Idées | 2024, une année centrale pour la laïcité de l’État

2025/01/03 Leave a comment

Useful overview:

Plusieurs étapes ont été franchies au cours des ans pour une laïcité de l’État au Québec. On n’a qu’à penser à la création du ministère de l’Éducation lors de la Révolution tranquille, à la déconfessionnalisation des Commissions scolaires en 2000, ou encore à la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État (Loi 21) en 2019. Cette grande épopée n’est pas encore arrivée à terme. Voici, en rappel, quelques événements survenus en 2024.

5 février 2024. Le Bloc québécois dépose un deuxième projet de loi pour éliminer l’exception religieuse du Code criminel canadien, lorsqu’il s’agit de propagande haineuse (C-373). Le 14 juin dernier, ce projet de loi a été ajouté à l’ordre de priorité du gouvernement, mais il est toujours en attente d’une date pour être considéré en deuxième lecture.

29 février 2024. La Cour d’appel du Québec confirme la constitutionnalité de la Loi 21 et rejette ainsi le jugement de la Cour supérieure qui en avait exempté les Commissions scolaires anglophones.

21 mars 2024. La Cour supérieure autorise Droits Collectifs Québec et le Mouvement laïque québécois (MLQ) à intenter un recours en justice (via un mandamus) contre le Conseil de la magistrature du Québec pour lui enjoindre d’établir des règles traduisant les exigences de la laïcité de l’État auprès des juges. Cette cause est importante car elle concerne le droit de toute personne vivant au Québec de bénéficier d’institutions judiciaires laïques.

26 avril. Le gouvernement fédéral crée tout un émoi au Québec en indiquant, dans son budget 2024, explorer de nouvelles mesures pour élargir l’accès aux prêts hypothécaires islamiques. La Coalition avenir Québec, le Parti québécois, le Bloc québécois à Ottawa et des organisations civiles, dont le Rassemblement pour la Laïcité (RPL) montent aux créneaux pour s’opposer à cette initiative contraire aux principes de la laïcité de l’État.

29 avril. La décision de la Fédération autonome de l’enseignement (FAE) d’amener la Loi 21 devant la Cour suprême est vivement critiquée par des enseignants qui s’opposent à ce que leurs cotisations syndicales servent à financer ce recours juridique et réclament une véritable consultation sur cette démarche.

19 juin. L’arrondissement d’Ahuntsic-Cartierville autorise un groupe religieux à organiser une prière collective musulmane dans un parc, en contradiction avec son règlement qui y interdit toute cérémonie religieuse. Cette décision crée des remous puisque l’événement, réservé aux adeptes de cette religion tout en reléguant femmes et fillettes dans un espace cloisonné loin derrière les hommes, prive les citoyens de leur espace public.

9 juillet. À la demande du gouvernement du Québec et du MLQ, le juge Mahmud Jamal de la Cour suprême se retire du dossier sur la Loi 21.

Juillet. Le choix de la Ville de Montréal d’inclure une femme voilée sur le panneau de bienvenue de son hall d’entrée crée polémique. Selon le MLQ et Pour les droits des femmes du Québec, cette affiche porte atteinte à la laïcité de l’État et au droit des femmes à l’égalité. La mairesse Valérie Plante annoncera, en octobre, que cette affiche sera retirée en raison du « malaise » qu’elle suscite, mais essentiellement pour réitérer que le Québec est une société laïque.

Septembre. Les manuels du nouveau programme Culture et citoyenneté québécoise, qui devaient faire la « promotion de l’État de droit laïque » dans nos écoles, comportent de sérieuses lacunes. Ils contiennent des définitions et principes de la laïcité qui ne reflètent pas les principes de la Loi 21 et ils ne s’appuient pas sur les considérants de la loi pour expliquer ses motifs.

22 octobre. À la suite de la publication du rapport de l’école Bedford, le premier ministre Legault confie aux ministres Drainville et Roberge le mandat de trouver des moyens de renforcer les contrôles et la laïcité dans les écoles du Québec. Ce rapport faisait état de plaintes et de signalements concernant des enjeux liés au non-respect d’obligations en matière de laïcité. Le PM a aussi mentionné être disposé à débattre de bonne foi de l’abolition du financement des écoles privées religieuses quoique ce ne soit pas sa priorité. Quelques jours plus tard, les ministres amorcent des vérifications dans 17 écoles du Québec.

27 novembre. Le Comité consultatif sur les enjeux constitutionnels du Québec au sein de la fédération canadienne recommande de doter le Québec d’une constitution codifiée qui inclurait les lois fondamentales actuellement en vigueur, dont la Loi 21.

29 novembre. Le gouvernement du Québec demande au fédéral la fin de l’exemption religieuse inscrite au code criminel concernant la propagande haineuse, demande aussitôt appuyée par RPL et le Centre consultatif des relations juives et israéliennes (CIJA). Comme le dit si bien la philosophe Louise Mailloux : « cette immunité accordée aux croyants est une aberration et rien ne peut justifier que ceux-ci puissent jouir d’un pareil privilège au détriment de tous les autres citoyens ».

6 décembre. Le premier ministre Legault dit songer à légiférer pour interdire la prière dans l’espace public et à un projet de constitution pour inscrire la laïcité, l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes et l’intégration des immigrants en toutes lettres dans un texte fondamental.

