Le Devoir Éditorial | Un laboratoire pour le Québec [laïcité in education]

Legitimate concerns regarding Bedford and the influence of more fundamentalist Muslim educators:

L’école Bedford nous a offert un concentré des dangers qui guettent l’école québécoise : déni de laïcité, refus de l’égalité hommes-femmes, gouvernance scolaire anémiée, mépris des besoins particuliers de certains élèves et incompétence pédagogique. Ce quintette délétère est au cœur du plan d’action rendu public vendredi. Les experts Jean-Pierre Aubin et Malika Habel invitent le gouvernement Legault à faire de Bedford l’aiguillon d’une réforme qui dépasse les frontières de cette école prise en otage par un clan dominant d’enseignants d’origine principalement maghrébine.

Leur ambition est justifiée. Un si grand mal ne saurait s’accommoder d’une réponse simpliste. Même s’il constitue un cas atypique tant par sa gravité que par son intensité, Bedford n’est pas un cas unique, comme en témoignent la poignée d’enquêtes ouvertes dans la foulée de la mise au jour du scandale, et alors que 11 de ses professeurs sont toujours en examen, avec plein salaire. Cela en fait au contraire le laboratoire idéal pour tester les limites des leviers prévus à la Loi sur l’instruction publique (LIP).

Si on arrive à Bedford à faire en sorte de clarifier une fois pour toutes la différence « entre discipline et violence », entre « bienveillance et laxisme », entre « difficultés d’apprentissage et paresse intellectuelle », comme le prescrivent les deux experts, c’est qu’on sera en mesure de faire de même partout au Québec. Qui s’élèverait contre cet objectif à l’heure où l’école connaît une telle crise de confiance ?

L’accent a été largement mis sur la proposition de soumettre l’ensemble des enseignants québécois à une évaluation de leurs compétences tous les deux ans. À raison, c’est l’épine dorsale de ce plan, qui cherche à rétablir les équilibres délicats entre la nécessaire préservation de l’autonomie professionnelle de l’enseignant et l’indispensable assurance de sa responsabilisation.

De telles évaluations sont courantes dans la plupart des milieux de travail. Pour les parents comme pour les élèves, cette mesure fait miroiter la promesse d’un programme enfin suivi à la lettre et d’un climat en classe conforme aux attentes. Pour les enseignants eux-mêmes, elle ouvre la porte à une uniformisation des pratiques professionnelles, ce qui évitera, par effet de domino, qu’une majorité ait à souffrir les guerres de chapelle que des groupes minoritaires voudraient leur imposer, comme ce fut le cas à Bedford.

Bien accueillie par le ministre de l’Éducation comme par le Centre de services scolaire de Montréal, la mesure, et plus largement le plan d’action qui l’encourage, a suscité quelques réticences, notamment de la part de la Centrale des syndicats du Québec (CSQ), qui s’élève contre l’imposition généralisée de solutions forgées sur mesure pour Bedford. À ses yeux, les leviers législatifs existants sont suffisants pour superviser et évaluer adéquatement le travail des enseignants. Si cela n’a pas été fait à Bedford — et si ce n’est pas toujours fait ailleurs, comprend-on entre les lignes —, c’est « faute de temps et de ressources », argue la CSQ.

Il est vrai que la pénurie de personnel et les compressions dans les services aux élèves mettent en péril la qualité éducative du réseau. Le ministre de l’Éducation aurait tort de s’imaginer qu’il peut effacer ces facteurs fragilisants de l’équation. Mais ce que conclut le rapport d’enquête comme le plan d’action, c’est qu’il est aussi trop facile pour les directions d’écoles de passer outre aux leviers législatifs actuels, que ce soit par manque de temps, faute de conviction ou même sous la pression d’un corporatisme malavisé.

C’est pourquoi vouloir mettre les écoles à l’abri de dérives comme celles qui ont permis l’instauration d’un climat de peur et d’intimidation à Bedford passe par un dépoussiérage législatif, défendent les deux experts. Ceux-ci prescrivent notamment l’ajout d’une clarification des concepts de culture et de religion dans la loi. Partisans d’une ligne franche, ils recommandent d’y inscrire noir sur blanc que l’école doit être préservée de toute manifestation du fait religieux, pendant et après les classes. Ils suggèrent aussi d’évaluer la possibilité d’y intégrer l’obligation de parler français dans tous les espaces susceptibles d’être fréquentés par les élèves.

Ce faisant, le duo fait preuve d’une bonne dose de courage en affirmant sans détour ce que plusieurs, y compris des intervenants en éducation, se refusent à reconnaître. À savoir que les leviers prévus dans la LIP ne suffisent plus, dans le contexte explosif de 2025, à offrir aux élèves un milieu d’apprentissage sain et sécuritaire à l’abri de toute forme d’intimidation ou de violence.

Ce plan, qui s’accompagne d’un projet pilote pour en tester les grandes lignes, compte, en plus de ses impératifs législatifs costauds, des appétits financiers qui risquent de poser de grands défis au ministre. Bernard Drainville jongle déjà avec la « discipline » prescrite par le ministre des Finances pour affronter un contexte budgétaire jugé difficile, sinon sombre. Il ne faudrait pas que cette ligne dure ait le dessus sur un dépoussiérage dont on ne devrait pas faire l’économie pour les élèves du Québec.

Source: Éditorial | Un laboratoire pour le Québec

Bulgutch | Canada’s international student crisis was predicted — and ignored

Indeed:

…All of this is bad news. But what I find remarkable about the frenzy to deal with the apocalypse is that it was all foreseeable. In fact, it was foreseen. And no one did anything about it.

