué du fait du manque d’accès aux données. Lorsque contactées par Le Devoir au sujet des taux de refus, des directions ont dit ne jamais les avoir vues. « C’est un peu une boîte noire », lance Luc Bussières, recteur de l’Université de Hearst, qui compte entre 250 et 300 étudiants.

De l’université au collège

Les étudiants détenant un diplôme universitaire dans leur pays natal seraient aussi désavantagés s’ils souhaitent retourner aux études dans un programme collégial en Ontario, estime Bululu Kabatakaka. Dans sa campagne de recrutement, le Collège Boréal évoque la pénurie de main-d’œuvre dans la province, qui touche certains secteurs couverts par ses programmes, mais si des candidats étudiants tentent de répondre à ce besoin, ils se voient bloquer par IRCC, affirme M. Kabatakaka.

Il s’agirait plutôt de juger de la « bonne foi » des demandeurs, fait valoir IRCC. La demande d’une personne détenant déjà un diplôme universitaire pour suivre des études dans un domaine non connexe « ne pourrait peut‑être pas convaincre l’agent qu’il est un étudiant de bonne foi », cite comme exemple la porte-parole Julie Lafortune.

« Il faut que les agents comprennent bien les besoins des communautés francophones en matière d’immigration et de main-d’œuvre », affirme de son côté Martin Normand, de l’ACUFC.

Source: Les établissements francophones ontariens eux aussi plus touchés par les rejets de permis d’études