Jamil Jivani: Young men have a stake in Canada’s future. They should be heard

Gives a sense of where he is coming from. I don’t see a contradiction between listening to young men and DEI as the latter should also open up opportunities for men in non-traditional occupations. But he is right about the dangers of racial resentment:

…However, if we fail to build these bridges for young men, I fear we will see the same divisions currently plaguing the conservative movement in the United States. We will have to contend with the likes of Nick Fuentes, who offer racial resentment to fill the void between these men and mainstream politics.

For those who are unaware, Fuentes is essentially Louis Farrakhan in whiteface. In recent years, Fuentes has gained notoriety and influence by speaking to the concerns of disaffected white men. His strategy is similar to Farrakhan’s, who targeted disaffected black men in the 1980s and 1990s. Like Farrakhan, Fuentes puts a particular emphasis on directing animosity toward Jews. The conservative movement in the United States is still dealing with the effects of Farrakhan’s efforts to push black men away from participation in mainstream politics. Indeed, they lost a generation of potential conservative young black men in the process. It’s important to ensure Fuentes doesn’t have the same impact today.

Racial resentment is a go-to crutch for extremists because it allows for simplistic explanations for nuanced issues. It enables extremists to cultivate a distinct audience online and offline by utilizing language and ideas that are outside of mainstream politics. This, in turn, gives disaffected young men the false impression that these extremists care about their concerns. In reality, extremists just exploit young men to feed an agenda that builds nothing and only destroys.

Racial resentment, in other words, is not a real solution to real problems. This is one of the many reasons why I am a stalwart defender of meritocracy and equality over and against Liberal DEI policies. Our nation should have no tolerance for racial resentment in any direction, and we must have the conviction to say that no Canadian should be judged by their government on the basis of ancestry or skin colour. It is impossible for Canada’s current political establishment to stop the rise of individuals like Fuentes if it continues to prop up a different form of racial division and dresses it up as “progressive” DEI.

Liberal fanatics have spent so much time reacting to American politics that they make the crucial error of conflating the Canadian conservative movement with its American counterparts. But Canadian conservatives are concerned with our own nation, and we have our distinct vision for a strong and united Canada.

We are doing the hard work right now of combating the racial resentment offered by the likes of Fuentes by encouraging and empowering the very young men who are being left behind by the Liberal Party of Canada. That is something we should all be able to support.

Source: Jamil Jivani: Young men have a stake in Canada’s future. They should be heard

‘Indigenous’ is the new ‘Oriental’ – and that opens the door to pretendians

Interesting take:

…Today, the resurgence of genuine Aboriginal cultural practices must battle against the totalizing power of “Indigeneity” and all of those cultural tropes. Even powwows are relatively modern inventions, and while broadly based in our ancient seasonal tribal gatherings, these events are more Indigenous than they are rooted in any actual First Nations traditions. Some of these practices do have traditional antecedents, but they are by no means universal Aboriginal practices: they are the hallmarks of an Indigenous culture ungrounded by history, culture, or tradition.

Which brings us to the pretendians, who could be argued to be the true Indigenous people. Pretendians amalgamate cultural tropes as a kind of modern-day regalia. It has been said that you can spot pretendians because it looks like “an Etsy shop exploded” on them, so besotted are they with the beaded necklaces, the turquoise rings, and the leather medicine bag containing the mandatory collection of cedar, sage, sweetgrass and tobacco – a concoction with, you guessed it, no historical antecedents. But in reality, the best pretendians have learned to adopt just enough Indigenous regalia to look the part, and sadly, the image they present is how many people now expect Aboriginal people to look and dress.

Indigeneity has become such a powerful force that many contemporary Aboriginal people have come to share these same false beliefs: the power of Indigenous culture runs roughshod over our actual tribal and historic practices. And into this broken system of traditional knowledge has stepped the pretendian: the non-Aboriginal person who adeptly manipulates and deploys the fake culture of non-existent people. 

Indigeneity, like Orientalism, was never a thing. Indigeneity is a projection of meaning, but our cultural embrace of capital-I “Indigenous” has created the conditions under which flourishes the very false identity and fake symbolism against which people rightly rage. If we hope to marginalize pretendians, we must all work to be more specific in our language, engage more deeply with individual Aboriginal communities, and render “Indigenous” as ineffectual as “Oriental.”

Douglas Sanderson (Amo Binashii) is the Prichard Wilson Chair in Law and Public Policy at the University of Toronto’s faculty of law. This essay is adapted from his upcoming book We Were Once Brothers.