An advocacy group called One Voice used the Freedom of Information Act to unearth, “internal government documents,” warning that, “international student tuition has been increasingly supporting the financial sustainability of post-secondary education institutions.”

But who needed some internal secret document to figure that out? The 2022 report of Ontario’s auditor-general, which is freely available, was released with the usual fanfare, and was covered extensively in the media, said this: “Relying heavily on international student fees makes universities more susceptible to steep and sudden drops in revenue that could result when global circumstances and federal immigration policies change, and international student intake declines.”

It could not have been said more clearly.

In the movies, when some scientist discovers that an asteroid is going to collide with our planet and destroy us all, the powers-that-be spring into action, and figure out how to prevent disaster.

In real life, either no one read the auditor-general’s report, or everyone concluded it was best to keep taking in all that foreign money today and worry about tomorrow only after the asteroid hits.

We could blame the universities and colleges, but it’s hard to do that. They were hungry for foreign tuition money because the Ontario government doesn’t support them nearly enough.

Last year, a panel of experts appointed by the government itself noted that provinces outside Ontario provide universities an average of $20,772 per full-time student. Ontario coughs up $11,471. To catch up — that is to be just average — would require spending another $7 billion a year. Ontario has responded by promising $1.3 billion over three years. 

The Colleges and Universities minister called that an “historic investment.” She also told the schools they were stuck with a tuition freeze first imposed in 2019 for at least three more years.

Most people would be hard pressed to come up with the name of the auditor general of Ontario. People who dig into the government’s books are not superheroes. They’re just public servants in a relatively small department (total budget — $26,194,700) who report on whether taxpayers are getting value for their money.

That 2022 auditor general’s report by Bonnie Lysyk concluded that the government of Ontario had, “no clear strategy or long-term vision for the post-secondary sector.”

It appears the auditor general’s report was worthy of an A-plus.

Source: Opinion | Canada’s international student crisis was predicted — and ignored

Matthew Lau: Education, not racism, drives the difference in earnings between races

What Lau fails to consider are the barriers that affect education levels and enrolment in STEM disciplines. The numbers are correct but the analysis is overly simplistic:

Significant federal program spending is premised on the idea that visible minorities in Canada are systemically disadvantaged.

Take the latest: Earlier this fall, the federal government released a 45-page anti-racism strategy for 2024-2028, which “aims to tackle systemic racism and make our communities more inclusive and prosperous.” Such a strategy is necessary, according to the government, because systemic racism exists throughout our institutions and “[perpetuates] a position of relative disadvantage for racialized persons.”

But where is the evidence for this premise? Not in the income statistics.

Directly contradicting the idea that visible minorities are systemically oppressed, a new Statistics Canada study shows many Canadians from minority backgrounds thrive and even do better on average than their white counterparts.

The StatCan study started with 1996 and 2001 census data, used T1 and T4 tax files and other data to measure cumulative earnings over 20 years among Canadian-born men and women from four racial cohorts — white, South Asian, Chinese, and Black — and found minorities outperforming the majority population.

Specifically, among Canadian-born men, cumulative earnings over 20 years were highest on average among Chinese men ($1.58 million in 2019 dollars), followed by South Asian men ($1.51 million). Only Black men ($1.06 million) earned less than white men ($1.31 million).

Clearly, if Chinese and South Asian men have higher earnings power than white men, it is difficult to conclude Canada is systemically racist against minorities.

What about the inverse? Does the data suggest Canada is systemically racist against white men? No. “The fact that Chinese and South Asian men have higher education levels than white men and are more likely to be in STEM fields is the single most important factor explaining why these two groups have higher cumulative earnings than white men,” the StatCan report found.

In other words: education, not racism, drives the difference in earnings.

So what happens when we control for education and other factors like employer size, industry, and geography? The earnings gap between white and Black men remains. As well, while Chinese and South Asian men out-earned white men, after controlling for education and other factors, white men actually earned more.

Alas, have we found evidence of systemic racism? Is this evidence that the country is systemically racist because these employers paid minorities less than their white counterparts with similar educational backgrounds?

There’s no hard evidence of this. First, discrimination by employers against visible minorities has been illegal for decades. Second, as the study itself even suggests, many factors affect earnings besides the ones researchers can observe and control for, including differences in social networks, job search methods, and preferences for certain working conditions, so automatically blaming racism doesn’t make much sense. Third, if Canada is systemically racist against minorities, how did Chinese and South Asian men find themselves overrepresented in the higher-paying STEM fields to begin with?

And if racism against Black Canadians is to blame for the earnings gap among men, what explains the fact that Black women earned more than white women? Among Canadian-born women, before controlling for education and other factors, the cohort that earned the least over two decades was white women ($0.80 million). Chinese women had the highest cumulative earnings ($1.14 million), followed by South Asian women ($1.06 million), and then Black women ($0.82 million). Is Canada full of racists who only discriminate against Black men but not Black women?

Another outcome of the StatCan analysis is that after controlling for the same factors (e.g. education), Chinese women out-earned white women — by $38,000, on average. So, do racist employers systematically favour white men over Chinese men, while also disfavouring white women relative to Chinese women?

The narrative that Canadians from visible minority backgrounds are systemically disadvantaged just doesn’t hold up to the data.