Il n’y a pas à dire, l’année 2025 s’annonce fructueuse en discussion quant à la laïcité de l’État.

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

Source: Idées | 2024, une année centrale pour la laïcité de l’État

Several steps have been taken over the years for a secularism of the state in Quebec. We only have to think of the creation of the Ministry of Education during the Quiet Revolution, the deconfessionalization of School Boards in 2000, or the Law on the Secularism of the State (Law 21) in 2019. This great epic has not yet come to an end. Here are, as a reminder, some events that occurred in 2024.

February 5, 2024. The Bloc Québécois is filing a second bill to eliminate the religious exception of the Canadian Criminal Code when it comes to hate propaganda (C-373). On June 14, this bill was added to the government’s order of priority, but it is still waiting for a date to be considered in second reading.

February 29, 2024. The Quebec Court of Appeal confirms the constitutionality of Bill 21 and thus rejects the ruling of the Superior Court, which had exempted the English-speaking School Commissions.

March 21, 2024. The Superior Court authorizes Droits Collectifs Québec and the Mouvement laïque québécois (MLQ) to bring an action (via a mandamus) against the Conseil de la magistrature du Québec to order it to establish rules reflecting the requirements of the secularism of the State with judges. This cause is important because it concerns the right of any person living in Quebec to benefit from secular judicial institutions.

April 26. The federal government is creating a stir in Quebec by indicating, in its 2024 budget, to explore new measures to expand access to Islamic mortgages. The Coalition avenir Québec, the Parti québécois, the Bloc québécois à Ottawa and civil organizations, including the Rassemblement pour la Laïcité (RPL), are stepping up to oppose this initiative contrary to the principles of state secularism.

April 29. The decision of the Fédération autonome de l’enseignement (FAE) to bring Bill 21 before the Supreme Court is strongly criticized by teachers who oppose their union dues being used to finance this legal recourse and call for a real consultation on this approach.

June 19. The borough of Ahuntsic-Cartierville authorizes a religious group to organize a collective Muslim prayer in a park, in contradiction with its regulations that prohibit any religious ceremony. This decision creates a stir since the event, reserved for followers of this religion while relegating women and girls to a compartmentalized space far behind men, depriving citizens of their public space.

July 9th. At the request of the Government of Quebec and the MLQ, Justice Mahmud Jamal of the Supreme Court withdrew from the Bill 21 file.

July. The City of Montreal’s choice to include a veiled woman on the welcome sign in its entrance hall creates controversy. According to the MLQ and Pour les droits des femmes du Québec, this poster violates the secularism of the state and the right of women to equality. Mayor Valérie Plante will announce in October that this poster will be removed because of the “unease” it causes, but mainly to reiterate that Quebec is a secular society.

September. The manuals of the new Quebec Culture and Citizenship program, which were supposed to “promote the secular rule of law” in our schools, have serious shortcomings. They contain definitions and principles of secularism that do not reflect the principles of Bill 21 and they do not rely on the recitals of the Act to explain its reasons.

October 22. Following the publication of the Bedford School report, Prime Minister Legault entrusted Ministers Drainville and Roberge with the mandate to find ways to strengthen controls and secularism in Quebec schools. This report reported on complaints and reports regarding issues related to non-compliance with secular obligations. The PM also mentioned that he was willing to debate in good faith the abolition of the funding of private religious schools whatever was not his priority. A few days later, the ministers began checks in 17 schools in Quebec.

November 27. The Advisory Committee on the Constitutional Issues of Quebec within the Canadian Federation recommends that Quebec be given a codified constitution that would include the fundamental laws currently in force, including Bill 21.

November 29. The government of Quebec asks the federal government to end the religious exemption inscribed in the criminal code concerning hate propaganda, immediately supported by RPL and the Advisory Center for Jewish and Israeli Relations (CIJA). As the philosopher Louise Mailloux says so well: “this immunity granted to believers is an aberration and nothing can justify that they can enjoy such a privilege at the expense of all other citizens”.

December 6th. Prime Minister Legault said he was thinking of legislating to prohibit prayer in public space and a draft constitution to include secularism, equality between women and men and the integration of immigrants in full in a fundamental text.

There is no need to say, the year 2025 promises to be fruitful in discussion about the secularism of the State.

Marie-Claude Girard The author is retired from the Canadian Commission on Human Rights. She signs this text in a personal capacity.

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Order of Canada Appointments: 2024 Update

2025/01/03 Leave a comment

This analysis, conducted over the past decade, examines the diversity of Order of Canada appointments. Appointments are contingent upon nominations and typically reflect contributions over an extended period. This updates the analysis in my analysis of last year, How diverse are Order of Canada appointments? Key findings include:

  • Women are significantly underrepresented across all periods.
  • Visible minorities are underrepresented, while Indigenous peoples are slightly overrepresented relative to their population share.
  • Visible minority representation has increased over time.
  • Contributions to the arts have generally constituted the largest share of appointments, followed by health, business, public service, and activism.
  • The share of appointments by rank and group follows the typical pattern in most diversity analyses, where diversity decreases with increasing rank. However, this pattern is only observed for women. In contrast, the share of Indigenous companions is higher than for officers, which in turn is higher than Indigenous members. The share of visible minority officers is greater than the share of visible minority members.
Order of Canada 2013-24 Diversity – Key slidesDownload

Filed under Aboriginal, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

MacDougall: Memo to the public service — From here on in, all change, all the time

2025/01/02 Leave a comment

Not cheery but realistic:

To the esteemed members of the public service,

As the calendar prepares for its switch to 2025, it is time to take stock of 2024 and what it portends for the new year.