Source: ‘Indigenous’ is the new ‘Oriental’ – and that opens the door to pretendians

MacDougall: The government of the future doesn’t need these departments | Opinion

Raises some valid questions but as we know, cuts to programs are hard to sell. The current expenditure review is not asking these fundamental questions; hopefully next year’s budget will be more ambitious in terms of asking these difficult questions and even more difficult decisions:

…But perhaps the prime minister should have a think about the proper role of government, because the direction of travel in the advanced western economies is for shrinking working-age populations and ballooning spending. Unless we act now, countries like Canada could soon be in a position where a harsh rationalization of government function is necessary.

Reframing the challenge: What does a federal government *need* to do (versus what might be *nice* for it to do)? Moreover, what if governments can’t maintain current borrowing levels, and central banks can’t serially print money and/or buy up private debt in an attempt to smother the markets’ booms and busts? What bits of government activity would we choose to keep in that more financially restrictive world? If humans have a ‘hierarchy of needs’ – as advanced by psychologist Abraham Maslow – what would our core needs be from a slimmed-down government?

Maslow famously articulated five human needs and ordered them into a pyramid. The base layer is physiological needs: food, water, warmth and sleep. Without these things, humans can’t thrive. This suggests the government should help to ensure a safe and secure supply of food, water, energy, and housing. Add to that the defence of the realm and the administration of justice, and the base layers of the pyramid are covered. And then we’d need the ability to collect the tax needed to fund it.

And this relatively narrow collection of tasks is just about what the federal government looked like in the pre-WW2, pre-Baby Boom era. There were a dozen or so ministries and a small civil service to deliver the work. A lot of the government that’s come since is the governmental equivalent of Maslow’s latter stages, i.e. geared toward societal self-expression. A lot of it could go without compromising the provision of core needs.

For example, the government of yesteryear didn’t have any regional economic development agencies. Nor did it have the CBC, Canadian Heritage, Canada Council for the Arts, Canadian Commercial Corporation, or the Business Development Bank of Canada. All of this spending isn’t foundational. These bodies provide some value, but on a tighter budget, it is more Disney+ subscription than home heating bill.

Other bits of the expanded post-war state are essential. A society without a system of social support programs is a heartless one. We don’t want a return to the workhouse. The health system also needs to be there for people who need it. That said, we must acknowledge that social supports and health care systems designed decades ago face fresh challenges in an aging society in which people also live substantially longer. A country with nearly eight workers to every retiree (as Canada had in 1966) can afford to make different choices than one that will have a three-to-one ratio by 2030. Maslow’s government would benefit from a system of compulsory health insurance, as is done in Switzerland.

Ultimately, what would mitigate the need for a bare-minimum, Maslow-style government is the return of a vigorous civil society. Much of what families, friends, community groups and congregations used to provide is now delivered by the government. The atomization of society has left voids that governments have felt obliged to fill. And even if we now belatedly reclaim some of that territory, the bill for government will still have to go down….

Source: The government of the future doesn’t need these departments | Opinion

Canada takes longest to settle refugees from this region, report reveals, calling it ‘systemic racism’

Of note. Lower staffing in African countries appears to be the cause according to the CCR report:

Refugees from Africa continue to face longer wait times for resettlement to Canada than applicants from other regions, two years after a government audit identified inequities in immigration processing, says a new report. 

“The persistence of disproportionately long processing times in Africa and chronic under-resourcing of visa offices in the region reflect systemic racism in Canada’s immigration program,” said the study by the Canadian Council for Refugees, released on Friday. “Whatever the intentions of the decision-makers, the result is that Africans are treated inequitably.”

Based on data provided by the Immigration Department, the report showed African applicants sponsored by the Canadian government had an average 42-month wait time for all cases finalized between Feb. 1 and July 31, followed by those from the Middle East (26 months), Europe and Maghreb (15 months), Americas and the Caribbean (15 months), Indo-Pacific (13 months), and two months if they are processed by the resettlement operations centre in Ottawa.

The wait time for African sponsorships by private community groups is even longer, at 47 months, compared to 42 months for those processed in Europe and Maghreb, 40 months in Indo-Pacific, 39 months in the Middle East, and 30 months in Ottawa.

African visa offices lack staff

“One of the major findings from the report is that the structural inequity comes through largely in terms of the under-resourcing of the visa offices in the African continent,” Asma Faizi, president of the refugee council, said in an interview. 