Moreover, this latest StatCan study only considered four groups (Chinese, South Asian, white, and Black) of Canadian-born individuals, but other StatCan research provides similar evidence against systemic racism. Weekly earnings data from 2016 show that in addition to Chinese and South Asian men, Canadian-born Japanese and Korean men had higher earnings than their white counterparts. Among women, seven of ten minority groups (Korean, Chinese, South Asian, Japanese, Filipino, “other visible minorities,” and Arab or West Asian) had higher average weekly earnings than the white population.

Simply, the earnings data do not provide evidence that Canada is a society that systemically disadvantages minorities. Rather, the data show the exact opposite. Politicians and bureaucrats might want to consider these facts before wasting large sums of taxpayer dollars drawing up lengthy “anti-racism” plans.

Source: Matthew Lau: Education, not racism, drives the difference in earnings between races

Québec exige la fin de l’exemption religieuse pour la propagande haineuse

Thorny issue, given some of the examples where appears needed and others where more questionable:

Ottawa a démontré peu d’ouverture à une demande du ministre de la Justice du Québec, Simon Jolin-Barrette, qui ne veut plus que le Code criminel permette à des individus de se livrer à de la propagande haineuse « sous le couvert de la foi ». Pour toute réponse, le gouvernement Trudeau a suggéré au ministre québécois de collaborer à l’avancement d’un projet de loi fédéral sur « les préjudices en ligne ».

Le ministre Jolin-Barrette a envoyé une lettre jeudi à son homologue canadien, Arif Virani, afin de lui demander d’abroger deux articles du Code criminel qui contreviennent, selon son interprétation, au principe de laïcité de l’État.

Ces articles — 319 (3) (b) et 319 (3.1) (b) — font partie d’une courte de liste d’exceptions pouvant être évoquées face à des accusations d’avoir fomenté volontairement la haine ou l’antisémitisme. Ils permettent à un accusé de se défendre en faisant valoir le fait d’avoir, « de bonne foi, exprimé une opinion sur un sujet religieux ou une opinion fondée sur un texte religieux auquel il croit », ou d’avoir « tenté d’en établir le bien-fondé par argument ».

De l’avis du ministre Jolin-Barrette, « cette justification est actuellement exploitée pour légitimer des propos discriminatoires ou incendiaires sous le couvert de la foi ». « Ce genre de discours contribue à un climat toxique, menaçant la sécurité et le bien-être des personnes visées », a-t-il écrit au ministre Virani.

Le cabinet du ministre Virani a fait suivre une réponse au Devoir. La directrice adjointe aux communications, Chantalle Aubertin, y a écrit qu’en guise d’« action décisive », Ottawa avait présenté la Loi sur les préjudices en ligne, « une mesure globale visant à lutter contre la propagation des discours haineux, tant en ligne que dans nos communautés ».

« Nous apprécions les observations du ministre Jolin-Barrette et restons déterminés à travailler ensemble pour trouver des solutions », a-t-elle ajouté. « Nous l’encourageons à collaborer avec les parlementaires afin de soutenir l’avancement de la Loi sur les préjudices en ligne en comité, garantissant ainsi que nous disposons des outils nécessaires pour combattre efficacement la haine », a ensuite suggéré Mme Aubertin….

Source: Québec exige la fin de l’exemption religieuse pour la propagande haineuse

Ottawa has shown little openness to a request from Quebec’s Minister of Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette, who no longer wants the Criminal Code to allow individuals to engage in hateful propaganda “under the guise of faith”. For any response, the Trudeau government suggested that the Quebec minister collaborate in the progress of a federal bill on “online damage”.

Minister Jolin-Barrette sent a letter on Thursday to his Canadian counterpart, Arif Virani, asking him to repeal two articles of the Criminal Code that, according to his interpretation, contravene the principle of secularism of the State.

These articles – 319 (3) (b) and 319 (3.1) (b) – are part of a short list of exceptions that can be raised in the face of accusations of having voluntarily fomented hatred or anti-Semitism. They allow an accused to defend himself by asserting the fact that he has, “in good faith, expressed an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a religious text in which he believes”, or that he has “tried to establish its merits by argument”.

In the opinion of Minister Jolin-Barrette, “this justification is currently exploited to legitimize discriminatory or incendiary remarks under the guise of faith”. “This kind of speech contributes to a toxic climate, threatening the safety and well-being of the people targeted,” he wrote to Minister Virani.

Minister Virani’s office forwarded a response to the Duty. Assistant Director of Communications, Chantalle Aubertin, wrote that as a “recisive action,” Ottawa had introduced the Online Injuries Act, “a comprehensive measure to combat the spread of hate speech, both online and in our communities.”

“We appreciate Minister Jolin-Barrette’s comments and remain determined to work together to find solutions,” she added. “We encourage her to work with parliamentarians to support the progress of the Online Damages Act in committee, thus ensuring that we have the necessary tools to effectively combat hatred,” Ms. Aubertin then suggested.

Libre opinion | Bedford, la laïcité et le refus du silence mou

Of note:

Je suis nouvellement enseignant de français de 1re secondaire dans une école dont la population (tant d’élèves que d’enseignants) est à 90 % arabo-musulmane.

Je gérais récemment une crise avec ma direction d’école pour (1) avoir utilisé en classe à plusieurs reprises le mot en n (dans un contexte où un de mes élèves noirs l’avait lui-même d’abord utilisé, piégeant un de ses pairs en le lui faisant répéter pour mieux l’en accuser ensuite, et pour expliquer la différence entre citer et insulter), et (2) avoir fait mon coming out en classe (en saisissant une occasion qui m’était offerte de conscientiser mes élèves à cette réalité par mon exemple).