First, the obvious: There is likely to be a change in the political control of the government. To put things bluntly, it would take a miracle (Christmas or otherwise) for Pierre Poilievre to not become prime minister in the first quarter of the new year, now that NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has indicated his intention of moving a vote of no confidence in the Liberal government.

What’s more, the current Conservative advantage in the polls translates into a size and strength of government that will be unlike anything we have seen in the modern age. Forget the first minority Harper government in 2006. Forget even the 2011 Harper majority. It is likely to be a record majority. As a result, Canadians are going to expect significant change and they will be expecting the public service to deliver that change.

And the public service is likely going to have to do so as a smaller team. Its numbers have grown — and grown enormously — under the current Liberal government. In 2015, the number was under 258,000. As of today, it is just under 368,000, which represents an expansion of some 43 per cent. Expect the headcount to come down, in some places significantly. There is no point bemoaning this fact.

It doesn’t matter what your politics are. Yes, you are here to advise the government of the day. But in the end, and after providing that fearless advice, you are also here to deliver the mandate of the government elected by the Canadian people. So public servants would do well to pay particular attention to the policy priorities of the modern Conservative Party of Canada. The carbon tax will go. Housebuilding will become (even more of) a priority. Budgets will be reduced. And criminal justice policy will once again become more aggressive.

Government workers will, of course, be busy elsewhere too. Canada’s foreign policy, for one, will take on a new posture. And those of you working in immigration are already toiling hard to reshape our core programs. We can expect this work to continue at pace. We have lost the pan-Canadian acceptance of our historically high immigration levels and we will have to work hard to re-establish control over the numbers, especially if the incoming American administration does what it says it will do with respect to a crackdown on illegal immigrants.

Indeed, the incoming Trump administration will provide a number of challenges to our country’s government. Many of you are already seized with tariff policy and border security measures. Many more of you will be seized by Canada’s reactions to the other whims of the former and soon-to-be president. An already increasingly unpredictable world is going to throw up even more wild cards.

It is perhaps trite to observe at this point that we are now a long way from the heady days of 2015, which is the last time this vast team of bureaucrats faced a change of administration. Ten years ago, public servants felt that their efforts were about to be more fully appreciated. Ten years on, many are sitting down with their families in apprehension this holiday period.

What I propose is to make this challenge an opportunity. For there is an advantage to be had. What the current prime minister has described as a “post-national state,” i.e. Canada, is once again about to feel acutely aware of its Canadianness in the face of Donald Trump. There is work everyone can do to make Canada (even) great(er) again.

As Marcus Aurelius once said: “The blazing fire makes flames and brightness out of everything thrown into it.” As Friedrich Nietzsche put it: “Amor fati”, i.e. love your fate. And if that’s too high-brow for you, you can try this: “If life gives you lemons, make lemonade.”

Source: MacDougall: Memo to the public service — From here on in, all change, all the time

Filed under Government Tagged with ,

A new generation of judges is redefining what Canada’s top courts look like 

2025/01/02 Leave a comment

Really good and thorough analysis of judicial appointments under the Liberal government. My 2016 analysis of the Harper government appointments referenced. Legacy achievement of the Liberals and their first minister of justice, Wilson-Raybould. The next needed analysis would be to assess their impact on jurisprudence and decisions, a much harder task.

Likely that there will be a contrary shift under the likely Poilievre government in terms of process, appointments and transparency (i.e. FCJAC reports):

…A decade ago, and forever before that, a clear majority of judges on Canada’s most important courts were white men. That began to change after the federal government’s 2016 reshaping of the judicial hiring process, which in part focused on increasing diversity.

Now, among 1,180 federally appointed judges, 47 per cent are women, 6 per cent are racialized and 2 per cent are Indigenous, according to data compiled by the Office of the Commissioner of Federal Judicial Affairs in 2024. It is the first time the agency has compiled statistics on the varied backgrounds of all judges who decide the biggest cases.

Underrepresentation remains an issue, especially among Indigenous and racialized people, but recent gains are significant. In unofficial data from 2016, compiled by a former senior federal civil servant [me!] in Policy Options magazine, 30 per cent of judges at the time on federally appointed benches were women, 2 per cent were racialized and 1 per cent were Indigenous…

Up until 2016, the top judicial ranks were dominated by white men, chosen by Liberal and Conservative governments alike. From 2007 through 2015, when Stephen Harper was prime minister, two-thirds of 701 appointments were men, according to earlier data on gender from Federal Judicial Affairs. For several years, almost all new judges appointed by Mr. Harper’s government were white, a 2012 Globe story reported.

The federal Conservative Party did not respond to requests for comment.

In the new data compiled by Federal Judicial Affairs, with numbers as of February, 2024, the shift under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is distinct….

Source: A new generation of judges is redefining what Canada’s top courts look like 


Filed under Government, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

‘We didn’t turn the taps down fast enough’: Immigration minister wants to save Canada’s consensus on newcomers

2025/01/02 Leave a comment

Yet another intv with immigration minister Miller, charged with correction the missteps of the government and his predecessors:

This year brought one of the most significant policy reversals in the Liberal government’s nine years in power: drastically cutting the number of immigrants entering Canada over the next three years.