“Yes, there might be a larger number of people seeking refugee protection and resettlement. Historically, that has been the situation. In our opinion, where you have regions where there’s a large need, there should be a large amount of resources dedicated to that region to ensure that the processing is not delayed.”

She said slow processing of African refugees has been a long-standing concern for the council, and the study aimed to examine if there has been progress following a 2023 Auditor General report that identified serious inequities in how refugee applications are processed. 

The audit, for example, found the visa office in Nairobi, Kenya, had about half the staff but almost double the workload as Ankara, Turkey, while the office in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, had similar staff levels to Rome but five times the workload. Due to staff shortages, some offices in Africa could not even meet the targets assigned to them for family and refugee programs….

Source: Canada takes longest to settle refugees from this region, report reveals, calling it ‘systemic racism’

Le Devoir Éditorial | De quoi Bedford est-il le nom?

Valid critique of the union defending the undefendable:

…Il faut avoir le courage de revenir à la base : de quoi Bedford est-il le nom, au juste ?

Le scandale de Bedford, c’est d’abord le fait de profs qui ont refusé d’enseigner la science, la technologie ou l’éducation à la sexualité, ont rejeté le français comme langue d’usage, ont pratiqué le déni d’assistance et l’humiliation des élèves éprouvant des difficultés d’apprentissage, ont refusé de se plier au principe de l’égalité filles-garçons en classe, ont harcelé et intimidé leurs collègues et leurs directions, ont piétiné la laïcité.

C’est cela qu’on veut dans nos classes ? Car c’est bien ce dont il s’agit ici, ne le perdons pas de vue.

Il y a déjà eu un rapport — dévastateur — d’un psychologue industriel dépêché sur les lieux en 2021. Il y a eu une enquête de cinq mois — tout aussi dévastatrice — de la Direction générale des affaires internes, au fil de laquelle 70 personnes ont été rencontrées. Un plan d’action ambitieux. Surtout, il y a eu 11 comités d’enquête, un pour chaque prof pour éviter tout amalgame fortuit, raccourci de facilité ou contamination malheureuse, dont certains sont toujours en cours.

Même le politique a joué ses cartes sans tricher ni plastronner. On peut reprocher bien des choses au gouvernement Legault, qui a multiplié les bourdes et les reculs inacceptables en éducation. Reste que, dans cette affaire, ses deux ministres, M. Drainville d’abord, Mme LeBel ensuite, ont fait les choses dans l’ordre, sans pression indue.

Qu’est-ce que l’Alliance voudrait de plus ?

Hélas, elle n’en dit mot. Elle se réfugie derrière l’article 47.2 du Code du travail, qui l’oblige à défendre ses membres. Il est vrai que cet article la pousse rudement dans les câbles. Mais ce n’est pas un absolu : il arrive qu’un syndicat se range derrière des preuves accablantes. L’« opacité » qui la pousse aujourd’hui à se lever pour ce noyau dur est-elle fondée, solidement harnachée sur des faits et non sur des impressions montées en épingle ?

Il est permis d’en douter, d’autant que l’Alliance comme le Centre de services scolaire de Montréal, d’ailleurs, n’auront pas spécialement brillé, allant jusqu’à renvoyer les plaintes des professeurs intimidés à leur délégué syndical… qui était lui-même membre de la clique contrôlant l’école Bedford.

Impossible de ne pas voir une dissonance dérangeante entre la fermeté d’un discours syndical qui refuse de faire son autocritique et la négation des besoins fondamentaux des plus vulnérables, une rengaine que le conflit à la Société de transport de Montréal (STM) a usée de triste manière.

À Bedford, des collègues professeurs et des patrons ont été intimidés des années durant. Surtout, des élèves ont été privés de leur droit le plus fondamental à une éducation de qualité dans un « milieu d’apprentissage sain et sécuritaire » exempt d’intimidation ou de violence. Car Bedford, c’est d’abord ça : un milieu détourné de sa mission première au détriment de ceux-là mêmes qui l’habitent. Et il faudrait que cela puisse encore être défendu ?

Source: Éditorial | De quoi Bedford est-il le nom?

… You need to have the courage to go back to the base: what is Bedford’s name, exactly?

The Bedford scandal is first of all the fact of teachers who refused to teach science, technology or sex education, rejected French as a language of use, practiced denial of assistance and humiliation of students experiencing learning difficulties, refused to comply with the principle of girl-boy equality in the classroom, harassed and intimidated their colleagues and their management, trampled on secularism.

Is that what we want in our classes? Because that’s what we’re talking about here, let’s not lose sight of it.

