Conservatives call for end to ‘one-click citizenship,’ return to in-person ceremonies

2025/12/04 Leave a comment

The last public data, from the Minister’s transition briefing book, indicated 45 percent of ceremonies were in person. A significant increase from earlier years but agree, as readers will know, the default should be an in-person ceremony, as citizenship ceremonies are not just about convenience but mark and celebrate becoming a citizen with others joining the “Canadian family:”

The Conservatives are asking the Liberal government to end “one-click citizenship” and return all citizenship ceremonies to in-person events. 

“Last year over half of the people who became Canadian citizens did so by clicking a box online. That’s crazy,” Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner said Wednesday. 

“There is no way to justify this practice,” she said. “With support for immigration at an all-time low, returning to inclusive, nation-building ceremonies is a no brainer.”

Describing the in-person citizenship ceremony as the “essential unifying bedrock of Canada’s civic life,” Rempel Garner said the move would restore the ceremony’s “community significance.” 

New Canadians began taking their citizenship oaths through virtual ceremonies in April 2020 in order to adhere to social-distancing guidelines. 

In July 2022 the federal government resumed holding in-person ceremonies but kept the virtual option to help get more people through the system.

The federal government said the option took off in popularity; less than 10 per cent of new Canadians availed themselves of in-person ceremonies in the last six months of 2022.

Cutting down wait times

Virtual ceremonies are not exactly “one-click” affairs. According to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), they require a number of steps. 

IRCC provides a videoconference link where the person seeking citizenship meets with an official to have their identity verified and watch them cut their permanent resident card up with scissors.

Once that’s done, the person joins a virtual ceremony where they take the oath of citizenship, sign a document affirming they took the oath and send it to IRCC.

In 2023, the federal government floated the idea of having people self-affirm their citizenship oath. But when that idea went out for public consultation, 61 per cent of respondents were against it, and only 36 per cent supportive. 

Conservative MP Tom Kmiec endorsed a petition calling for IRCC to revert to in-person citizenship ceremonies as the default.

The parliamentary secretary to the minister of immigration, refugees and citizenship, Paul Chiang, responded to the petition saying virtual ceremonies have helped IRCC cut down wait times for citizenship ceremonies.  

Source: Conservatives call for end to ‘one-click citizenship,’ return to in-person ceremonies

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

Khan: The notwithstanding clause has unleashed a runaway train

2025/12/04 Leave a comment

Valid issue but nuclear option more theoretical than practical:

…Is it time for the nuclear option to be met by a thermonuclear one? Some have urged the federal government to see the provinces’ notwithstanding clause and raise them disallowance – the federal power to nullify a provincial law deemed unjust. And Senator Peter Harder has tabled Bill S-218, which places guardrails on the use of the notwithstanding clause at the federal level, including prohibiting pre-emptive use. 

A Charter statement must accompany an infringing bill which indicates which rights are infringed, the potential effects of the bill, and why Section 1 of the Charter cannot be used instead. Section 1 allows for reasonable limits on rights. There must be full debate. Finally, a super-majority in the House is required for passage.

Bill S-218 has sparked interest at the provincial level. Manitoba’s government has tabled legislation that would require full judicial scrutiny of any future government use of the clause, making sure the public is fully informed of a court’s inquiry. Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew vows his government will never use it: “The reason is simple – because we respect human rights as they are articulated in the Charter.” 

If only other premiers were so respectful of Canadians’ rights.

Source: The notwithstanding clause has unleashed a runaway train

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Trump’s halting of asylum claims prompts fresh calls to suspend Safe Third Country Agreement

2025/12/04 Leave a comment

No surprise. Reactions below:

…But some experts have warned that suspending the agreement could open the door to an unknown number of asylum claimants who are currently ineligible for protection in Canada, at a time when the federal government is striving to reduce immigration because of pressure on housing.

Fen Hampson, president of the World Refugee & Migration Council and a professor of international affairs at Carleton University, said Mr. Trump’s decision “puts our government on the horns of a real dilemma.”

“The U.S is no longer providing equivalent protection and Canada faces a significant moral and potentially legal obligation to offer asylum to those who cannot get protection in the U.S.,” he said.

“The Canadian government must now decide whether it wishes to exercise its authority to suspend the agreement, create a broader exemption or stick with the status quo,” he said in an e-mail. “With tens of thousands of asylum claims still pending in Canada and fears that suspending the [agreement] could lead to increased irregular border crossing, the government may prefer to do nothing.” …

The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario have launched a judicial review of the Safe Third Country Agreement, seeking to declare it invalid. Maureen Silcoff, a lawyer who is representing plaintiffs in that case with lawyer Sujit Choudhry, said the agreement requires countries to follow the UN Refugee Convention, but the U.S. has chosen to stop adjudicating asylum claims. 

“The agreement itself anticipated that a situation may arise that requires a suspension,” Ms. Silcoff said.

“That day has arrived. The basis for the agreement has evaporated. It was predicated on the U.S. having a functional asylum system. The U.S. suspension of asylum determination means that the very foundation of the agreement has disappeared.”…

Lawyer James Yousif, who was policy director to former immigration minister Jason Kenney, said the U.S. government’s decision to halt all refugee claims would likely lead the Federal Court to strike down the Safe Third Country Agreement, which requires what he describes as a “functioning” asylum system.

“The extent of a President’s ability to halt asylum without legislation is unclear. But if asylum is halted and deportations begin, the consequences for Canada will be immediate,” he wrote in an e-mail.

If the pact is struck down, Mr. Yousif said, that would allow millions of people currently in the U.S. who are covered by the Safe Third Country Agreement to apply for asylum here.

“That would represent an existential threat to Canada’s immigration system,” he said.

Sharry Aiken, a professor at Queen’s University specializing in immigration and refugee law, said Mr. Trump’s latest edict on halting asylum claims is “the nail in the coffin” of the Safe Third Country Agreement.