The dramatic reduction followed months of warnings from economists, corporate banks and even the government’s own officials that Canada’s population growth was outpacing the availability of services and housing, driving up costs.

It marked a pivotal political moment for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who came to power in 2015 on a pro-immigration message. By this fall, Trudeau admitted they “didn’t get the balance quite right,” particularly coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Immigration Minister Marc Miller sat down with National Post to discuss the government’s recent immigration changes.

National Post: You’re the fifth immigration minister for this government, but you’re the one who came in and had to reduce immigration levels. How does that feel?

Immigration Minister Marc Miller: Off the cuff, I think it was the right thing to do. I think it was an important thing to do for a number of things, just because of the need to make sure that we’re being responsible, to put the flow of people into the country and properly giving Canadians a snapshot of what population growth looks like in the context of a government that has been very bullish on immigration. I think rightly so. And I won’t pretend that we’ve gotten everything right, certainly haven’t in some respects, but we have gotten a lot right. Avoiding recessions has been important.

The prime minister put me in this position less than a year-and-a-half ago knowing that there needed to be some change and so gave me enough of a landing strip to be able to land a big bunch of policy planes and trusted me to do that. And so that is something that didn’t come out the head of one person. We were conscious as a government that there were some adjustments that needed to be made, but in a thoughtful way.

We do have, unfortunately, the tendency of confusing consensus with unanimity, we will not ever have unanimity on immigration. There are people that don’t want immigrants. There are people that want more than we can accommodate, but there is a consensus that’s been built. I think it’s one that is under some threat, if it hasn’t completely crashed in some other countries, but we have a unique moment in Canadian politics to get this right.

National Post: When did you realize you had to reduce permanent residents and what kind of sell was that to cabinet, maybe even the prime minister, caucus colleagues?

Miller: The levels plan are several months in the planning and it isn’t the result of one poll or one in-depth survey.

I truly wanted options this year that I could put in front of cabinet members where we could have a healthy discussion about where we wanted to see this country in the next three years, and what signal that sent to Canadians in the context of an election year. There will be no other levels plan, barring some extraordinary measure before the next election.

It’s very easy when you’re constantly increasing the numbers, to spread a little bit here and spread a little bit there. It’s a radically different intellectual and emotional exercise to say, ‘OK, well, we’ve got to cut 20 per cent, where you do care about immigration, where do you want to see this going?’ And it makes for some really difficult choices.

It is probably in my experience in cabinet, one of the cabinet items that is the most hotly debated with a variety of views that don’t always come to one mind. But I think on this one, there was broad consensus because of what people were hearing at the doors, I think what economists were signalling, what provinces and territories were telling us.

National Post: Did you have any colleagues saying ‘we can’t do 20 per cent?’

Miller: I’m not going to betray the trust that they put in me, but, you know, we have different views in our caucus and Canadians do as well.

Some people have huge hearts and want more refugees and humanitarian folks coming from the countries that are war torn. Certainly there’s an argument for that. Lots of people across Canada that want to bring the family members in, increasingly so with the number of first generation immigrants.

And then, you know, from the chambers of commerce, that want an unlimited supply of economic migrants, some temporary, some permanent.

There are different economic impacts: one, the initial investment into a refugee or an asylum seeker that pays off, perhaps only in the next generation or years later in someone’s career, if you look at it purely from an economic perspective and someone that comes in with a high set of skills and hits the ground running and integrates into society almost immediately.

National Post: Why should Canadians trust the Liberals to handle immigration when you and the prime minister have admitted you didn’t adjust as quickly as you could have?

Miller: It’s a fair question. I think we owe it to Canadians, first and foremost, to be honest with them and not double down when we get something wrong or not get it as right as we should have.

Let’s not underplay the good that’s happened with immigration. It is significant, and I think it has helped us get out of a perfect storm that we faced coming out of COVID.

We did, going into the COVID, particularly in my province (Quebec), have labour shortages (that) magnified coming out of COVID, so we scrambled pretty quickly to fill that and I think we did it successfully. What I would say, probably, is we didn’t turn the taps down fast enough and when it comes to international students, probably should have acted early.

I think we are being honest with Canadians. We’re being responsible in taking the shift, which is an important one, but not being cavalier in overcorrecting, which in these political situations is always a risk to simply please one group or another.

National Post: Was part of the reason you didn’t move fast enough was emotions people in cabinet have towards immigration and the role immigration has played to the Liberal brand?

Miller: I’m not too worried about our brand. It isn’t something I focus on too much when making policy.

I think there are legitimate questions about the impact of slowing down volume, the impact on the economy of having even a marginal population decline. When it comes to temporary residents, in my mind, I believe we probably trusted the provinces and the (post-secondary) institutions that they should be regulating better for too long.

National Post: Do you think that the time it took and some of the mistake made is contributing to the asks that are now coming from the incoming U.S. administration when it comes to immigration?

Miller: Not to downplay the asks, because I think we do have to take any actions or signals that the incoming administration is sending to us, I think we do have to take them seriously.

I think it’s the results of a toxic debate around immigration in the U.S., that is the result of how their southern border, the border with Mexico, is perceived and not with Canada.