There has already been a report – devastating – of an industrial psychologist dispatched to the scene in 2021. There was a five-month – equally devastating – investigation by the Directorate-General for Internal Affairs, in the course of which 70 people were met. An ambitious action plan. Above all, there were 11 committees of inquiry, one for each teacher to avoid any fortuitous amalgamation, shortcut of ease or unfortunate contamination, some of which are still in progress.

Even the politician played his cards without cheating or cheating. We can blame many things on the Legault government, which has multiplied the blunders and unacceptable setbacks in education. However, in this case, his two ministers, Mr. Drainville first, Mrs. LeBel then, did things in order, without undue pressure.

What more would the Alliance want?

Alas, she doesn’t say a word. She takes refuge behind Article 47.2 of the Labor Code, which obliges her to defend her members. It is true that this article pushes her roughly through the cables. But this is not an absolute: sometimes a union ranks behind overwhelming evidence. Is the “opacity” that pushes it today to stand up for this hard core founded, solidly harnessed on facts and not on pin-mounted impressions?

It is permissible to doubt this, especially since the Alliance as well as the Centre de services scolaires de Montréal, moreover, will not have particularly shone, going so far as to return the complaints of intimidated teachers to their union delegate… who was himself a member of the clique controlling the Bedford school.

It is impossible not to see a disturbing dissonance between the firmness of a union discourse that refuses to make its self-criticism and the denial of the basic needs of the most vulnerable, a line that the conflict at the Société de transport de Montréal (STM) has worn out in a sad way.

In Bedford, fellow teachers and bosses have been bullied for years. Above all, students have been deprived of their most fundamental right to quality education in a “healthy and safe learning environment” free of bullying or violence. Because Bedford is first of all this: an environment diverted from its primary mission to the detriment of those who live there. And should it still be able to be defended?

‘You are a very bad minister,’ Conservative immigration critic says at tense committee meeting

Watched this brutal exchange. Her name comes up periodically as someone who may be shuffled and her appearance yesterday may increase speculation. That being said, MP Rempel Garner is somewhat of a bulldog in her questioning.

As to DM Kochhar’s letter asking MPs to be more respectful of public servants in their questioning, and to be mindful of the risks of posting edited clips that target them, I recall former DM Fadden having the same concerns some 15 years ago or so, albeit in a safer social media environment:

Immigration Minister Lena Diab sparred with her Conservative critic at a tense House of Commons committee meeting Thursday as the two disagreed on everything from immigration levels and deporting non-citizen criminals to what kind of salad they prefer.

Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner put Diab in the hot seat throughout her two-hour committee appearance, grilling Diab about her file and accusing her of being “a very bad minister” when she struggled to give a clear answer on whether she will use powers under the government’s pending C-12 legislation to mass extend temporary visas.

A section in that bill gives the government the ability to stop accepting applications or cancel, suspend or change documents for an entire immigration class — something critics on both sides of the issue say could be abused either to turbocharge the number of newcomers or cancel visas en masse.

Asked if she plans to use that power to keep more people in Canada rather than expelling them when their visas expire, Diab said “that’s not the purpose” of the legislation but wouldn’t say how it would be used.

A frustrated Rempel Garner interrupted Diab.

“When you ask a question I think you should be able to have decency to let someone respond,” Diab said.

“I don’t like your word salad, it’s true. You are a very bad minister,” Rempel Garner said.

“You know what, I prefer fattoush and tabouleh to your salad, at any time,” Diab said.

“That is the oddest thing any immigration minister has said at this committee. It’s very weak and will likely be added to your performance reviews,” Rempel Garner said.

“It’s my culture,” said Diab, who is Lebanese Canadian.

At one point, another Liberal MP, Peter Fragiskatos, stepped in as the two exchanged words.

Rempel Garner said she wasn’t speaking to him about these issues.

“He’s going to have your job,” she said to Diab of Fragiskatos, suggesting the minister was about to be shuffled out of cabinet. “I’ll likely be having this conversation with him in a couple of months.”

Rempel Garner also asked Diab about some recent non-citizen criminals getting more lenient sentences so they can avoid deportation.

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a permanent resident or foreign national can be deemed inadmissible if they engage in “serious criminality,” which includes any crime that results in being sentenced to prison for more than six months.

In one recent case an Indian national paid for sex with what he thought was a teenager at a Mississauga, Ont., hotel. That teenage girl was actually an undercover cop.

The man was ultimately sentenced to a conditional discharge for committing an indecent act and was sentenced to 12 months of probation, including three months of house arrest. Rempel Garner said the man should have been dealt with more harshly by the courts and ultimately deported.