She said other anti-migrant policies he has enacted should have already prompted the Canadian government to revisit whether it is still valid.

“If we had any doubts before, we shouldn’t now,” she said. “The agreement is predicated on responsibility sharing and that people have access to asylum in the U.S.”

Prof. Aiken predicted suspending the agreement is not going to lead to Mr. Trump being “upset with Canada” or a big influx of asylum seekers coming from the U.S.

“If necessary, we need to ensure that the IRB [Immigration and Refugee Board] is adequately resourced to deal with a potential increase in the number of claims,” she said.

Source: Trump’s halting of asylum claims prompts fresh calls to suspend Safe Third Country Agreement

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Chris Selley: Upset about the state of Canada? Why not pretend it’s better? [non-deportation of immigrants accused of sexual abuse]

2025/12/04 Leave a comment

Agree, risk of losing immigration status should not be a “get out of jail” card except in extremely rare circumstances:

Again in theory, that should include a 47-year-old non-citizen, living in Bradford, Ont., who recently pleaded guilty to various charges with respect to sexually abusing a young girl — including once when he was on bail for charges of sexually abusing the same girl, whom he reportedly impregnated twice when she was no older than 13. News outlet BarrieToday reports the accused was at one point during his trial “permitted an adjournment to explore the effect his eventual guilty pleas would have on his immigration status.”

Which is, obviously, insane.

Because this is Canada, however, and we can’t ever let anything be simple, the 47-year-old’s immigration status has become something of a controversy in Ottawa.

I don’t have empirical data before me, but I suspect deportation would not strike most Canadians as an intemperate or unjust punishment for Mr. 47-year-old Child-Impregnator from Bradford. It’s neither lenient nor draconian; it’s just common sense. It’s pretty hard to get a six-month sentence in this country, after all. The absolutely vast majority of Canadians, regardless of where they’re born, manage to avoid imprisonment for their entire lives, and they hardly even have to break a sweat avoiding it. I think that’s a reasonable expectation of immigrants as well.

Alas, some of us don’t like this rule, or at least we feel honour-bound not to like it. It’s just so terribly unfancy, if not downright American-style. Judges and Liberals seem to suffer from this disproportionately. So what judges have been doing, in certain cases, is discounting the sentences non-permanent residents are handed, rather than bringing those immigration consequences down upon an offender’s and his family’s heads.

This has been widely reported. It’s not some kind of conspiracy theory. But some of us seem to have great trouble admitting it (perhaps because it’s so obviously inappropriate). In August, Radio-Canada ran an article headlined “Conservatives say the justice system favours non-citizens. Experts disagree.” Only Radio-Canada’s experts didn’t actually disagree; they mostly just seemed to object to the notion that one sentence might be compared to another to begin with, as opposed to each being considered a standalone, perfectly honed diamond of wisdom.

When (a judge) is considering a sentence, they can’t be blind to the fact that this person is not a naturalized Canadian, is still an immigrant and therefore will have additional consequences as a result of the sentence,” a Toronto immigration lawyer told Radio-Canada — which was, of course, the whole question, and it’s not a rhetorical one. Can judges be blind to that? Should they?

The Conservatives, led by immigration critic Michelle Rempel Garner, want to make a law that says no: Judges wouldn’t be allowed to consider immigration consequences in handing down sentences, such as against that creep from Bradford, Ont. In the unlikely event I were advising the Liberals, I would suggest agreeing to support that law as quickly and enthusiastically as possible….

Source: Chris Selley: Upset about the state of Canada? Why not pretend it’s better?

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Meggs – Immigration : Les vies brisées par un système brisé

2025/12/04 Leave a comment

Good insights into Quebec’s cancellation of PEQ (equivalent to TR2PR) and the similar impact of changes to those who were applying given their expectations as at the federal level:

Les personnes ayant un statut temporaire au Québec ont-elles le droit de prétendre qu’on leur a fait croire qu’elles pouvaient obtenir la résidence permanente? Oui, absolument.

Avons-nous toujours besoin du Programme d’expérience québécoise (PEQ) pour atteindre l’objectif de transition du statut temporaire au statut permanent? Non.

Avons-nous une obligation morale d’accorder un statut permanent aux personnes à statut temporaire déjà établies au Québec? Peut-être, jusqu’à un certain point, mais… Bonne chance!

Ce sont toutes des questions légitimes découlant de la réaction très négative récente à l’annulation de ce programme. Le PEQ a été lancé en 2010, et il est possible que, au fil des changements de gouvernements, de ministres et de fonctionnaires, son contexte historique ait été oublié. Tentons d’éclaircir la situation.

L’histoire du PEQ comme voie rapide de traitement d’une demande d’immigration

Demande d’immigration permanente — faite avant ou après l’arrivée?

Pendant les 25 dernières années du 20e siècle, la règle générale au Canada était qu’une personne qui désirait immigrer de façon permanente fasse sa demande avant son arrivée au Québec. Les demandes faites sur place n’étaient acceptées que dans des circonstances exceptionnelles. Cela est même stipulé dans l’Accord Canada-Québec sur l’immigration signé en 1991.

Les dossiers étaient traités et la sélection était effectuée selon une grille de points attribués en fonction des caractéristiques recherchées pour les besoins du Québec et de l’intégration rapide de la personne qui arrive. Ces critères comprennent notamment l’âge, les compétences linguistiques, le niveau d’éducation, l’expérience professionnelle, le domaine d’études, un emploi prévu dans le pays et un lien antérieur avec le Québec.

Si le dossier recueillait le seuil minimum de points, un certificat de sélection du Québec (CSQ) était délivré, ce qui garantissait, même aujourd’hui, le statut de résidence permanente du gouvernement canadien. Seules des raisons de sécurité ou de santé publique pouvaient empêcher l’obtention du statut permanent.

Les personnes arrivaient donc avec leur résidence permanente. Fin du parcours d’immigration. Porte ouverte à une demande de citoyenneté après trois ans. Une immigration permanente en une étape.