Dans la même conversation avec la direction, j’ai indiqué que, par intérêt et curiosité envers mes élèves et mes collègues, depuis mon embauche, j’avais commencé à lire le Coran.

La direction, déjà plutôt froide, s’est refroidie encore plus. On a dit ne pas vouloir devenir un deuxième Bedford, que l’école était laïque et qu’on n’y parlait pas de religion. Je suis resté bouche bée. On n’y parle pas de religion, mais la plupart des filles y portent le voile ; on n’y parle pas de religion, mais la plupart des garçons trop bavards s’y lancent des Inchallah ! d’un bout à l’autre de la classe ; on n’y parle pas de religion, mais quand on y a posé des pancartes contre l’homophobie, la transphobie, etc., elles ont été enlevées massivement, tant par le personnel que par les élèves.

Bref, si on n’y parle pas de religion, on ne fait pas grand-chose contre ses manifestations — des plus inoffensives aux plus nocives. C’est ce que fait le silence mou.

Je suis resté bouche bée parce que ce qui était impliqué, c’est que moi, le gai militant, je risquais d’imposer l’islamisme à mes élèves et dans mon école. Laissez-moi rire ! Quand j’étais à la Commission de la relève de la Coalition avenir Québec, je scandalisais plutôt par mon hyperlaïcité en proposant que la toponymie québécoise (noms de villes, de rues, etc.) soit débarrassée de ses « Saint » et de ses « Sainte ».

Ce que j’ai dit à la direction, après être resté bouche bée une demi-seconde, c’est que la laïcité ne consiste pas à nier l’existence de la religion, mais à chercher à ce que son emprise sur les décisions — politiques surtout, mais personnelles aussi — diminue de plus en plus. C’est une des missions que je me suis données comme enseignant, moi qui mets sur un pied d’égalité, dans mes échanges avec la classe, les mythes juifs, les mythes chrétiens, les mythes musulmans, etc.

Voilà ce qui arrive quand on se contente de s’efforcer de ne pas parler des choses : on a une réaction épidermique au nom d’une chose, sans comprendre ce qu’elle est au fond. C’est du fétichisme, c’est du totémisme, c’est de l’animisme. Les mots ne sont rien ; les choses sont tout. Craignez moins les mots et plus les choses. Parce qu’éviter de parler de religion est le meilleur moyen de faire le lit de l’intégrisme religieux.

Source: Libre opinion | Bedford, la laïcité et le refus du silence mou

I am a new 1st secondary French teacher in a school whose population (both students and teachers) is 90% Arab-Muslim.

I was recently managing a crisis with my school management for (1) having used the n-word several times in class (in a context where one of my black students had first used it himself, trapping one of his peers by making him repeat it to better accuse him then, and to explain the difference between quoting and insulting), and (2) having made my come out in class (by seizing an opportunity offered to me to make my students aware of this reality by my example).

In the same conversation with management, I indicated that, out of interest and curiosity towards my students and colleagues, since my hiring, I had started reading the Koran.

The direction, already rather cold, cooled even more. We said we didn’t want to become a second Bedford, that the school was secular and that we didn’t talk about religion. I was left speechless. We don’t talk about religion, but most girls wear the veil there; we don’t talk about religion, but most of the boys who are too talkative go into it inchallah! From one end of the class to the other; we do not talk about religion, but when we put up signs against homophobia, transphobia, etc., they were massively removed, both by staff and students.

In short, if we don’t talk about religion, we don’t do much about its manifestations – from the most harmless to the most harmful. This is what soft silence does.

I was left speechless because what was involved was that I, the gay activist, risked imposing Islamism on my students and in my school. Let me laugh! When I was in the Commission de la relève de la Coalition avenir Québec, I was rather scandalized by my hypersecularism by proposing that Quebec toponymy (names of cities, streets, etc.) be cleared of its “Saints” and “Saints”.

What I told the management, after remaining open-mouthed for half a second, was that secularism does not consist of denying the existence of religion, but in seeking that its grip on decisions – especially political, but also personal – decreases more and more. This is one of the missions I have given myself as a teacher, I who put on an equal footing, in my exchanges with the class, Jewish myths, Christian myths, Muslim myths, etc.

This is what happens when you just try not to talk about things: you have an epidermal reaction to the name of a thing, without understanding what it is basically. It’s fetishism, it’s totemism, it’s animism. Words are nothing; things are everything. Fear less words and more things. Because avoiding talking about religion is the best way to make the bed of religious indegrism.

ICYMI: Lisée | Le défroqué de la laïcité

More on laïcité and the Bedford school teachers imposing Islamic indoctrination and government funding of religious schools:

François Legault avait une décision lourde de sens à prendre cette semaine. Son parti allait-il garder le flambeau de la laïcité, dans la foulée de l’adoption il y a cinq ans de la loi sur ce sujet, ou allait-il signifier aux Québécois que sa soif de laïcisation était étanchée et qu’il n’irait pas plus loin ?

L’occasion est belle. Le Québec de 2024 continue à financer une cinquantaine d’écoles primaires et secondaires qui offrent, entre les mathématiques et le français, des cours où la religion — une religion, la bonne, évidemment — est inculquée aux enfants. Les traités internationaux protègent le droit des parents d’envoyer leurs enfants dans une école religieuse. Rien n’oblige cependant les États à les financer. Elles ne peuvent cependant ouvrir, au Québec, que si elles obtiennent une homologation, démontrant qu’elles offrent correctement le curriculum normal, avec des professeurs qualifiés, en plus de leur enseignement religieux. C’est pourquoi des écoles hassidiques à Montréal, ou une école catholique intégriste à Lévis, par exemple, font l’objet d’enquêtes et, parfois, de sanctions.