Asked if she will send a message to judges that are letting non-citizen criminals off easy to avoid being forced out of Canada, Diab said that’s not her role.

“Sentencing decisions are made independently by the courts,” she said, while assuring the Conservative critic the government will remove foreign criminals when appropriate.

“So, you’re pro-raper,” Rempel Garner asked provocatively.

“The courts have already indicated that serious offences will be dealt with seriously,” Diab said, while adding she wasn’t familiar with the case Rempel Garner raised.

“Can’t you just say it’s wrong and we’ll look into it?” Rempel Garner asked in return. “You just defended a guy who sexually assaulted somebody. It’s rampant in our justice system.”

“A wise person once told me you debate the issues and the policy and you don’t debase the individual,” he said, urging his colleagues to follow that mantra.

Deputy minister cites cases of bullying

The meeting started with the committee chair, Julie Dzerowicz, reading a letter from Diab’s deputy minister — the top bureaucrat in the department — saying some public servants have been subjected to bullying and intimidation after appearing before the committee.

That letter, written by Harpreet Kochhar, relayed that some unnamed politicians have posted videos of the public servants testifying at the committee, and they have been targeted online and in person as a result.

Dzerowicz said Kochhar was concerned about the “well-being” of these government workers who he said have endured “significant harassment and abuse” and “hostile emails.”

The letter, shared with CBC News, relays Kochhar’s fear that MPs posting “short, decontextualized clips of committee appearances” by bureaucrats could lead to violence.

“One of our colleagues was recently confronted in a public space by an angry individual referencing material shared online,” Kochhar wrote.

“I want to implore all committee members from all parties to be very cognizant of how we use the information from this committee, whether it’s online or offline,” Dzerowicz said, adding she doesn’t want appearing before a committee to be a “security risk.”

Rempel Garner said Kochhar was trying to “censor” Conservatives and stop them from questioning the department about what she described as a failed immigration policy.

“I will not be silenced,” she said, saying she will fight to get the government to “do the right thing” on this file.

“Giddy up,” she said.

Diab was ostensibly before the committee to talk about the government’s immigration targets for the coming years — figures that were included in the recent federal budget, an unusual move given they are generally delivered publicly by the minister….

Source: ‘You are a very bad minister,’ Conservative immigration critic says at tense committee meeting

Chris Selley: Marc Miller, renegade heritage minister, Michel David: Miller, l’esthète «tanné»

Miller certainly provoked a firestorm in Quebec, and now being convened by the OL committee in Ottawa. Will see how this plays out but Miller was certainly the strongest Liberal immigration minister and started the sorely needed reductions in levels and other policies. And he’s right that decline in French spoken at home simply reflects immigrant mother tongues:

…But in the meantime, backed by Carney, Miller might have at least done something quite useful here just by calling attention to the fact that the French-language debate in Quebec is a festival of over-torqued hokum.

When a purebred oaf like Legault calls you a full-of-shit disgrace, chances are good you’re on the right track. Same goes for the Parti Québécois and its presumptive next premier of Quebec, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, who on Tuesday assailed Miller as “one of the architects of the greatest decline of French in recent Quebec history.”

That’s many bushels of bananas. It’s a whole shipping container-full. As not-very-successful former immigration Miller noted outside the cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Ottawa been more than happy to indulge Quebec politicians’ desire not just for language restrictions, but for ever-greater francophone immigration to Quebec.

Miller didn’t mention, but could have, that Quebec officialdom is now annoyed by many of these francophone immigrants because they insist on believing in their strange God. Miller could have mentioned, but did not, that if native-born Quebecers aren’t going to have a lot more babies, and if Quebec doesn’t want francophone immigrants from anywhere other than Metropolitan France — and only atheists, at that — then it really might be screwed in the long term.

But as I say, Miller didn’t say that. To my knowledge, Miller has never disputed that the “French fact” in Quebec has downside risks. Rather, as he said on Tuesday, he rejects the “dogma that some political parties want to impose claiming that French is in total decline.” I hope he doesn’t shut up about it, because he’s right, and people really need to hear it.

The “Louisianisation” narrative is garbage. Every four years the Census reports essentially flat numbers on knowledge and use of French in Quebec: In 2021, Statistics Canada found, 94 per cent of Quebecers said the they knew how to speak French; 78 per cent claimed French as their mother tongue (not that mother tongue should matter, if Quebec nationalism is civil rather than ethnic); 79 per cent said they spoke French most often at home; 85 per cent said they spoke French most often at work.