Au début du siècle, le Canada et ensuite le Québec ont changé de politique en décidant d’accepter des demandes des personnes déjà au pays. C’est à partir de ce moment que l’immigration en deux étapes est devenue de plus en plus courante.

Problème de délai de traitement

Un autre facteur important de cette histoire est le temps de traitement des demandes d’immigration. En effet, ces dernières se faisaient encore sur papier et le calcul du nombre de points se faisait manuellement. De plus, la loi exigeait que toutes les demandes reçues soient traitées par ordre chronologique. Énormément de temps était perdu à analyser des demandes, qui se voyaient refusées parce que le dossier ne comptait pas le seuil minimal de points. C’était le cas pour près de la moitié des demandes traitées.

Le délai de traitement des demandes en 2011 variait entre 8 et 44 mois [1]. En 2016-2017, l’année avant la mise en œuvre d’Arrima, le système informatisé de traitement, le délai moyen de traitement d’une demande d’immigration permanente était de 32 mois. Les demandes des personnes déjà au Québec s’ajoutaient à la pile.

Trois solutions au problème de productivité

Trois « solutions » s’offraient pour résoudre ce défi de productivité :

  1. L’informatisation : La première, évidemment, était l’informatisation du système de traitement. On y reviendra.
  2. Le PEQ : La deuxième était le PEQ. Ce programme était conçu comme une voie rapide de traitement uniquement pour les demandes présentées par des personnes à statut temporaire déjà au Québec. Il y avait un volet pour des détenteurs d’un diplôme postsecondaire obtenu au Québec et un deuxième pour des personnes qui occupaient le même emploi au Québec depuis au moins deux ans. Mais pas n’importe quel emploi. Il fallait que celui-ci exige l’équivalent d’au moins un diplôme collégial, voire universitaire. Auquel s’ajoutaient les exigences linguistiques. Compte tenu de ces conditions d’admissibilité, ces demandes ne passaient pas par la grille de sélection et pouvaient donc être approuvées beaucoup plus rapidement. Le ministère s’engageait à rendre une décision en 20 jours.
  3. L’immigration temporaire : La troisième solution, qui existait déjà, consistait à contourner les délais de traitement d’une demande d’immigration permanente en recrutant des personnes avec un permis temporaire d’études ou de travail. À l’époque, cette procédure était plus rapide que celle pour les demandes d’immigration permanente. De plus, il y avait plusieurs avantages à court terme à accroître le nombre d’étudiantes et étudiants étrangers, ainsi que le recours à une main-d’œuvre souvent à bas salaire, autorisée par le Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires (PTET).

Le PTET est particulièrement utile en matière de régionalisation. Les personnes recrutées par ce biais sont liées à leur employeur. Le gouvernement utilise même ce programme pour recruter du personnel de la santé, y compris des médecins et des infirmières, justement pour cette raison.

Ils pourraient facilement être recrutés via le programme d’immigration permanente, ce qui leur garantirait la résidence permanente à leur arrivée, mais pour les lier à un établissement situé en région, le PTET est plus sûr, même si cela les laisse dans la précarité pendant quelques années.

Mais attention! Contrairement à l’immigration permanente, il n’y avait pas de planification du nombre de personnes à recruter par l’immigration temporaire. Alors que le nombre de personnes obtenant la résidence permanente est resté relativement stable au Québec, grâce aux limites imposées chaque année dans les plans annuels, aucun plafond n’a été fixé pour le nombre de personnes arrivant avec un statut temporaire. Par conséquent, le nombre de permis temporaires délivrés a explosé, notamment dans les deux programmes contrôlés par le gouvernement du Québec.

La promesse implicite de la résidence permanente

Beaucoup de personnes à statut temporaire qui réclament le maintien du PEQ affirment qu’on leur avait promis la résidence permanente, particulièrement par le PEQ. Est-ce vrai?

Il est logique qu’elles aient eu cette impression. Dès son lancement, ce programme a bénéficié d’une promotion active auprès des étudiantes et étudiants étrangers, que ce soit lors des sessions de recrutement à l’étranger ou lors des séances d’information organisées dans des établissements d’enseignement supérieur.

Des dépliants ont été distribués à ces jeunes par l’équipe du ministère à leur arrivée à l’aéroport, tandis que des lettres leur ont été envoyées après l’obtention de leur diplôme. Des ententes lucratives ont été signées avec Montréal International pour en faire la promotion auprès des travailleurs étrangers spécialisés. Il y avait même, pendant quelque temps, une mention du programme dans la lettre accompagnant la délivrance d’un Certificat d’acceptation du Québec (CAQ), document requis pour obtenir un permis d’études ou de travail dans le cadre du PTET.

L’appât de la résidence permanente a toujours bien servi les agences de recrutement, les établissements d’enseignement postsecondaires et les employeurs dans le recrutement de l’immigration temporaire. D’autres mesures concrètes renforçaient le même message. Certains titulaires de permis avaient désormais le droit de faire venir toute leur famille, les permis de travail étaient délivrés aux conjoints ou aux conjointes, des permis étaient souvent renouvelables à répétition. Tout laissait croire que « temporaire » voulait dire « jusqu’à la résidence permanente », plutôt que « jusqu’à l’expiration du permis ».

Cette carotte se révélait efficace, mais malhonnête, pour deux raisons. D’abord, la majorité des personnes à statut temporaire ne rempliront pas les conditions des programmes d’immigration permanente, que ce soit le PEQ ou le défunt Programme régulier de travailleurs qualifiés (PRTQ) ou le nouveau Programme de sélection des travailleurs qualifiés (PSTQ). Deuxièmement, comme on le verra plus loin, les volumes annuels établis pour l’immigration permanente ne pourront jamais accueillir sur le territoire toutes les personnes à statut temporaire.

