Globe editorial: There can’t be two types of Canadian citizen [C-3 citizenship by descent]

Very good Globe editorial assessing Conservative and Bloc amendments to C-3 and correctly distinguishing between the sound amendments of having a time limit of five-years to meet the residency requirement of 1,095 days and the requirement to have annual reporting on the number of persons claiming citizenship under the Bill’s provisions and the less sound amendments to require language and knowledge assessment and criminality/security checks that apply to new citizens, not those entitled to citizenship.

The Liberals and NDP removed the amendments at third reading. We will now see how the Senate deals with the Bill shortly, and whether it passes the original bill or provides some sober second thought and reinstates these two amendments:

…Last month, the Conservatives, supported by the Bloc, added an amendment in committee to change the requirement that in order to pass on citizenship, a foreign-born Canadian needs to spend 1,095 cumulative days in Canada before the child is born or adopted. The Conservative change would require the parent to spend 1,095 days in Canada within a five-year period. This revision makes sense, as it means these individuals have truly lived here, rather than just spent a few weeks at their grandparents’ cottage each summer. It demonstrates a more meaningful connection with Canada, and administratively, it will be easier to prove. 

The Conservative amendments would also require a report to Parliament annually on how many new citizens the bill creates. This is a sensible requirement. 

The problems lie with the Conservatives’ addition of an English or French language test, a security screening for criminal activity, and a citizenship test demonstrating knowledge of Canadian history. These requirements are similar to those needed by immigrants applying for citizenship, so it sounds logical – but it confuses the issue. 

Halt of ‘Lost Canadians’ bill could mean citizenship for thousands born to parents with no ties to Canada

Canadians by descent get their citizenship at birth based on their parents’ status. Presumably, under the Conservative rules, if these people applied as adults for citizenship certificates or passports and failed the tests, they could be stripped of their citizenship. Uyen Hoang, director-general of the citizenship branch at the Immigration Department, has warned that the tests would be “impossible to operationalize.” …

Source: There can’t be two types of Canadian citizen

Globe editorial: The rights of Quebeckers aren’t a political plaything

Indeed:

…In Canada, the human rights protected by the Charter are tempered by the first clause of the 1982 Constitution, but “only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

The notwithstanding clause is likewise an attempt to balance the power of the courts with that of elected officials.

But as a legal constitution, it starts from the premise that individual rights are paramount and are embedded in law. Quebec’s proposed bill is a political constitution that starts from the opposite premise: that the majority needs protection from a minority of others who might not share its language and beliefs, and that these protections should be embedded in the quicksand of political necessity.

To make that happen, the proposed constitution gives vast powers to the Quebec National Assembly and the politicians in it and then shields itself from judicial oversight. The rights of Quebeckers would thus be subject to the whims of elected officials who answer only to the needs of their electoral fortunes.

Quebeckers clearly want their government to defend their language and culture. But universal human rights of equality and liberty are not some confection of English Canada. Quebeckers should demand that Mr. Legault scrap a law that would turn their fundamental freedoms into the playthings of politicians. 

Source: The rights of Quebeckers aren’t a political plaything

ICYMI – Globe editorial: Ottawa narrows the private path for settling refugees

One of the more successful programs:

…However, the sidelining of this remarkable program is unfortunate, as privately sponsored refugees have better outcomes than those assisted by the government. Not only is it initially cheaper for the government, but a study tracking the outcomes of Syrian refugees showed that privately sponsored ones were more likely to be employed and less likely to be on government assistance. Privately sponsored refugees also have higher incomes. A 2024 Senate report recommended boosting the program. 

Yes, Canada needs to get better control of its immigration system, but let’s not lose track of our rich tradition of helping refugees. Their entry doesn’t always need to be directly managed by government – grassroots groups can help, and their strong interest shows these refugees have support to integrate here. 

While it’s true that Canada can’t help all people in need during this time of increased global displacement, surely we can maintain our commitments to help refugees. The privately sponsored program remains one of the best ways to do it. 