Needless to say, that’s nothing whatsoever like Louisiana. French isn’t even Louisiana’s first second language.

Miller’s crimes against Quebec’s idea of political correctness don’t end there. He has gone so far as to suggest the fact that he speaks Swedish at home with his wife (she’s Swedish; they didn’t just take it up as a hobby) has no negative knock-on effects with respect to the state of French in Quebec. And of course that’s true as well. You’re just not officially allowed to say it in Quebec, which is the only place in the developed world where multilingualism is seen officially (though of course never by officials with respect to their own children) as a bad thing.

Miller has also been sworn into cabinet, in the past, while holding both a Bible and a Koran — a symbol of solidarity with Muslims, he said, but also a double-whammy in a province whose politics is obsessed with both secularism and with the threat of Islam.

The Liberals’ Quebec blind spot is especially remarkable considering how reliable their electoral results in that province are. But if Miller wants to be the minister who shakes things up, speaks truth to nonsense, about the state of play in his home province, I think we should wish him Godspeed.

Source: Chris Selley: Marc Miller, renegade heritage minister

Michel David in Le Devoir:

…Il ne fait aucun doute que M. Miller aime sincèrement la langue française, qu’il parle admirablement, mais cela ressemble davantage à l’amour de l’esthète pour les beaux objets, qui ont l’avantage de se laisser admirer sans faire d’histoires. Le problème est que les histoires de langue sont au cœur de son nouveau mandat.

Le déclin du français au Québec a toujours été contesté au sein de la députation anglo-montréalaise du Parti libéral du Canada. La députée de Saint-Laurent, Emmanuella Lambropoulos, avait dû quitter le comité permanent des langues officielles pour l’avoir nié. Son collègue de Mont-Royal, Anthony Housefather, s’était opposé à la nouvelle version de la Loi sur les langues officielles, craignant plutôt pour les droits des anglophones du Québec.

Sans le nier, M. Miller met des bémols au déclin du français. Au recul de la proportion de ceux dont c’est la langue maternelle, parlée à la maison ou encore au travail, il oppose la hausse du pourcentage de ceux qui sont en mesure de le parler.

Un plus grand usage du français dans l’espace public n’exclut cependant pas la nécessité de maintenir une masse critique suffisante de francophones de souche pour assurer le développement d’une culture française, même si tout le monde reconnaît la richesse de l’apport des diverses communautés.

M. Miller fait valoir qu’il y a eu des progrès depuis l’adoption de la Charte de la langue française (1977). À ce compte, on pourrait répliquer à ceux qui n’ont pas accès à un médecin de famille que la situation s’est améliorée quand même depuis l’instauration du régime d’assurance maladie (1970).

La réaction du premier ministre Legault aux « conneries » de M. Miller, avec lequel il avait déjà un contentieux, a peut-être été excessive, mais la recrue de Mark Carney n’en a pas moins ruiné d’un coup les efforts du successeur de Justin Trudeau pour dissiper la fâcheuse impression que le Québec et le français ne l’intéressent pas.

Le ministre québécois de la Langue française, Jean-François Roberge, a manifestement compris que cela risquait aussi d’apporter de l’eau au moulin souverainiste. Sa réaction aux propos de M. Miller a été bien différente de celle de M. Legault. « Bien, c’est bon, s’il est tanné du déclin du français, il va nous aider à le régler […]. Le Canada, ce n’est pas facile tous les jours, mais on y arrive », a-t-il déclaré.

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon a d’abord réagi avec une modération inhabituelle, constatant simplement que M. Miller est « un gars qui a travaillé très fort contre le Québec dans plusieurs dossiers ». Quelques heures plus tard, son naturel belliqueux a repris le dessus, mais l’objet de sa colère était pour le moins étonnant.

Dénoncer, en disant avoir « honte », la « vacuité intellectuelle », « l’aplaventrisme » et la « déloyauté » d’une « partie substantielle » du milieu culturel québécois, dont les représentants ont salué la nomination de M. Miller, n’est certainement pas la meilleure façon de le rallier à la cause de l’indépendance.

Le chef du Parti québécois devrait prendre acte du fait que le Québec n’est pas encore souverain. Tant qu’ils envoient 40 % de leurs impôts à Ottawa, il ne faut pas s’étonner que les Québécois, y compris les artistes, cherchent à obtenir la part qui leur revient.