Le PEQ comme « voie rapide »

En 2019-2020, le délai moyen de traitement d’une demande d’immigration permanente régulière était de 127 jours, ce qui représente une nette amélioration par rapport aux 32 mois qui étaient la norme trois ans plus tôt.

Comment est-ce possible? Grâce à l’implantation du système de gestion informatisé Arrima au cours de l’été 2018. Avec ce système, les personnes sur place ou à l’étranger qui sont intéressées à immigrer, à obtenir un CSQ, remplissent un formulaire en ligne dans la plateforme Arrima fournissant presque toute l’information qui anciennement était fournie sur papier, créant ainsi un bassin de candidatures possibles.

Ensuite, un algorithme permet au ministère de repérer des profils correspondant aux critères souhaités, puis à inviter ces individus à soumettre une demande d’immigration en bonne et due forme. Le ministère peut aussi gérer le nombre d’invitations tout au long de l’année. Un système similaire, appelé Entrée Express, avait été mis en place par le fédéral en 2015 pour les demandes d’immigration au reste du Canada.

Dès l’implantation du système, le besoin d’une « voie rapide » comme le PEQ n’était plus vraiment nécessaire. En 2024-2025, on constate même que le délai moyen de traitement d’une demande dans le PEQ (127,2 jours) était devenu plus long que pour le PRTQ (82,2 jours). Pourquoi? Sûrement parce que, tout comme dans l’ancien système, toutes les demandes reçues dans le PEQ étaient traitées, et ce, dans l’ordre chronologique. Le taux de refus des demandes d’immigration permanente avait également chuté en 2019, pour atteindre moins de 1 %.

En ce qui concerne les permis de travail PTET, le délai de traitement semble avoir disparu comme enjeu pour les employeurs. Ils ont même pris goût au programme. Aujourd’hui, ils sont prêts à payer plus cher et à vivre avec des mois de bureaucratie afin d’embaucher des effectifs de l’étranger, captifs et obligés d’accepter des conditions de travail inacceptables à la main-d’œuvre locale.

Le système Arrima peut donc inviter des personnes qui séjournent au Québec, c’est-à-dire des personnes à statut temporaire. En fait, depuis le lancement en juillet du nouveau programme, le PSTQ, 1 038 invitations ont été envoyées à des personnes ayant déclaré leur intérêt d’immigrer sur la plateforme Arrima. Parmi ce nombre, 991 résidaient au Québec (95,5 %), incluant 273 hors de la Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal. Il peut aussi privilégier facilement des jeunes d’ailleurs diplômés au Québec.

On peut en conclure que la majorité des personnes qui auraient pu bénéficier du PEQ présentent les caractéristiques nécessaires pour recevoir une invitation dans le cadre du PSTQ. Même certaines personnes à statut temporaire actuellement, qui n’étaient pas admissibles au PEQ, le seront au nouveau programme, c’est-à-dire celles qui occupent un emploi moins bien rémunéré exigeant un niveau de scolarité un peu plus bas.

La plus grande déception pour les personnes qui comptaient sur le PEQ est de ne plus pouvoir compter sur le fait que leur demande d’immigration sera traitée, car elles ne savent pas si elles seront invitées par le système Arrima.

Leur avenir au Québec, déjà fragile en raison de la date d’expiration de leur séjour, est maintenant encore plus incertain. Cet enjeu est moins grave pour les personnes toujours à l’étranger, puisqu’elles ne feront pas des démarches de déménagement et de déracinement avant d’avoir reçu leur CSQ.

Une clause de droit acquis ou au moins une obligation morale

Après avoir accordé des permis temporaires à des individus en les attirant avec la carotte de la résidence permanente, en leur fournissant des services d’intégration et de francisation, en leur assurant souvent un emploi, en leur facilitant l’arrivée et l’établissement de toute leur famille chez nous, avons-nous une obligation morale de leur délivrer le billet doré que représente le CSQ?

C’est la revendication générale qu’on entend et c’est une des propositions de la pétition lancée par Québec solidaire sur le site de l’Assemblée nationale. [2]

Il n’est pas surprenant qu’il y en ait plusieurs qui répondent spontanément, « oui! ». Cela reflète l’ouverture connue du peuple québécois.

Mais examinons le contexte créé par la gestion de l’immigration au cours des dix dernières années, ainsi que le virage vers l’immigration temporaire.

Au 31 décembre 2024, les données du ministère révèlent qu’il y avait 200 495 titulaires de permis dans les deux programmes contrôlés par le Québec, et 299 685 avec un permis de travail dans le programme où le Québec n’intervient pas. Ça veut dire 500 180 en tout. Il y a fort à parier qu’il y a plus de 200 000 personnes sur le territoire québécois dont le permis temporaire a expiré, si on se fie aux estimations canadiennes de la CIBC. Ces personnes remplissaient des conditions pour un permis temporaire, mais aucune n’a été sélectionnée selon les critères appliqués pour l’obtention d’un CSQ.

En outre, le plan annuel d’immigration pour 2026 prévoit un plafond de 35 600 CSQ pour la sous-catégorie des travailleurs qualifiés (PSTQ) et un maximum de 29 500 personnes admises avec un statut de résident permanent dans la même catégorie.

L’explosion non planifiée et non sélectionnée de l’immigration temporaire fait en sorte qu’on se trouve face à des centaines de milliers de personnes, devenues nos voisins et voisines, qui ont cru au rêve de s’établir durablement au Québec, mais qui ne seront toutefois jamais sélectionnées pour y rester. Pourquoi? Soit parce qu’elles ne satisfont pas aux critères établis pour l’immigration permanente, basés sur l’analyse des besoins socio-économiques et linguistiques du Québec. Soit parce que, par un drôle de raisonnement, elles sont trop nombreuses pour notre « capacité d’accueil », alors que plusieurs contribuent à l’économie et au développement de la société québécoise depuis quelques années.

Une planification qui ne répond pas au plus grand enjeu

La réaction à la décision de mettre fin au PEQ montre bien l’ampleur de la rupture dans notre système d’immigration causée par le virage non réfléchi vers l’immigration temporaire et les conséquences sur les vies des personnes, maintenant parmi nous, les plus concernées.