Dans la foulée du scandale de l’école Bedford, une école publique, donc laïque, qui, pendant sept ans, fut la cible d’entrisme religieux, le Parti québécois a présenté une motion offrant de franchir un nouveau pas dans la sécularisation de la nation : mettre fin aux subventions aux écoles privées religieuses. Que dit le ministère québécois de l’Éducation sur l’ampleur du phénomène ? Rien du tout. Il n’en tient pas le compte. Le dernier relevé crédible fut produit l’an dernier par la journaliste radio-canadienne Laurence Niosi : c’est à hauteur de 60 % que sont financées, selon son décompte, 27 écoles catholiques, 14 écoles juives, 4 écoles musulmanes, 2 écoles protestantes évangéliques, 2 écoles arméniennes et 1 école grecque orthodoxe. Pour un coût de 161 millions de dollars par an.

On savait Québec solidaire partant, depuis sa création, pour cette étape de la laïcisation. Le Parti libéral du Québec, lui, était réticent. Mais il a saisi l’occasion et a déclaré jeudi : « On est rendus là. » Il y aurait du Marwah Rizqy dans cette évolution que je ne serais pas surpris. Restait la Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ). Pensez-vous un instant qu’en leur for intérieur, Bernard Drainville et Jean-François Roberge, pour ne nommer qu’eux, souhaitent retarder le groupe ? À l’interne, à la CAQ, une source explique qu’on en a déjà assez sur le dos avec les cas comme ceux de Bedford, qu’on n’a pas un vrai portrait de la situation de ces autres écoles, qu’on ne veut pas ouvrir le débat plus large sur l’école à trois vitesses et que, si elles enseignent correctement le curriculum, pourquoi en vouloir aux écoles religieuses visées par la motion ?…

Source: Lisée | Le défroqué de la laïcité

Selected commentary on Government’s reversal of immigration policies

The plan, apart from the numbers and the addition of targets for temporary residents, also had high level discussion of impacts on housing, healthcare and education, as I argued for in my December 2022 article Has immigration become a third rail in Canadian politics?

Major and overdue reversal, one that allows for a more serious discussion regarding immigration policies and priorities without accusations of xenophobia or racism (although see that some activists have already gone there).

Some selected commentary, mix of serious and agenda driven, no doubt more will follow.

Advocates:

A Dark Day for Canada: CILA Condemns Immigration Levels Plan 2025-2027: As an example of this, the federal government’s decision to aggressively increase permanent resident levels in 2021 during a challenging pandemic operating environment created a cascading effect on permanent and temporary resident programs which are still placing immense pressure on the immigration system today and will continue to do so over the foreseeable future. Another example was to allow international students to work full-time while class was in session. This change added to the growing number of foreign students coming to Canada, primarily to seek employment opportunities rather than academic pursuits. Consulting widely with stakeholders would give IRCC the information it needs to plan for the long-term and make policy decisions that are sustainable.  

While we are unable to change the past, it is incumbent on IRCC to learn from its recent shortcomings and ensure it hosts genuine stakeholder consultations moving forward so that immigration levels planning and other major policy decisions consider various viewpoints and we can proactively and effectively manage a healthier immigration system. 

OCASI: Immigration Levels Plan leaves behind refugees, families and people without status: We are deeply concerned that the government continues to incorrectly tie immigration numbers to housing pressures. Scapegoating immigrants for the lack of affordable housing is disgraceful, and will only increase anti-immigrant sentiment from politicians and the public. We expect better from the government and leaders of all political parties. 

These cuts also contradict the government’s acknowledgement that immigration is essential to Canada’s economic success and growth, and that 100% of Canada’s labour market growth comes from immigration. We call on the government to provide greater clarity on how the new levels plan is expected to resolve the public concerns it claims to address.

Canada betrays refugees – CCR Statement on 2025 Levels Announcement: In a shameful abdication of responsibility, the Canadian government has massively reduced its commitment to offer protection to those fleeing persecution and danger in the world, and all but ensured that refugees in Canada will remain separated from their spouses and children for years to come. The CCR condemns today’s announcement and calls on the government to reverse this dangerous course.

Media commentary

Clark: The day Justin Trudeau (sort of) admitted a mistake on immigration: The U-turn is unusual for governments, and out of character for this one. But it had become a political necessity to tell Canadians the Liberals are changing course. Mr. Trudeau even admitted he made a mistake. Or sort of.

Keller: The Trudeau government wants to restore the immigration consensus that it broke: Good news: Canada’s immigration consensus is back. Better news: It’s being restored by the people who broke it.

That means immigration is not going to become a divisive, polarizing and potentially explosive issue in the next federal election. Unlike our peers in Europe and the United States, we’re not going to have a radical left versus radical right brawl over the issue.

Why not? Because Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has come to its senses on this issue. It’s been moving in that direction for the last year and a half, and as of this week, it’s close to fully there.

Phillips | Don’t be fooled into thinking Canadians have soured on immigration — the truth is remarkable
Canadians, by a significant majority, still believe in the value of immigration and they aren’t scapegoating immigrants for their problems, which compared to what’s happening in other countries is quite remarkable. Apparently, not even massive screw-ups in the immigration system can change that. Be grateful.