There are some measures that I took coming into power … to put a little more discipline into the visa program, including the Mexican visa, actually putting the hammer down in May on Indian visas and visas from Bangladesh, so much so that our November numbers for transporter traffic is at a yearly low. That needs to continue.

National Post: Do you think you waited too long on the (Mexican) visa requirement because it had been an issue throughout 2023 and it wasn’t until February they were reinstated?

Miller: I won’t speculate specifically on that for a number of reasons, because there’s a lot of operational considerations that we take into account when making one of these decisions. They’re not taken lightly, particularly when we’re dealing with one of our larger trading partners in Mexico.

National Post: Are you considering any changes to the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement?

Miller: That is a discussion that is going to be had with the U.S. because it’s a two-way street. if we can always perfect the way the border is managed, I’m totally open to it. But amendments to the Safe Third Country Agreement at times requires a passage through Congress. It’s a long process that is a product of the U.S. machine.

On balance, it’s an agreement that has served us well. What I am considering is changes to the asylum system that could potentially address the way the … agreement gets gamed by people trying to come to Canada.

National Post: Why should there be an ability for someone to make an asylum claim if they didn’t come through an official port of entry?

Miller: People could be trying to save their own lives, and in any story of a refugee, you’ll find people that will commit technical breaches of the law in order to save their own lives.

I think it’s unfair to sort of paint them constantly, as quote unquote “illegals.” But there is a way to get into this country. It needs to be managed properly and it needs to be done in a way that’s fair and humane to folks.

Source: ‘We didn’t turn the taps down fast enough’: Immigration minister wants to save Canada’s consensus on newcomers

Filed under Immigration Tagged with

Snyder: The Mump Oligarchy — A Glossary

2025/01/02 Leave a comment

Snyder is providing some of the best macro-level analysis of the incoming administration and its acolytes. The recent infighting over H1-B visas being a recent example:

  1. Mump regime. Musk plus Trump. Mu…mp. The real centibillionaire and the fake rich person in the proper order.
  2. Mump oligarchy. The regime is an oligarchy, rule by the wealthy few. Trump is the oligarchs’ spokesman. He might stay or go. The oligarchs will remain.
  3. Mump as illness. Physical illness: we are made sick and scammed blind (think of RFK Jr and Ramaswamy). Mumps is one of the diseases that will return without vaccines. Mental illness: Musk’s idea of prosperity is that he hurts you and you thank him. See my work on sadopopulism. 
  4. In Mumptopia, Americans spend our time in front of screens, instructed whom to hate and worship by algorithms curated by immigrant software engineers. We die pointlessly young on an overheated Earth with the word “Mars” on our lips. The Mump mage performs a ritual rocket dance, leaping a few inches over our graves. 
  5. Mump not MAGA. The MAGA folks somehow did not realize that they were giving power to a an illegal immigrant South African centibillionaire. This is not their regime.
  6. Mumpers. South Africans, Russians, and others close to power. Musk, Putin, Thiel, Sacks, Trump (today), Vance (tomorrow) and their closest circles.
  7. Mumpery. Behavior typical of the Mump regime. Gaslighting, theft, scams, tax avoidance, disinformation, Putinism, dictator worship, threatening U.S. allies, submitting to U.S. enemies, persecuting Americans, suppressing speech with threats of violence and lawsuits, promoting pollution and global warming, ending public services.
  8. Mumpets. Those who choose to submit to Musk. For example, senators who ignore their constitutional responsibilities and vote for Trump’s Cabinet nominees, whose buffoonery and fascism are meant to weaken the state so Musk can profit. Compare: puppet, pet.
  9. To mumpify. To become a mumpet. Nouns can be formed from this verb. For example: “Senator Fetterman is pretty far along in his mumpification.” Or adjectives: “Yep, I’d say he’s mumpified by now.” Compare: zombify, zombification.
  10. Mumpy, or mumpish. People influenced by the Mump regime, or actions that tend towards a mumpified world. “That’s mumpier than I would have expected.” “She’s gone all mumpy on me.” Supercedes: trumpy.

Source: The Mump Oligarchy — A Glossary

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

2024 Looking Back, 2025 Looking Forward

2024/12/20 Leave a comment

That time of year to look back on my articles and commentary, and look forward to what will likely be my focus in the coming year.

Best wishes for the holidays and the new year, when I will restart my blog.

In addition to my news clipping in Multicultural Meanderings, the majority of my writing focused on citizenship issues, given C-71 and some data projects that I have worked on.

Citizenship

Bill C-71: The need for a timeframe limit (submission to Senate SOCI, 2024)

Bill C-71 opens up a possible never-ending chain of citizenship (Policy Options, 2024)

What citizenship applications tell us about policy implementation (Hill Times, 2024) (paywall, unpaywalled version https://multiculturalmeanderings.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=74476&action=edit

Naturalization Visualized: A Study of Canadian Citizenship Data (Institute for Canadian Citizenship, 2024)

Time to take citizenship seriously in ‘I Am Canadian’ – Or Not: Essay Collection (ACS, 2024)

Other

Misleading Canadians: The Flawed Assumption Behind the Government’s Planned Reduction in Temporary Residents (LinkedIn, 2024)

Anti-hate initiatives have not been able to stop the surge in crimes (Policy Options, 2024)

How diverse are Order of Canada appointments? (Policy Options, 2024)