Source: Ottawa narrows the private path for settling refugees

Globe editorial: Tweets and platitudes will not defeat antisemitism

Good points:

…It bears repeating: Whatever your view on Israel’s actions in Gaza, Jewish Canadians are not responsible for the actions of the Netanyahu government, any more than Muslim Canadians are responsible for the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah, or Russian Canadians are culpable for Vladimir Putin’s war of aggression.

That simple fact seems to elude the protesters who target the places that Jewish Canadians gather, including near the Ottawa grocery store where last week’s attack took place. Those protesters have a constitutional right to express their anger. But they also have moral responsibilities, namely to ask themselves whether the manner of their protest is fostering an atmosphere of hate….

Source: Tweets and platitudes will not defeat antisemitism

Globe editorial: Ottawa’s AI push must translate into savings [translation]

Other areas ripe for AI use are the overhead functions of HR and Finance:

…That is a good thing. Translators are no strangers to machines; they’ve been using computer tools for decades. But they have often warned that the programs are imperfect and nowhere near good enough to replace them. “At times, a ChatGPT translation will make sense,” Joachim Lépine, co-founder of LION Translation Academy in Sherbrooke, Que. wrote in a LinkedIn post this month. But “’sometimes useful’ is not good enough for high-stakes situations. Only humans have professional judgment. Period.”

However, new generative AI tools are rapidly improving in quality and are good enough to competently handle routine translations of mundane texts such as policy documents, press releases or memos. The more the programs learn from the language fed into them, the better they should become – although more critical documents such as laws and court rulings should continue to be handled by humans.

A centrepiece of the bureau’s rethink is its AI project, a program called PSPC Translate, which draws from the government’s data and language storehouse. It could serve as a bellwether for further government efficiencies and savings using AI. True success would be if the initiative translated into real savings and allowed government to slash the size of the bureau. 

Source: Ottawa’s AI push must translate into savings

Globe editorial: Cheap excuses for betraying free speech, Lederman

Agreed:

…The other disturbing commonality is that officials are failing to reflexively protect the invaluable right to freedom of artistic and political expression in Canada.

We have no doubt that if noisy protesters demanded the withdrawal of a TIFF movie because of its glorification of violence, TIFF officials would be the first to stand up for the filmmaker’s right to artistic expression. 

But when it comes to telling stories or singing songs that some deem offensive, that reflex has been replaced by a knee-jerk run for cover.

This is an alarming development in Canada. In difficult times, we need people in positions of authority to stand up for freedom of expression – not look for excuses to abandon it. That never ends well for anyone.

Source: Cheap excuses for betraying free speech

And Marsha Lederman’s take, TIFF’s latest censorship controversy is more than just a tiff. It’s existential:

…All of this has created not just chasms in the arts community and a chill on artistic expression, but a disincentive for organizations considering ponying up to support the arts. You want your brand associated with something positive and meaningful: a literary prize, a film festival, maybe a theatre festival that claims to push the boundaries. (Vancouver’s PuSh International Performing Arts Festival also caved to dissenters, cancelling the Canadian play The Runner last year.) But shell out money to get embroiled in this? In this economy?

The arts are in trouble and need corporate support. The world is in trouble and needs art to guide and inform, and artists who help us understand the issues and inspire us to be brave and fight for what’s right.

Which is something TIFF should be doing.



Globe editorial: Why to drop a bad idea on immigration

Appears dropped may be actually dropped. Money line “we want it in writing.” Regional effects vary, may be more negative impact in rural Canada compared to need to reduce in urban centres:

…Canada’s immigration system is on the mend today because of belated reforms introduced in the dying months of the Trudeau government, and due to further fixes under the Liberals’ current reincarnation. 

Ottawa is now trying to reduce the number of temporary residents in Canada, from 7.1 per cent of the total population to 5 per cent by the end of 2026.

The country is also at a historic crossroads as it tries to shake up its economy in order to be less reliant on the United States. A big part of that will involve improving Canada’s productivity, which in turn means businesses need to become more efficient. Letting them continue to rely on low-wage, low-skill labour when the unemployment rate is 6.9 per cent would be self-defeating. 

The fact that Ottawa is not moving ahead with its low-skilled pathway into the country means it may have seen the light. But we want it in writing.