John Ivison: Red flags all over Trudeau’s flawed plan to curb runaway immigration: The new immigration plan says that 62 per cent of permanent resident admissions will come from the economic class next year, up from 58 per cent in 2024.

But that might simply reflect the adoption of a proposal circulating in the Immigration Department that would create a new economic class of permanent residents for people with high-school education or less, who would otherwise not pass the Comprehensive Ranking point-system that has served Canada so well when it comes to selecting the best and brightest.

The fear among some economists is that this might apply the brakes to a situation that is out of control but risk derailing the whole locomotive by undermining the skills-based system and lowering the standard of permanent resident that Canada accepts.

SUN EDITORIAL: Reducing immigration necessary, not racist: We aren’t going to fault Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for admitting his high immigration policies were a mistake that contributed to today’s affordability crisis, including high housing costs.

We do fault him for his government’s false depiction of Canadians who were raising these concerns long before he did, as racists.

Jesse Kline: Toronto Star paints a skewed picture of Trudeau’s immigration cuts: The bigger problem is that Keung’s story ran in the news section, where reporters have traditionally been expected to provide unbiased accounts of the day’s events. Although Keung is a veteran of the Star’s newsroom, the issue of reporters blurring the line between news and opinion is becoming increasingly common — particularly among young journalists fresh out of university, where many professors now see it as their duty to train activists, rather than extol the virtues of objective journalism.

This influx of woke young journalists has fundamentally changed the culture of many newsrooms, even ones as storied as the New York Times, as its former opinion editor, James Bennet, lamented in a lengthy feature published in The Economist last December. Bennet noted that when he began working at the paper as a reporter in 1991, he started from the bottom and was taught to aspire to “journalistic neutrality and open-mindedness.” In 2006, he left to become editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, where he started to “see some effects of the new campus politics.” [Ironically, the NP increasingly resorts to anti-woke younger columnists.]

Academic

Worswick: As Canada cuts immigration numbers, we must also better select immigrants
The reduction in the immigration and temporary-resident targets can be seen as sound economic policy so long as we as a country maintain our historical focus on selecting economic immigrants who are likely to have high earnings in the Canadian labour market. This focus has played no small part in maintaining our pro-immigration consensus, which can continue under a properly designed set of immigration policies.

Various (Star selection)

Canada’s major changes to immigration targets met with widespread criticism: Diana Palmerin-Velasco, a director of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said the business community understands the need for a sustainable immigration system but is concerned about the plan’s implications on the labour market.

“It seems that the government might be overreacting,” she said. “It’s not just 100,000 fewer permanent residents. We are also expecting to see 400,000 fewer temporary residents. We are talking about 500,000 people.”

Scotiabank economist Rebekah Young said the drastic cuts to both permanent and temporary immigration are going to have a near-term macro impact on the economy, and there will be trade-offs.

“They are a source of labour supply and they provide economic activity through the workforce, but they also consume,” said Young. “We’re likely left with lower GDP, but not necessarily a stronger trajectory for the growth outlook.”

Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said the cuts are troubling to employers and small businesses.

“A restaurant owner who can’t find a cook ready and willing to work in their community will not have work for the Canadians who may work in the front of the house,” he said. “We need to rethink many of these recent changes and be ready to turn the dial back up.” 

The cuts mean migrants will be forced to remain temporary or become undocumented, and pushed further into exploitative jobs and conditions, said Syed Hussan of the Migrant Rights Network.

The Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association called the pullback a “dark day” for Canada, warning of economic, fiscal and social damage.

“We still have an aging population, low birth rate, and pressing economic and fiscal pressures,” said Barbara Jo Caruso, its co-president. “Canada’s fundamental need for immigration has not changed.”

Diana Gallego, president of the Canadian Council for Refugees, said behind the numbers slashed from the humanitarian component of the levels are 14,000 real people struggling under persecution or in conflict zones around the world.

Business

Statement by Century Initiative in Response to Federal Government’s 2025-2027 Immigration Levels Plan: “Cutting immigration targets is the ultimate hammer solution to a problem far more complex than a few loose nails. This decision projects panic and instability at a time when the country needs clarity and foresight. Canada’s reputation as a stable, welcoming environment for business and talent is now at risk.” — Lisa Lalande, CEO, Century Initiative 

CFIB statement on the latest immigration cuts: These decisions hold huge implications for small business owners, Canadian workers as well as permanent immigrants and temporary workers. A restaurant owner who can’t find a cook ready and willing to work in their community will not have work for the Canadians who may work in the front of the house. We need to rethink many of these recent changes and be ready to turn the dial back up whenever and wherever needed.

Size of Ottawa’s cuts to immigration targets takes business by surprise: Since the reduction is likely to take place when the economy is becoming less inflationary and interest rates decline, this could inspire “existing Canadians to ramp up their spending,” said James Orlando, director of economics at Toronto-Dominion Bank, instead of depending upon newcomers.

Bank of Montreal economist Robert Kavcic in a note on Thursday said that while the government’s decision will reduce demand, the narrative that slower population growth is bad for the economy needs to be dispelled.

He said gross domestic product per capita, which measures the total production of goods and services during a certain period divided by the total population, has fallen in seven of the eight quarters since the second quarter of 2022.

Canada’s immigration pullback may impact economic growth, BoC governor says: “If population growth comes down faster than we have assumed, headline GDP growth will be lower,” Macklem said in response to a question on how the immigration curbs would impact the bank’s forecasts.

If household spending recovers more quickly due to continued cut in interest rates, economic growth could also be higher, he said, while addressing reporters virtually from Washington.