Executive Diversity within the Public Service: An Accelerating Trend (Hill Times, 2024). Unpaywalled: https://multiculturalmeanderings.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=72434&action=edit

New electoral map and diversity (The Hill Times, 2024) Not paywall protected

Preparing for a Conservative government in the public service (Policy Options, 2024)

Most popular posts on LinkedIn:


What a Conservative government might change in immigration, citizenship and employment equity

Employment Equity in the Public Service of Canada 2022-23: Preliminary Observations

Explaining the decline in national pride in Canada

Clark: It’s too late for universities and colleges to complain about the foreign student cap

Keller: Thanks to Marc Miller, the immigration system is (slightly) less broken, Clark: Ottawa finally acts on international student visas, setting a challenge for Doug Ford

Clear majority of Canadians say there is too much immigration, new poll suggests

Immigration Minister urged to crack down on international student ‘no shows’ at colleges

Preparing for a Conservative government in the public service

Misleading Canadians: The Flawed Assumption Behind the Government’s Planned Reduction in Temporary Residents

Flawed Assumptions and Misleading Information: Outflows

Looking ahead to 2025, I expect that birth tourism will become an issue again given president-elect Trump’s planned actions and likely ensuing litigation.

Given the likely earlier demise of the Liberal government, unlikely that C-71 will make it through the process, leaving a vacuum for the expected Conservative government to address.

The impact of an expected Conservative government on a range of immigration, citizenship and employment equity policies will provide a range of opportunities for commentary and analysis.

Filed under Citizenship, Government, Immigration, Politics Tagged with

Lost Canadians bill could create 115,000 more citizens, says parliamentary budget officer

2024/12/20 Leave a comment

Hard to know whether my and other critiques over the lack of numbers by the government resulted in PBO doing the needed analysis. Overall population approach versus my mix of the same Statistics Canada study and passport-based approach but responds to the need for estimated numbers. About three times higher than my upper estimate.

The one assumption that may be questionable is to assume that the current average cost of citizenship proofs would apply to all. If there had been a time limit of five years to meet the residency requirement, that would be reasonable. Without the time limit, the share of more complex residency over multiple years and longer periods, would increase the complexity and cost. The PBO itself notes that “the take-up rate may be impacted by different factors which will affect the cost of the billI,” one of which would be the time period under which residency occurred.

It would have been helpful had the PBO provided a breakdown of the 115,000 by separate groups rather than just the overall number (c and d together would form the largest group) as well as more clarity on assumption based numbers (e.g., population growth rate):

  • “a) the number of Canadians by descent born outside of Canada between February 15, 1977 and April 17, 1981 and who have derived their citizenship from a Canadian by descent parent and did not apply to retain their citizenship before the age of 28;
  • b) the children of these persons;
  • c) the children of Canadians by descent who were born after the coming into force of the first-generation limit on citizenship on April 17, 2009; and
  • d) the number of adoptees of Canadians by descent.”

Given the highly uncertain status of the current Parliament following the Freeland letter, questionable whether C-71 will progress but the PBO analysis provides a more informed basis for discussion:

A bill to reinstate rights for what are known as lost Canadians could create around 115,000 new citizens in the next five years, according to a report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

The report, published on Thursday, also estimates that it will cost the government $20.8-million over five years to implement the change, with $16.8-million coming in 2025-2026. The PBO presumes the law will come into force in April.

Bill C-71 was introduced by the government earlier this year after an Ontario court ruled it is unconstitutional to deny citizenship to children born overseas to Canadians also born outside the country.

The bill reverses a change by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in 2009 that stripped children of a Canadian parent born outside Canada of their automatic right to citizenship.

The 2009 change was designed to crack down on what Conservatives called “Canadians of convenience.” It followed an outcry after Canada spent more than $80-million to evacuate 15,000 Canadian citizens from Lebanon in 2006 during the Israel-Hezbollah war.

It has led to Canadians working abroad being denied the right to pass on their citizenship to their children. It has also meant that some “border babies” – born a few kilometres away in the United States – and Indigenous children born in communities straddling the border do not qualify for Canadian passports, despite living here.

The government, which has reduced its targets for the number of permanent residents to reduce pressure on housing and other services, has never publicly said how many new Canadians it expects the change in the law will create.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer based its 115,000 figure on estimates of the number of Canadians by descent living outside Canada and assumed that their numbers grow at the same rate as the Canadian population. The PBO included people who were adopted by a Canadian who could become citizens under the change.

“The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates a total net cost of the proposed amendments to the Citizenship Act to be $20.8-million over five years, beginning in 2025‑2026. The total number of persons that would be affected is estimated to be around 115,000 over the same period,” the report said.

Don Chapman, who has been campaigning for decades to restore rights to lost Canadians, said he did not think that all those gaining the right to citizenship under the bill who live abroad would opt to come to Canada. He said a lot of lost Canadians were already living in Canada, including children.

“It’s likely that most people who are eligible will not apply,” he said.

Source: Lost Canadians bill could create 115,000 more citizens, says parliamentary budget officer

PBO Report: Amending the Citizenship Act (2024) 

    Filed under C-71, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

    Idées | Islamophobie ou islamocécité?