Source: Why to drop a bad idea on immigration

Poilievre says Canada needs ‘more people leaving than coming’

Of note:

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre says for the next couple of years “we need more people leaving than coming” into Canada.

On Monday, Poilievre was asked by Global News to clarify his June comments calling for “severe limits on population growth.

“In order to fix the problem we’ve got to put very hard caps on immigration levels. We need more people leaving than coming for the next couple of years,” said Poilievre at a news conference in Ottawa. “So our country can actually catch up.”

 Poilievre said this move could help housing, health care and jobs “catch up,” but he did not elaborate on how he would ensure more people leave the country.

“We’ve had population growth of roughly a million a year under the Liberals while we barely built 200,000 homes. Our job market is stalled and yet we are adding more people to the workforce,” said Poilievre.

“Our young people are facing generational highs in unemployment because the jobs are, multinational corporations are giving jobs to low wage temporary foreign workers.”…

Source: Poilievre says Canada needs ‘more people leaving than coming’

And the Globe editorial commenting on his remarks:

…Mr. Poilievre would take a different approach by applying a “hard rule” in which population intake does not exceed the growth in the housing stock, the job market and the availability of doctors.

There is merit to that approach, although the emphasis should be on using permanent residency as a tool to ease shortages of specific skills, such as doctors. The focus of any effort to reduce the weight of migration on housing and social services should be squarely on temporary residents. 

Re-establishing public confidence in the immigration system means restricting temporary foreign workers to areas where there simply aren’t Canadians able and willing to take a job, such as in the agriculture sector. Permits for other businesses should, for the most part, be denied. If those firms cannot operate without the subsidy of indentured labour, then they do not have a viable business model.

Federal and provincial governments must return the international student program to its former role of recruiting highly qualified students from around the world who will make excellent candidates to become permanent residents once they graduate. As this space has repeatedly argued, those students should be limited to on-campus work.

And the government must follow through on its proposals to end the abuses of the asylum system.

Mr. Poilievre’s proposed formula needs work, but the idea is at least a recognition that immigration targets in recent years have been arbitrary – and a big part of the reason that Canadians are losing faith in the system.

Source: Let’s focus on the right fix for immigration

Globe editorial: The Liberals get around to fixing the thing they broke

Valid call for separate bill with proposed cheeky title:

…It’s a package clearly meant to appease Mr. Trump. But Canada’s immigration problems are not a border security issue the way they are at the U.S. frontier with Mexico.

Other than the anomaly of the Roxham Road crossing, which has been fixed by a renegotiation of the STCA, Canada’s problem has not been a porous border but, rather, the mismanagement of its immigration and refugee system by Mr. Carney’s predecessor.

Lumping in these needed reforms with criminal matters glosses over the Liberals’ failings while doing a disservice to people legitimately fleeing persecution or looking for a new life in Canada.

The government should put the immigration reforms in their own bill. A suggested name would be, “Belatedly Undoing the Incompetence of the Trudeau Government Act.”

Source: The Liberals get around to fixing the thing they broke

Globe editorial: The Liberals open the door to foreign interference

Absolutely. Shameful, and almost disqualifying given all the reports and the ongoing enquiry. Will see whether the caucus meeting Wednesday injected some common sense and reality:

…As we’ve said before, all the parties are guilty of having lax rules that increase the possibility of foreign interference in their nomination and leadership races. But the Liberal Party’s are particularly lax and not up to the moment, given what is at stake in its upcoming leadership race.

Only Canadian citizens normally have a say in which party forms government and who will serve as prime minister; permanent residents aren’t allowed to vote in federal elections.

If the Liberals want to extend that right to permanent residents in the case of their leadership race, so be it; other parties do that as well. But for the sake of the integrity of the process, they should stop there, and also increase the age limit to 18 out of deference to regular eligible voters.

Doing so would send the message that the Liberal Party won’t brook foreign interference, and that it respects the significance of the outcome of its leadership race.

On the other hand, it could do nothing and reinforce the view held by so many Canadians that the party is out of touch with this country – the very thing that made the leadership race necessary in the first place.

Source: The Liberals open the door to foreign interference