Other

Peter Csillag: Bigger numbers, fewer safeguards, and no accountability—How to fix Canada’s foreign worker program woes: The government’s signal this week that it is willing to not only entertain but actually implement restrictions on its broader immigration agenda is welcome, but far too little, too late. While the high-profile announcement of cuts to the number of permanent residents allowed into Canada is much needed, broader problems persist, particularly with the TFW program. It will be up to the next government to solve them.

Liberals to reduce immigration levels by 135K over two-year period: Sergio Karas, a specialist in immigration law agrees, he told True North that while this reduction is necessary given the housing crisis and the current state of the economy, he still believes that number should be further reduced. 

“As usual, the Trudeau government is doing it wrong,” said Karas. 

“The total number should be reduced to the 2015 levels of approximately 300,000 because the federal government inflated the number exponentially in the last nine years, but more important are the categories where the reduction should be applied. Not all applicants have the same ability to adapt, job security, language skills, and expertise required to ensure economic growth.”

Government announcement

The 2025–2027 Immigration Levels Plan is expected to result in a marginal population decline of 0.2% in both 2025 and 2026 before returning to a population growth of 0.8% in 2027. These forecasts account for today’s announcement of reduced targets across multiple immigration streams over the next two years, as well as expected temporary resident outflows resulting from the 5% target, natural population loss and other factors.

With this year’s levels plan, we have listened to Canadians. We are reducing our permanent resident targets. Compared to last year’s plan, we are:

  • reducing from 500,000 permanent residents to 395,000 in 2025
  • reducing from 500,000 permanent residents to 380,000 in 2026
  • setting a target of 365,000 permanent residents in 2027

The Levels Plan also supports efforts to reduce temporary resident volumes to 5% of Canada’s population by the end of 2026. Given temporary resident reduction measures announced in September and this past year, Canada’s temporary population will decrease over the next few years as significantly more temporary residents will transition to being permanent residents or leave Canada compared to new ones arriving.

Specifically, compared to each previous year, we will see Canada’s temporary population decline by

  • 445,901 in 2025
  • 445,662 in 2026
  • a modest increase of 17,439 in 2027

These reductions are the result of a series of changes over the past year, including a cap on international students and tightened eligibility requirements for temporary foreign workers, implemented to decrease volumes and strengthen the integrity and quality of our temporary resident programs. The changes are designed with long-term economic goals in mind to make sure that we continue to attract the best and the brightest.

These changes will help provinces, territories and stakeholders align their capacities and allow the population to grow at a sustainable pace as we encourage institutions to do their part in better welcoming newcomers.

Other measures from the 2025-2027 Immigration Levels Plan include the following:

  • Transitioning more temporary residents who are already in Canada as students and workers to permanent residents
    Representing more than 40% of overall permanent resident admissions in 2025, these residents are skilled, educated and integrated into Canadian society. They will continue to support the workforce and economy without placing additional demands on our social services because they are already established, with housing and employment.
  • Focusing on long-term economic growth and key labour market sectors, such as health and trades
    Permanent resident admissions in the economic class will reach 61.7% of total admissions by 2027.
  • Strengthening Francophone communities outside Quebec and supporting their economic prosperity
    Of the overall permanent resident admission targets, Francophone immigration will represent
    • 8.5% in 2025
    • 9.5% in 2026
    • 10% in 2027

Through this plan, we are using our existing programs so that everyone—including newcomers—has access to the well-paying jobs, affordable homes and social services they need to thrive in our beautiful country.

Source: Government of Canada reduces immigration


















Rioux | La solitude des profs

A noter:

…En France, les islamistes s’évertuent à « maintenir un niveau de connaissances faible afin de tuer l’esprit critique et le rationalisme, l’imaginaire et la fiction, ou encore ignorer l’Histoire, qui n’aurait aucun intérêt pour la connaissance de Dieu », dit l’historien Pierre Vermeren. Sans parler de l’éducation sexuelle…

On ne s’étonnera pas que, laissés à eux-mêmes, 56 % des professeurs français s’autocensurent sur la Shoah, le conflit israélo-palestinien, et n’osent plus montrer à leurs élèves la Vénus de Botticelli. Avant l’assassinat de Samuel Paty, ils n’étaient que 38 %. Pourtant, combien sont-ils à se cacher la tête dans le sable sans même oser prononcer le mot « islamisme » ? Face à la démission de ceux qui ne veulent pas faire de vagues, ne vous demandez pas pourquoi les professeurs se sentent abandonnés.

… In France, Islamists strive to “maintain a low level of knowledge in order to kill critical thinking and rationalism, imagination and fiction, or ignore History, which would have no interest in the knowledge of God,” says historian Pierre Vermeren. Not to mention sex education…

We will not be surprised that, left to themselves, 56% of French teachers self-censor the Shoah, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and no longer dare to show their students the Botticelli Venus. Before the assassination of Samuel Paty, they were only 38%. However, how many of them hide their heads in the sand without even daring to say the word “Islamism”? Faced with the resignation of those who do not want to make waves, do not ask yourself why teachers feel abandoned.

Source: Chronique | La solitude des profs

Teachers say immigrants not to blame as Quebec links teacher shortage to newcomers

Interesting that have not seen similar stories from other provinces, the vast majority of whom have higher levels of immigrants:

Quebec’s school year started on a familiar note: thousands of teaching spots were unfilled, and the provincial government had to defend itself for its failure to solve the problem.