    2024/12/19 Leave a comment

    Useful distinction from secularists:

    Un comité de la Chambre des communes recommande que les cégeps et les universités augmentent la représentation des professeurs musulmans pour lutter contre l’islamophobie. Cette suggestion fait écho à celle d’Amira Elghawaby, représentante spéciale du Canada chargée de la lutte contre l’islamophobie. En septembre dernier, son appel avait suscité une vive réaction au Québec, et l’Assemblée nationale avait réclamé sa démission, tout comme elle l’avait fait en janvier 2023 en raison de propos jugés offensants envers les Québécois à la suite de l’adoption de la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État.

    Bien que cette mesure s’inscrive dans une démarche de discrimination positive, il convient de se demander si cette discrimination, même qualifiée de « positive », est véritablement bénéfique.

    Depuis l’attaque du Hamas contre Israël en octobre 2023 et la contre-offensive des troupes israéliennes dans la bande de Gaza qui se poursuit depuis, l’antisémitisme est, de façon flagrante, la forme de racisme la plus visible au pays, selon les plus récents chiffres publiés par Statistique Canada. Bien qu’ils ne représentent que 1 % de la population canadienne, les juifs ont été victimes de 70 % de tous les actes criminels haineux fondés sur la religion.

    Si l’on peut compatir à la cause palestinienne, il n’en reste pas moins que cette communauté est marginale au Canada, tandis que la diaspora juive, enracinée depuis des siècles, est au cœur de notre histoire. Dans ce contexte, une représentante spéciale pour lutter contre l’antisémitisme ne serait-elle pas plus pertinente, direz-vous ?

    Il appert qu’il y en a une depuis 2020. C’est Deborah Lyons qui occupe présentement le poste d’envoyée spéciale pour la préservation de la mémoire de l’Holocauste et la lutte contre l’antisémitisme. Mais d’elle, on a eu très peu d’écho.

    Plus largement, nous suggérons qu’aucun poste officiel ne soit associé à une minorité particulière, afin d’éviter une fragmentation accrue de notre société.

    Il est également crucial de rappeler que la religion n’est pas une race. Tandis que la foi, souvent héritée dans l’enfance, peut évoluer ou être abandonnée, la race est immuable et n’est pas sujette à choix ou à transformation. Assimiler l’islamophobie à une forme de racisme revient donc à confondre deux concepts fondamentalement différents.

    Par ailleurs, si les Nations unies et la plupart des gouvernements occidentaux, y compris canadien et français, considèrent que l’islamophobie se définit par la peur, les préjugés et la haine envers l’islam et les musulmans, nous observons qu’elle cible d’abord les islamistes, ce qui est une distinction essentielle pour éviter tout amalgame.

    Plusieurs figures musulmanes influentes au Canada, telles que Nadia El-Mabrouk, Ensaf Haidar et, plus récemment, Fatima Aboubakr, dénoncent d’ailleurs vigoureusement les dérives islamistes. Enfin, exprimer des préoccupations quant à une religion, en particulier quant à ses variantes intégristes, ne relève aucunement d’une « phobie ». Bien au contraire, il s’agit d’une attitude rationnelle, fondée sur une vigilance légitime et parfois salutaire.

    S’il est rarement acceptable de s’en prendre à des individus, critiquer des idées ou des comportements reste légitime. Les récents actes de vandalisme commis par des groupes islamistes lors de manifestations propalestiniennes vont à l’encontre des valeurs pacifiques qui définissent le Canada. De plus, des professeurs ont été suspendus au Québec pour avoir promu des enseignements contraires aux principes de laïcité. Les prières dans des lieux publics, un autre exemple de pratique controversée, suscitent également des mesures correctives de la part du gouvernement québécois.

    Le premier ministre Trudeau n’en est pas à un paradoxe près. D’une part, il se positionne comme un ardent défenseur des droits LGBTQ+ et de l’égalité des sexes. D’autre part, il s’allie régulièrement à des figures dont les discours et pratiques sont ouvertement contraires à ces valeurs fondamentales. Alors que le discours haineux est interdit au Canada, l’article 319 (3) b du Code criminel offre une exemption troublante : un discours homophobe ou sexiste peut être permis s’il s’appuie sur des motifs religieux. Cette exception, critiquée à plusieurs reprises par le ministre québécois de la Justice, révèle une contradiction profonde dans l’application des principes d’égalité et de justice.

    En fin de compte, le problème du Canada ne réside pas tant dans l’islamophobie que dans l’islamocécité : une cécité volontaire et complaisante face aux dérives islamistes, qui fragilise nos principes démocratiques et compromet la défense de nos valeurs fondamentales. Refuser de confronter ces enjeux, c’est accepter de sacrifier les acquis de la liberté, de l’égalité et de la justice sur l’autel du multiculturalisme.

    Romain Gagnon, David Rand, Andréa Richard, Normand Baillargeon, Francois Dugré et Michel Virard Les auteurs sont respectivement administrateur des Sceptiques du Québec et auteur d’«Et l’homme créa Dieu à son image»; président des Libres penseurs athées et auteur d’«Un simulacre de laïcité»; lauréate du prix Condorcet-Dessaulles et autrice d’«Au-delà de la religion»; membre émérite du Conseil de l’Ordre de l’excellence en éducation du Québec et auteur de «Le Québec en quête de laïcité»; administrateur du Rassemblement pour la laïcité; président de l’Association humaniste du Québec.