Rappelons-nous qu’on n’est pas en Europe. Notre frontière terrestre est avec un pays qui, malgré tout ce qui se passe sous Trump, demeure un aimant pour les gens du monde entier. Autrement, l’entrée se fait par avion, ce qui exige un document d’entrée. Les personnes venues du reste du monde au Québec sont arrivées légalement. Ce sont les gouvernements fédéral et québécois qui ont créé et facilité la situation dans laquelle nous nous trouvons aujourd’hui. Le PEQ n’en est qu’un exemple.

Malheureusement, les orientations pluriannuelles en matière d’immigration pour les quatre prochaines années, déposées par le ministre Roberge, le 6 novembre dernier, ne contiennent aucune proposition sérieuse pour résoudre ce problème. Elles incluent une baisse minimale sur quatre ans du nombre de personnes détenant un permis de travail PTET ou d’études, et le gouvernement adopte un discours contradictoire face au fédéral, qui propose quant à lui des coupures plus rapides dans le nombre de nouveaux permis de travail.

Il reste l’épineuse question des personnes à statut temporaire qui n’auront pas droit au renouvellement de leur permis et qui ne seront pas approuvées pour la résidence permanente. L’élan spontané de solidarité envers les personnes qui comptaient sur le PEQ démontre aussi que les Québécoises et Québécois n’appuieront pas facilement des départs forcés. Même aux États-Unis, les méthodes agressives de Trump ont fait considérablement augmenter le sentiment positif à l’égard de l’immigration.[3]

2026 est une année électorale. Ce contexte ne sera pas propice à une réflexion commune et sereine sur les mesures à prendre pour résoudre cette impasse. Cela pourrait être une année marquée par l’inquiétude et les perturbations pour de nombreuses personnes qui souhaitent simplement poursuivre leur vie avec leurs nouveaux amis et amies québécois. Essayons de faire notre part, même à notre niveau personnel, pour les aider dans leur parcours. Il est crucial de trouver des solutions pour éviter d’accroître le nombre de personnes non documentées. C’est le pire résultat, tant pour la société d’accueil que pour les individus concernés et leurs enfants.

Source: Immigration : Les vies brisées par un système brisé

Do people with temporary status in Quebec have the right to claim that they were made to believe that they could obtain permanent residence? Yes, absolutely.
Do we still need the Quebec Experience Program (QEP) to achieve the goal of transitioning from temporary to permanent status? No.
Do we have a moral obligation to grant permanent status to people with temporary status already established in Quebec? Maybe, up to a certain point, but… Good luck!
These are all legitimate questions arising from the recent very negative reaction to the cancellation of this program. The EQP was launched in 2010, and it is possible that, as the changes of governments, ministers and officials, its historical context has been forgotten. Let’s try to clarify the situation.
The history of the EQP as a quick route to process an immigration application
Application for permanent immigration – made before or after arrival?
During the last 25 years of the 20th century, the general rule in Canada was that a person who wished to immigrate permanently should apply before arriving in Quebec. On-site applications were only accepted in exceptional circumstances. This is even stipulated in the Canada-Quebec Immigration Agreement signed in 1991.
The files were processed and the selection was made according to a grid of points awarded according to the characteristics sought for the needs of Quebec and the rapid integration of the person who arrives. These criteria include age, language skills, level of education, professional experience, field of study, planned employment in the country and a previous link with Quebec.
If the file collected the minimum threshold of points, a Quebec Selection Certificate (CSQ) was issued, which guaranteed, even today, the permanent residence status of the Canadian government. Only safety or public health reasons could prevent permanent status from being obtained.
People therefore arrived with their permanent residence. End of the immigration journey. Door open to an application for citizenship after three years. Permanent immigration in one step.
At the beginning of the century, Canada and then Quebec changed their policy by deciding to accept applications from people already in the country. It was from this moment that two-stage immigration became more and more common.
Processing time issue
Another important factor in this story is the processing time for immigration applications. Indeed, the latter were still done on paper and the calculation of the number of points was done manually. In addition, the law required that all applications received be processed in chronological order. A lot of time was lost analyzing applications, which were refused because the file did not have the minimum points threshold. This was the case for almost half of the applications processed.
The processing time for applications in 2011 varied between 8 and 44 months [1]. In 2016-2017, the year before the implementation of Arrima, the computerized processing system, the average processing time for a permanent immigration application was 32 months. The requests of people already in Quebec were added to the pile.
Three solutions to the productivity problem
Three “solutions” were available to solve this productivity challenge:
Computerization: The first, of course, was the computerization of the processing system. We’ll come back.
The EQP: The second was the PEQ. This program was designed as a quick route of processing only for applications submitted by people with temporary status already in Quebec. There was a component for holders of a post-secondary diploma obtained in Quebec and a second for people who had held the same job in Quebec for at least two years. But not just any job. It had to require the equivalent of at least a college degree, or even a university degree. To which were added the linguistic requirements. Given these eligibility requirements, these applications did not pass through the selection grid and could therefore be approved much faster. The ministry committed to making a decision within 20 days.
Temporary immigration: The third solution, which already existed, was to circumvent the processing times of a permanent immigration application by recruiting people with a temporary study or work permit. At the time, this procedure was faster than that for permanent immigration applications. In addition, there were several short-term benefits to increasing the number of international students, as well as the use of an often low-pay workforce, authorized by the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TETP).
The PTET is particularly useful in terms of regionalization. People recruited through this channel are linked to their employer. The government is even using this program to recruit health personnel, including doctors and nurses, for this very reason.
They could easily be recruited through the permanent immigration program, which would guarantee them permanent residence upon arrival, but to link them to an establishment located in the region, the PTET is safer, even if it leaves them precarious for a few years.
But be careful! Unlike permanent immigration, there was no planning of the number of people to be recruited by temporary immigration. While the number of people obtaining permanent residence remained relatively stable in Quebec, thanks to the limits imposed each year in the annual plans, no ceiling was set for the number of people arriving with temporary status. As a result, the number of temporary permits issued has exploded, especially in the two programs controlled by the Government of Quebec.
The implicit promise of permanent residence
Many people with temporary status who claim to maintain the PEQ say that they were promised permanent residence, particularly by the PEQ. Is it true?
It is logical that they had this impression. Since its launch, this program has benefited from an active promotion to foreign students, whether during recruitment sessions abroad or during information sessions organized in higher education institutions.
Leaflets were distributed to these young people by the ministry’s team upon their arrival at the airport, while letters were sent to them after they graduated. Gainful agreements have been signed with Montréal International to promote it to specialized foreign workers. There was even, for some time, a mention of the program in the letter accompanying the issuance of a Quebec Certificate of Acceptance (CAQ), a document required to obtain a study or work permit under the PTET.
The permanent residence bait has always served well for recruitment agencies, post-secondary education institutions and employers in the recruitment of temporary immigration. Other concrete measures reinforced the same message. Some permit holders now had the right to bring their entire family, work permits were issued to spouses, permits were often renewable repeatedly. Everything suggested that “temporary” meant “until permanent residence”, rather than “until the expiration of the permit”.
This carrot proved to be effective, but dishonest, for two reasons. First, the majority of people with temporary status will not meet the requirements of the permanent immigration programs, whether it is the EQP or the defunct Regular Skilled Worker Program (PRTQ) or the new Skilled Worker Selection Program (PSTQ). Secondly, as will be seen later, the annual volumes established for permanent immigration will never be able to accommodate all people with temporary status on the territory.
The PEQ as a “fast track”
In 2019-2020, the average processing time for a regular permanent immigration application was 127 days, which represents a significant improvement over the 32 months that were the norm three years earlier.
How is this possible? Thanks to the implementation of the Arrima computerized management system during the summer of 2018. With this system, people on site or abroad who are interested in immigrating, in obtaining a CSQ, fill out an online form in the Arrima platform providing almost all the information that was previously provided on paper, thus creating a pool of possible applications.
Then, an algorithm allows the ministry to identify profiles corresponding to the desired criteria, then to invite these individuals to submit a formal immigration application. The department can also manage the number of invitations throughout the year. A similar system, called Express Entry, was put in place by the federal government in 2015 for immigration applications to the rest of Canada.
From the implementation of the system, the need for a “fast track” like the PEQ was no longer really necessary. In 2024-2025, we even see that the average processing time for an application in the PEQ (127.2 days) had become longer than for the PRTQ (82.2 days). Why? Probably because, just like in the old system, all applications received in the PEQ were processed, in chronological order. The refusal rate of permanent immigration applications had also fallen in…