But as politicians continue to point to immigration — a common justification for the province’s ills — as the main culprit, education experts say newcomers are not the underlying cause of the widespread teacher shortages.

“There has been a significant increase in the number of children who need a teacher because of the explosion in the number of immigrants,” Quebec Premier François Legault told reporters last week, despite also mentioning working conditions and salaries as other reasons the education system is lacking personnel.

In mid-August, Quebec Education Minister Bernard Drainville said there were 20,000 more students enrolled than last year, about 80 per cent of whom are newcomers to the province. With about 5,700 teaching positions unfilled, he called on the federal government to “get control of the immigration process to reduce temporary immigration in Quebec, particularly asylum seekers.”

Statistics from last week showed 1,957 teaching positions across the education system had yet to be filled.

Drainville’s math, however, doesn’t add up, says Diane Querrien, professor in the department of French studies at Montreal’s Concordia University.

“Even if you go with the worst-case scenario, meaning that the 20,000 more students are all immigrants, it doesn’t make sense,” Querrien said, explaining that dividing that figure by the roughly 5,700 unstaffed positions would mean hiring one teacher for groups of only three to four students.

The Canadian Press asked the Quebec Education Department for clarity, but it did not respond to a request for comment.

Immigration, Querrien added, doesn’t explain why some outlying regions, which receive fewer immigrants than do big cities, are also short on teachers — and have been for years.

Mélanie Hubert, president of teachers union Fédération autonome de l’enseignement, says it’s true that a rise in the number of immigrant children requires more staff in French-language schools. But Quebec has done little to replace a generation of retiring teachers, she lamented.

“As long as we have a lot of people retiring and fewer people coming out of university, we’re bound to have a shortage of teachers. And that’s something we could have planned for,” she said.

“Maybe we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in now, and we’d be able to absorb the number of students arriving from immigrant families.”

A teacher shortage is also being felt in the province’s English schools, despite the fact Quebec’s strict language laws force the vast majority of immigrants to enrol their children in the French system.

Steven Le Sueur​, president of the Quebec Provincial Association of Teachers, said the uptick in immigrant students has had “minimal” impact on Quebec’s English schools and yet they are still searching for qualified teachers. As of Friday, Le Sueur​ said 200 positions were unfilled.

Poor working conditions and low pay over the past two decades has resulted in fewer people entering teaching programs and many educators throwing in the towel shortly after they enter the system. “We’re losing 25 per cent of our new teachers within the first five years, so it’s something that needs to be addressed,” Le Sueur​ said.

University of Sherbrooke professor Philippa Parks, who studies the reasons teachers leave the profession, thinks Le Sueur​’s 25 per cent estimate might be on the conservative side; she said the statistics vary, but it could be as high as 50 per cent.

Immigration is “a drop in the bucket,” Parks said. “I think it’s a little bit of dog whistling and disingenuous here because it is one of many factors.”

The main one, she said, is teachers not getting the support and training needed in the classroom, especially after reforms bringing students with learning and physical disabilities who had previously been educated separately into the same classrooms as the general population.

The other issue, Parks says, is that teaching is no longer the middle-class profession with status it used to be. “I started teaching in 1998 and I could buy a house. I actually put down a down payment with my salary as a teacher and of course things have changed dramatically.”

Despite recent salary increases — 17.4 per cent over five years — after thousands of teachers went on strike in the province last year, Le Sueur​ and Parks say it will take time to attract more teachers to the profession and more needs to be done to make the day-to-day lives on educators easier.

University of Ottawa emeritus professor François Rocher, who researches immigration and Quebec nationalism, says the current teacher shortage is “just another example of how Coalition Avenir Québec has framed the issue of immigration.”

“Immigration has been used as a cause for many other ‘problems’ that we have seen in Quebec,” he said, adding that the CAQ has also pinned blame on immigrants for the province’s housing crisis, a decline in the use of French in Quebec and increased demands for health-care services.

Source: Teachers say immigrants not to blame as Quebec links teacher shortage to newcomers

Pathways of Black, Latin American and other population groups in bachelor’s degree programs

Of interest and another demonstration of the value of disaggregated data between visible minority groups with of course the “why” questions harder to answer:

This article fills this gap by documenting various aspects of the postsecondary experience of different population groups with regard to bachelor’s degree programs. The findings suggest that different population groups registered very dissimilar experiences.

For example, Chinese students ranked near the top in bachelor’s degree enrolment rates; graduation rates; enrolment in math-intensive science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) programs; and (among students who initially enrolled in STEM) STEMgraduation rates. By contrast, Black students consistently ranked near the bottom and trailed Chinese students by a considerable margin on all of these measures. Latin American students also ranked fairly low in most measures.

Meanwhile, other groups had varied experiences depending on the outcome. While White students ranked low in terms of bachelor’s degree enrolment rates, they ranked high in terms of graduation rates. White students also ranked low in math-intensive STEMenrolment rates, but among students who initially enrolled in STEM, their STEM graduation rates were among the highest. By contrast, Korean students were among the most likely to enrol in a bachelor’s degree program, but once in these programs, their graduation rates and math-intensive STEM enrolment rates were about average.

These results are important as they point to specific stages in the pursuit of higher education where choices and outcomes diverge across population groups, which could contribute to understanding the differences in labour market outcomes that exist across population groups. Understanding why certain population groups are less likely to graduate from a bachelor’s degree program would require information on the reasons for dropping out or switching programs. These may include academic difficulties, financial constraints or even favourable labour market opportunities. …

Source: Pathways of Black, Latin American and other population groups in bachelor’s degree programs