    Source: Idées | Islamophobie ou islamocécité?

    A House of Commons committee recommends that CEGEPs and universities increase the representation of Muslim professors to fight Islamophobia. This suggestion echoes that of Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s special representative for the fight against Islamophobia. Last September, her appeal aroused a strong reaction in Quebec, and the National Assembly called for her resignation, just as it did in January 2023 because of remarks deemed offensive to Quebecers following the adoption of the Act on the Secularism of the State.

    Although this measure is part of a positive discrimination approach, it is important to ask whether this discrimination, even described as “positive”, is truly beneficial.

    Since Hamas’ attack on Israel in October 2023 and the Israeli troops’ counter-offensive in the Gaza Strip that has continued since, anti-Semitism has been blatantly the most visible form of racism in the country, according to the most recent figures published by Statistics Canada. Although they represent only 1% of the Canadian population, Jews have been victims of 70% of all hate crimes based on religion.

    While we can sympathize with the Palestinian cause, the fact remains that this community is marginal in Canada, while the Jewish diaspora, rooted for centuries, is at the heart of our history. In this context, wouldn’t a special representative to fight anti-Semitism be more relevant, you would say?

    It appears that there has been one since 2020. Deborah Lyons currently holds the position of special envoy for the preservation of Holocaust memory and the fight against anti-Semitism. But from her, we had very little echo.

    More broadly, we suggest that no official position be associated with a particular minority, in order to avoid increased fragmentation of our society.

    It is also crucial to remember that religion is not a race. While faith, often inherited in childhood, can evolve or be abandoned, race is immutable and is not subject to choice or transformation. Assimilating Islamophobia to a form of racism therefore amounts to confusing two fundamentally different concepts.

    Moreover, while the United Nations and most Western governments, including Canadian and French, consider Islamophobia to be defined by fear, prejudice and hatred towards Islam and Muslims, we observe that it targets Islamists in the first place, which is an essential distinction to avoid any amalgamation.

    Several influential Muslim figures in Canada, such as Nadia El-Mabrouk, Ensaf Haidar and, more recently, Fatima Aboubakr, vigorously denounce Islamist excesses. Finally, expressing concerns about a religion, especially about its fundamentalist variants, is in no way a “phobia”. On the contrary, it is a rational attitude, based on legitimate and sometimes salutary vigilance.

    If it is rarely acceptable to attack individuals, criticizing ideas or behaviors remains legitimate. The recent acts of vandalism committed by Islamist groups during pro-Palestinian demonstrations go against the peaceful values that define Canada. In addition, professors have been suspended in Quebec for promoting teaching contrary to the principles of secularism. Prayers in public places, another example of a controversial practice, also give rise to corrective measures by the Quebec government.

    Prime Minister Trudeau is not at a paradox. On the one hand, he positions himself as an ardent defender of LGBTQ+ rights and gender equality. On the other hand, he regularly allies himself with figures whose speeches and practices are openly contrary to these fundamental values. While hate speech is prohibited in Canada, section 319 (3) b of the Criminal Code offers a disturbing exemption: homophobic or sexist speech may be allowed if it is based on religious motives. This exception, repeatedly criticized by the Quebec Minister of Justice, reveals a profound contradiction in the application of the principles of equality and justice.

    In the end, Canada’s problem lies not so much in Islamophobia as in Islamoblindness: a voluntary and complacent blindness in the face of Islamist excesses, which weakens our democratic principles and compromises the defense of our fundamental values. To refuse to confront these issues is to accept to sacrifice the achievements of freedom, equality and justice on the altar of multiculturalism.

    Filed under CAPAR, Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , , , ,

    Canada tightens immigration point system to curb fraud tied to job selling

    2024/12/19 Leave a comment

    Further tightening:

    Temporary foreign workers who apply to become permanent residents through Canada’s immigration system will no longer get additional points if they have a job offer that’s supported by a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA), Immigration minister Marc Miller said Tuesday.

    The move will reduce fraudulent activities in Canada’s Express Entry System, which is an online platform that manages Canada’s skilled immigration programs, the minister said at a press conference.

    “We are implementing further measures that will reinforce program integrity and reduce potential LMIA fraud, such as removing additional points that candidates receive under Express Entry for having a job offer,” he said. “This measure is expected to remove the incentive for candidates to purchase an LMIA resulting in increased fairness and integrity in the system.”

    The latest move seems to be a continuation of the steps taken by the federal government to reduce the number of newcomers entering the country amidst rising unemployment and a housing crisis. The move was announced on the same day that Statistics Canada reported the country’s slowest quarterly population growth estimate since the first quarter of 2022.

    Employers can use Canada’s temporary foreign worker program to hire foreign workers, but they often need to prove that they aren’t able to find a worker for that specific position in Canada. In order to do that, they must receive a federal government document called the Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA).

    About 71,300 LMIAs were approved by the government in the first quarter of this year, compared to 63,300 during the same period last year. Most applications were for farm workers, cooks, food-counter attendants, truck drivers and construction labourers.

    Some groups, however, illegally sell LMIA-approved jobs at extremely high rates to foreigners who are either outside the country or are already in Canada and are looking for ways to boost their immigration score in order to transition from temporary to permanent resident status…

    Source: Canada tightens immigration point system to curb fraud tied to job selling

    Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , ,

    ← Older posts

    Newer posts →