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Conservatives blast removal of religious exemption in hate-speech laws as ‘assault’ on freedom of speech

2025/12/03 Leave a comment

Arguably not needed given existing laws but recent occupations, obstructions, demonstrations supporting Palestinians have veered into explicit antisemitism and harassment of Jewish communities. The exemption should not be akin to a “get out of jail” card:

Opposition Conservatives say a deal between the governing Liberals and the Bloc Québécois to remove a religious exemption from Canada’s hate-speech laws, in exchange for passing a bill targeting hate and terror symbols, is an “assault” on freedom of speech and religion….

The Conservatives on Monday slammed the removal of that exemption as an attack on freedom of religion and of free speech, with the party quickly putting together a petition, which was circulated by its Members of Parliament.

“Liberal-Bloc amendments to C-9 will criminalize sections of the Bible, Quran, Torah, and other sacred texts,” Poilievre wrote on social media. “Conservatives will oppose this latest Liberal assault on freedom of expression and religion.”

Conservative Calgary MP Michelle Rempel Garner called on all other parties to oppose the amendment.

“I think it’s an unabashed attack on religious freedom,” Rempel Garner said.

Ontario MP Marilyn Glaudu, who serves as the Conservative critic for civil liberties, in a video on X, said the proposed change amounted to an “attack on people of faith.”

Fortin, the Bloc MP, agreed that the change will curb freedom of expression. However, he argued there must be limits on speech that propagates hate.

“I think this freedom of expression needs to be limited. You’re free to do what you want until you start harming others,” he said.

The bill itself seeks to create new offences around the intimidation and obstruction of sites used by an identifiable group, such as a religious or cultural centre, as well as make it a crime to promote hate by displaying hate symbols like a swastika, or those linked to listed terrorist entities.

The proposed amendments come amid widespread criticism about the Liberals’ bill, with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council calling for it to be withdrawn, along with dozens of advocacy groups. Critics warn that the new offences create the risk of police cracking down on lawful protests, and could lead to a targeting of Muslim and other racialized groups.

When it comes to the proposed removal of religious defences from hate speech laws, Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, director of the CCLA’s fundamental freedoms program, said it raises concerns.

She pointed to how that defence is only available to criminal law dealing specifically with the wilful promotion of hatred and no other offence, even speech-related ones, such as public incitement to hatred, or uttering threats.

“The speech that needs to be criminalized in Canada is already criminalized, and there is no religious exemption applying to that,” she said.

She said the association has for years held concerns around the provision, targeting “the wilful promotion of hatred,” given how broadly it can be applied.

“The concept of hatred is subjective,” she told National Post in an interview on Monday, “so we are always worried about risks of abuse and censorship of unpopular or offensive opinions through this provision. So we fear that removing this religious exemption might gradually erode the protections and increase the scope of this provision.”

Steven Zhou, spokesman for the National Council of Canadian Muslims, said in a statement on Monday that it was “gravely concerned and surprised” about the reported deal to remove the exemption for religious beliefs, saying that doing so “opens the door to a deeply troubling censorship regime.”