Source: Michel David | Miller, l’esthète «tanné»

There is no doubt that Mr. Miller sincerely loves the French language, which he speaks admirably, but it is more like the aesthete’s love for beautiful objects, which have the advantage of being admired without making a fuss. The problem is that language stories are at the heart of his new mandate.

The decline of French in Quebec has always been contested within the Anglo-Lonreal deputation of the Liberal Party of Canada. The MP of Saint-Laurent, Emmanuella Lambropoulos, had to leave the Standing Committee on Official Languages for denying it. His colleague from Mont-Royal, Anthony Housefather, had opposed the new version of the Official Languages Act, fearing instead for the rights of English speakers in Quebec.

Without denying it, Mr. Miller puts flats on the decline of French. To the decline in the proportion of those whose mother tongue is spoken at home or at work, it opposes the increase in the percentage of those who are able to speak it.

A greater use of French in public space, however, does not exclude the need to maintain a sufficient critical mass of native Francophones to ensure the development of a French culture, even if everyone recognizes the richness of the contribution of the various communities.

Mr. Miller argues that there has been progress since the adoption of the Charter of the French Language (1977). To this account, we could reply to those who do not have access to a family doctor that the situation has improved since the introduction of the health insurance plan (1970).

Prime Minister Legault’s reaction to Mr. Miller, with whom he already had a dispute, may have been excessive, but Mark Carney’s recruit has nevertheless ruined Justin Trudeau’s successor’s efforts to dispel the unfortunate impression that Quebec and France are not interested in him.

The Quebec Minister of the French Language, Jean-François Roberge, clearly understood that this also risked bringing water to the sovereignist mill. His reaction to the words of Mr. Miller was very different from Mr. Legault “Well, it’s good, if he is tanned by the decline of French, he will help us settle it […]. Canada is not easy every day, but we can do it,” he said.

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon initially reacted with unusual moderation, simply noting that Mr. Miller is “a guy who has worked very hard against Quebec in several cases”. A few hours later, his warlike naturalness took over, but the object of his anger was surprising to say the least.

Denounce, by saying that they have “shame”, the “intellectual emptiness”, “aplantrism” and “disloyalty” of a “substantial part” of the Quebec cultural community, whose representatives welcomed the appointment of Mr. Miller, is certainly not the best way to rally him to the cause of independence.

The leader of the Parti Québécois should take note of the fact that Quebec is not yet sovereign. As long as they send 40% of their taxes to Ottawa, it is not surprising that Quebecers, including artists, are looking to get their share.

In La Presse, Déclin du français Marc Miller devra s’expliquer devant le comité des Langues officielles

La motion, adoptée jeudi à l’unanimité par les membres du comité, exhorte le ministre Miller à « témoigner pour une période de deux heures concernant sa position sur le déclin du français au Canada, incluant au Québec » au plus tard le 12 février. 

L’adoption de cette motion fait suite aux propos tenus mardi par le ministre Miller, qui s’est dit « assez tanné » du débat public entourant le déclin du français, le qualifiant de « généralement identitaire et électoraliste ».  

Le ministre Miller était déjà attendu jeudi devant le Comité permanent des langues officielles pour répondre aux questions entourant l’étude sur l’usage du français par le premier ministre Mark Carney, mais M. Miller n’était pas autour de la table lors de la rencontre, à la grande surprise du député conservateur Joël Godin.

The motion, adopted unanimously on Thursday by the members of the committee, urges Minister Miller to “testify for a period of two hours regarding his position on the decline of French in Canada, including Quebec” no later than February 12.
The adoption of this motion follows the remarks made on Tuesday by Minister Miller, who said he was “quite tanned” with the public debate surrounding the decline of French, describing it as “generally identity and electoralist”.
Minister Miller was already expected Thursday before the Standing Committee on Official Languages to answer questions surrounding the study on the use of French by Prime Minister Mark Carney, but Mr. Miller was not around the table during the meeting, much to the surprise of Conservative MP Joël Godin.



Immigration Minister warns foreign nationals to not abuse asylum system as U.S., U.K. tighten rules

Right message but unlikely to have much impact, just as the impact of former PM Trudeau’s 2017 infamous ‘To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada,’ was overstated:

…Asked about the implications for Canada, Ms. Metlege Diab warned asylum seekers against trying to take advantage of the Canadian system.

“If you’re coming just because you think it’s a way to side-step our system, don’t do that,” she said in her first major interview since taking on the role.

“We are telling people, no matter who you are, where you are, the asylum system in Canada is here to protect those that desperately are [in need], not for everyone,” she said. 

She said the borders bill, also known as Bill C-12, which is now going through Parliament, would “tighten up” the asylum system and “ensure that those that are not eligible to apply are weeded out earlier.” 

The bill, which would ban those who have been in the country for more than a year from claiming asylum, will “signal to the global community that Canada is not here for people to take advantage of,” she said.

Canada is known for its humanitarian efforts, and should “protect those that really need protection,” she said. But the country is also dealing with “capacity issues,” such as the availability of housing and health care. 

In this year’s immigration targets, Ottawa dramatically cut the number of international students it plans to admit and effectively froze the numbers of permanent residents over the next three years. The cuts followed waning support among Canadians for increasing immigration in recent years. 

Ms. Metlege Diab said “the mood of the country, going door to door,” has changed….

 Source: Immigration Minister warns foreign nationals to not abuse asylum system as U.S., U.K. tighten rules

Levitt: At a time of widespread antisemitism, thoughtful conversations are vital

More such conversations needed.

…Recently, I had the pleasure, along with 1,600 people, of listening to two leading commentators share their insight on current issues. NYU’s Scott Galloway and CNN’s Van Jones were the keynote speakers at an event in Toronto hosted by Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, the human rights organization I head. At a time of widespread antisemitism, high-profile pundits — non-Jewish and Jewish, like these respected American observers — addressing this scourge is more vital than ever.

In this limited space, it’s hard to do full justice to the hour-long discussion, moderated by Canadian journalist Steve Paikin, but the following two excerpts give a sense of the thought-provoking conversation.

Responding to Paikin’s question about whether the U.S. is facing the prospect of a civil war, Jones, a prominent Black political analyst, gave a sobering perspective.

“We are being torn apart by a couple of different factors,” he said. “The most important one is that social media companies have decided to make a bunch of money off of dividing people and now they’re waging a shadow war, a grey war, against the West, primarily on TikTok, and they’ve come up with a novel strategy, never before heard of, called ‘Blame the Jews.’

“This is brand new,” he added caustically, “and unfortunately people are stupid enough to fall for it. I keep telling people that blaming the Jews isn’t the oldest trick in the book, blaming the Jews is literally older than books … Whenever they attack Jews, it’s never about the Jews. It’s always some other thing going on. Why are they picking on the Jews? It’s always because it’s another agenda. And so there’s this very nefarious agenda to divide the West, to divide us, to have us turn on each other rather than turn to each other and one of the ramifications of that is this uncivil war in our country.”

For his part, Galloway, a bestselling Jewish author, professor and entrepreneur, was equally astute. Asked why so many U.S. universities had become cauldrons of hate, targeting especially Jewish students, he didn’t mince words.

“A lot of the fault lies with campus leadership,” he said. “In trying to come to grips with American history, unfortunately, we’ve created the very reductive construct of the oppressed and the oppressor. Figure out who you are based on your identity and that categorizes you as the oppressor or the oppressed. What we’ve done is we’ve basically trained a generation [to think] that you’re one or the other. The most reductive or lazy way of thinking for identifying an oppressor, which we’ve taught kids on campus, is that your level of oppression is directly correlated to how rich and white you are. And unfortunately, Jews have been conflated with the richest, whitest people in the world.”

Referring to the anti-Israel encampments on campus, which often openly and enthusiastically embraced antisemitism, he added:

“If I went down to the square at NYU and I said, ‘Burn the gays!” or ‘Lynch the Blacks!’ my academic career would be over by the close of business that day. There would be no need for [discussing] ‘context.’ We wouldn’t be talking about the First Amendment. My career would be over. It became clear to me that on campuses through a series of well-intentioned teachings that went too far, it ended up where free speech never became freer as long as it was hate speech against Jews.”

Long may the insightful voices of Jones and Galloway resonate far and wide. We need more like them speaking out candidly and people giving them the attention they deserve.

Source: At a time of widespread antisemitism, thoughtful conversations are vital

StatsCan: Racialized Persons with Disabilities

Good infographic highlighting the similarities and differences between visible minorities and not visible minorities.

Findings that I found of interest:

  • Racialized minorities more likely to have sensory disabilities and less likely to have mental health-related disabilities than their non-racialized counterparts;
  • Racialized persons with disabilities were less likely to live alone than their non-racialized counterparts;
  • Racialized persons with disabilities aged 65 years and over were more likely to receive help with daily activities than their non-racialized counterparts;
  • Similar proportions of racialized and non-racialized persons with disabilities reported feeling lonely

Infographic like: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2025051-eng.pdf?st=-P0yrkeu