Khaled Al-Qazzaz, executive director of the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, said in a statement that it rejects the removal of the religious exemptions, saying it considers doing so “an attack on all places of worship and religious schools.”

Derek Ross, executive director and counsel for the Christian Legal Fellowship, a national association for lawyers and law students who identify as Christian, said removing the exemption for religious opinions could lead individuals to self-censor and create an overall “chilling” effect.

The law must balance competing interests, he said, but pointed to how it must protect those who are fearful of becoming “vilified or detested” because they express viewpoints held by a minority.

Khaled Al-Qazzaz, executive director of the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, said in a statement that it rejects the removal of the religious exemptions, saying it considers doing so “an attack on all places of worship and religious schools.”

Derek Ross, executive director and counsel for the Christian Legal Fellowship, a national association for lawyers and law students who identify as Christian, said removing the exemption for religious opinions could lead individuals to self-censor and create an overall “chilling” effect.

The law must balance competing interests, he said, but pointed to how it must protect those who are fearful of becoming “vilified or detested” because they express viewpoints held by a minority.

“It is a significant change to the law, and one that was not previously the subject of a great deal of discussion or debate by Parliament,” Ross said on Monday. “We hope that further consideration is given before such a move is made.”

As part of the deal with the Bloc, the Liberals are also expected to back off plans to eliminate the need for a provincial attorney general’s sign-off to pursue a hate-propaganda prosecution. The move will likely be supported by both the Bloc and Conservatives.

Fortin, Bussières McNicoll and Al-Qazzaz all said they agreed with maintaining the additional check and balance before charges are laid, which could have a cooling effect on freedom of expression.

Quebec’s Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette, who has called on the federal government for years to remove the religious exemption defence, celebrated the deal between Liberals and Bloc on social media.

Source: Conservatives blast removal of religious exemption in hate-speech laws as ‘assault’ on freedom of speech

Filed under Hate crimes, Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , , , , ,

Girard | Une laïcité sagement bonifiée, A wisely improved secularism

2025/12/03 Leave a comment

Positive and comprehensive assessment from a former director of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (I would disagree with the “wisely” as it over simplifies the lived experiences of women):

…En droit québécois et en droit canadien, la dignité humaine est aussi protégée. Les dispositions du PL 9 concernant les vêtements religieux qui couvrent le visage semblent donc aussi conformes aux Chartes.

En plus d’être légitimes, les principales propositions du PL 9 bonifient le modèle de laïcité de l’État choisi par le Québec pour assurer sa neutralité religieuse. Cela est d’autant plus important que la laïcité de l’État est une des conditionssine qua non pour mettre fin aux inégalités qui touchent les femmes telles qu’elles sont promues par les grandes religions monothéistes. En s’assurant de la neutralité religieuse de l’État, la laïcité protège certains lieux publics de l’influence des pratiques religieuses sexistes auprès de ses citoyens.

L’autrice est retraitée de la Commission canadienne des droits de la personne. Elle signe ce texte à titre personnel.

Source: Idées | Une laïcité sagement bonifiée

… In Quebec law and Canadian law, human dignity is also protected. The provisions of PL 9 concerning religious clothing that covers the face therefore also appear to be in accordance with the Charters.

In addition to being legitimate, the main proposals of PL 9 improve the state’s model of secularism chosen by Quebec to ensure its religious neutrality. This is all the more important as the secularism of the State is one of the qua non conditions to end the inequalities that affect women as they are promoted by major monotheistic religions. By ensuring the religious neutrality of the state, secularism protects certain public places from the influence of sexist religious practices among its citizens.

The author is a retired member of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. She signs this text in a personal capacity.

Filed under Interculturalisme, laicité, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

ICYMI – Jamie Sarkonak: The CRTC’s top-down diversity mandate comes for Big Streaming ICYMI

2025/12/03 2 Comments

While some like Sarkonak find this ill-thought, there is a history behind these initiatives as many government programs overly favoured previous beneficiaries or incumbents rather than ensuring better representation. And having good or better data is a basic (the Employment Equity Act relative success is arguably largely based on public diversity reporting:

…In addition, the Broadcasting Act now states that the broadcasting system should support programming created by and for non-white communities. While it didn’t outright state that quotas and demographic tracking were now required, that’s increasingly how it’s being interpreted.

In its decision to mandate the collection of diversity statistics, the CRTC notes that some television and radio broadcasters are currently required to include statistics on the presence of women in “key production roles” and track spending on content by Indigenous and official language minority producers.

It considers those data collection initiatives a success, and thus, “the Commission is of the view that the report lends itself well to be expanded to gather information on all equity-deserving groups (specifically, racialized people, people with disabilities and individuals who identify as 2SLGBTQI+, in addition to women).”

Big online streamers operating in Canada under this new regime will have to submit these diversity statistics as part of this. The current lack of data, the CRTC complained, “results in a partial picture of production spending and representation of equity-deserving groups in the production sector.” That information is important because it helps to “monitor compliance and trends and to ensure policy goals are met, especially when it comes to representation of equity-deserving groups.”

We aren’t at the point where the CRTC is ordering Netflix, HBO and Paramount+ to spend a minimum proportion of their production budgets on “diverse” shows and production teams, but we’re awfully close. In 2022, the CRTC ordered the CBC to do just that with its budget for commissioned TV and documentary programs. This year, the English side of CBC was required to dedicate 30 per cent of spending in that category to “diverse” production teams.

Last year, the CRTC also announced that it would be taking a five per cent cut from online streamers to redistribute to industry groups in Canada whose missions include the advancement of DEI in broadcasting. And in July, the CRTC tweaked its funding formula for online news to incentivize coverage of “diverse” communities….

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: The CRTC’s top-down diversity mandate comes for Big Streaming

Filed under DEI, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

The New Speech Wars

2025/12/02 2 Comments

Recognition that speech policing under the Trump administration and its followers is significantly worse than more organization and individual specific policing:

…Mchangama’s observation was made during a discussion about free-speech hypocrisies (also recorded as a Persuasion podcast) in which three of the four panelists had been strong critics of progressive illiberalism: Mchangama himself, Persuasion magazine founder and editor-in-chief Yascha Mounk, and Brookings Institution fellow Jonathan Rauch, whose critique of progressive speech-policing, Kindly Inquisitors, appeared in 1993. Now, he is adamant that speech-policing by the government is unequivocally worse: “I would argue it is an order of magnitude more concerning because government can yank your license, investigate you, try you, put you in jail.” We have seen, for instance, television networks being dragged into a Trump-friendly orbit through a combination of bogus lawsuits from Trump and strong-arming by the Federal Communications Commission via its power to regulate media-company mergers. Rauch expressed his dismay at “how quickly we are moving toward Hungary,” where Viktor Orbán’s ruling party has consolidated much of the media landscape in its hands through a combination of direct government control and ownership by Orbán cronies. Except that, Rauch said, America’s slide toward authoritarianism-lite has been happening “on a very fast time scale”—it is already perhaps halfway there after only eight months of Trump’s second term, compared to the fifteen years it took Orbán. It’s not creeping Orbánisation so much as galloping Orbánisation.

Other summit sessions also bore witness to the changed climate in America. The two panels dealing with higher education would once, no doubt, have focused solely on the speech-chilling effects of campus conduct codes or investigations based on student complaints over offensive language, or on the problem of left-skewed ideological uniformity. Now, the focus was also on the Trump administration’s efforts to wrestle universities into submission—including a “compact” offering expanded federal benefits contingent on the promotion of conservative viewpoints—and the danger of non-citizen students being targeted by the feds in retaliation for the expression of disfavoured opinions.

Is there room for a “both sides” argument here? In the session on challenges to academic freedom, some speakers pointed out that federal arm-twisting of academic institutions did not exactly start with Trump. Fourteen years ago, the Obama administration pressured schools to change their handling of Title IX sexual-misconduct cases in ways that weakened due process for accused students. And yet Rauch, who was also on this panel and who was also highly critical of the Title IX reform push under Obama, emphasised the difference: where the Obama administration conducted investigations and took legal action, arguably with “abuse of regulatory authority,” the Trump administration simply issues demands, makes threats, and cuts off or freezes federal funds, including money for vital medical research, to force compliance. It’s not just overreach, said Rauch; it’s “flatly illegal.”

Do universities need reform to promote more open debate and intellectual diversity? At the free-speech summit, the answer was a resounding yes. But there was an equally strong consensus that presidential bullying is not the way, and not just because of principle. Rikki Schlott, the self-described right-leaning libertarian journalist who co-authored The Canceling of the American Mind with FIRE’s Greg Lukianoff, pointed out that “grassroots organic change is the only way that’s actually a meaningful and lasting effect: what happens when the next administration has a different set of demands?” Rauch also disputed the notion that no such organic change was possible within academia until Trump rode to the rescue. In fact, he said, “campuses all over the country were adopting institutional neutrality and the Chicago principles,” which emphasise open discussion and free inquiry. And, if anything, the administration’s heavy-handed interventions “may lead to backlash in the other direction,” assuming that at some point the heavy hand will be gone.

While there is no need to pretend that past American administrations were devoted to free expression, both-sideism under Trump is unconvincing. The Biden administration’s sometimes tense and even heavy-handed interactions with social-media companies about moderating disinformation related to COVID-19 and to election integrity are a favourite “whatabout” response to criticism of the Trump administration’s aggressions against the media.

And yet, as Georgetown professor and social-media researcher Renée diResta argued on the summit’s free-speech hypocrisy panel, the comparison is entirely fallacious: it relies on uncritical acceptance of questionable GOP narratives as well as a bizarre “amnesia” that blames the “Biden censorship regime” for things that happened under the first Trump administration, such as the brief social-media blocking of links to the New York Post story on Hunter Biden’s laptop. (DiResta herself once became a target of right-wing attacks as a “government censor” because of her research on online disinformation and her past receipt of government grants. She says that while she used to support private tech-platform moderation to reduce the visibility of disinformation and extremism, she has since come to believe that giving users more control over their social-media algorithms is a far better and less antagonising solution.)…

Source: The New Speech Wars

Filed under Other, Trump administration Tagged with , ,

Allen: This was just the latest attempt to silence Palestinian voices in Canada. But these stories should be heard

2025/12/02 Leave a comment

Agree:

The recent attack by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) on the Canadian Museum for Human Rights for daring to include an exhibit on the Palestinian Nakba is the latest attempt to suppress the Palestinian narrative in Canada. It follows B’nai Brith Canada’s effort to prevent the Palestinian flag from being raised at Toronto City Hall, even though Canada recently recognized Palestine as a state. This turned a peaceful, one-day gesture of pride for Palestinians into a political storm that served only to sow further divisions between Jews and Palestinians at time when polarization is already at an all-time high.

These are not isolated incidents but rather they reflect a pattern in which mainstream Jewish organizations exert pressure on institutions and community leaders to silence Palestinians and those who support them.

The Jewish community in Canada is absolutely entitled to safety, dignity, and protection of its rights. They marched in celebration of Israel’s independence and to remember the victims of Oct. 7. This was important for the community. Why then should anyone object to the desire of Palestinians in Canada to tell their story?

…Canada must not allow itself to become a place where human rights institutions are bullied into erasing Palestinian history, or where gestures of inclusion are treated as existential threats. Museums must be free to tell the truth. Cities must be free to recognize the communities who live in them. Canadians must be free to hear every side of a story without intimidation.

Silencing Palestinians will not bring safety. It will not prevent antisemitism. It will not produce justice. Demanding equality and dignity for one group cannot come at the expense of another.

Let the museum speak. Let the flag fly. And let Palestinians — and all who stand with them — be heard.

Source: Opinion | This was just the latest attempt to silence Palestinian voices in Canada. But these stories should be heard

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →