Jamie Sarkonak: P.E.I.’s Dennis King was the only premier with the guts to tackle immigration

Parallels with the federal reversals:

…Once a province with a stable population, P.E.I.’s growth has reached a crescendo in recent years. From 2000 to 2010, total residents ranged from 136,000 to roughly 140,000. From 2010 to 2020, that figure rose to 159,000. Since 2020, it reached a whopping 179,000.

In other words, it once took a whole decade for the province to gain 4,000 people. Now, it takes five years to gain 20,000 people.

The consequences? Crowding in virtually every system. Housing is stretched to its limit, with vacancy rates in the province ranging from two to 0.1 per cent, depending on the quarter, in 2023 and 2024 (for comparison, 2012 vacancy rates hovered at about five per cent).

Health care, meanwhile, hasn’t fared much better. One-fifth of Islanders were without a doctor in 2024 and wait times are long. While P.E.I. has attempted to tackle backlogs by all sorts of means — it’s worked with the telehealth platform Maple to increase access to primary care, for example — capacity remains slim. In 2023, the province’s health minister pinned much of the blame on impossible-to-keep-up-with population growth.

While most immigration is within the federal government’s sphere of control, the provinces can alter the number of immigrants coming in through the provincial nominee program (subject to federal limits), and this is where King found an opportunity to make cuts.

He would have known that outrage would follow when he announced the cuts — and indeed, it did. A loud contingent of foreign workers and students, who believed the provincial nominee program was their ticket to permanent Canadian residency, organized a protest that lasted for months.

They marched and chanted. They set up encampments. They held on-and-off hunger strikes. They spoke to the legislature. They found support among pro-immigration non-profits and in the media — CBC’s coverage naturally focused on the plight of the protesters and the loyalty of their allies rather than their critics, creating an illusion of popularity (online forums, like Reddit, generally featured far more contempt for the protesters than sympathy)….

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: P.E.I.’s Dennis King was the only premier with the guts to tackle immigration

Jamie Sarkonak: Good riddance to all the Liberal bills that Trudeau just culled

…Also dead is that bill that would have made thousands of people around the world eligible for Canadian citizenship.

Bill C-71, if you remember, would give the children of Canadians born abroad citizenship through descent, as long as the parents can establish a “substantial connection” to Canada. The guardrail wouldn’t be a secure one, since some judges don’t believe that there are any citizens who lack a connection to the country.

The bill’s proponents marketed it as a remedy to a rare problem that sometimes afflicts Canadian families who live abroad, such as military families. However, in trying to solve their problems, the bill would have made it much easier for citizenship to be obtained by the grandchildren of birth tourists (people who who travel to Canada to give birth, which secures Canadian citizenship for their child)…

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Good riddance to all the Liberal bills that Trudeau just culled

Jamie Sarkonak: Immigration needs to work for Canadians, not rule-breakers from abroad

Two minds on this decision. On the one hand, the judge was emphasizing the welfare of children, on the other hand, clearly fraudulent refugee case. And will the family be actually deported once the school year is over?

…Ministers have the power to step in and block deportations — I have no problem with that — but the government shouldn’t be obligated to carry out lengthy procedures designed to give those here illegally every shot at staying. In a country with supposedly fixed borders and social supports, it shouldn’t take this much state capacity to remove those who aren’t cleared to be here.

On the criminal front, it’s just as bad. Due to court precedent, Canadian judges are obligated to consider “immigration consequences” when sentencing non-citizen offenders. In some cases, it results in a sentence discount: nightclub gropers and drunken burglars from abroad have received lighter sentences under this rule to give them a greater shot at remaining in Canada.

There are plenty more legitimate refugees, and otherwise law-abiding non-citizen newcomers who are eager to adapt to Canadian life and get on the path to citizenship. Let state resources go to supporting them, and not people who abuse our rules to harm others and extend their already illegal stays.

Canadians deserve a system that works for them, not outsiders. Let that be a change that graces us in 2025.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Immigration needs to work for Canadians, not rule-breakers from abroad

Jamie Sarkonak: Expect more injustice from the Liberals’ forthcoming Black Justice Strategy

Sarkonak continues her focus on the excesses of some advisory panels in recommendations that cross the line between recognizing different experiences and issues and developing separate bodies or processes to accommodate them:

…The report amounts to a socialist manifesto advancing cliché policy ideas that were all the rage during the Summer of George Floyd. Which is probably what the Liberals hoped to get out of the process: some kind of document that allows them to run the “experts said” defence when they ultimately propose to vandalize the Criminal Code.

Indeed, Canadians are overwhelmingly in favour of colourblind (rather than colour-conscious) policy at a rate of 70 to 30. When it comes to drugs and crime, a 2023 Leger survey found that nearly 80 per cent believe that too many violent offenders are being given bail, and about the same amount believe that the justice system is too lenient on criminals. About 70 per cent wanted more policing and tougher laws on drugs.

Beyond being plain offensive to the general public’s sense of justice, the ideas currently being weighed in Minister Arif Virani’s office likely miss some number of their target audience, too. One prominent voice, Conservative MP Jamil Jivani, is one example in the “no” camp.

“Black Canadians, like all Canadians, deserve a justice system focused on community safety,” he wrote last week on X.

“If the policies contained in the so-called ‘Black Justice Strategy’ report are adopted, there will surely be more crime, drugs and disorder in our communities. There will also be more victims of crime, and black Canadians will be affected along with the rest of the country.”

If the final Black Justice Strategy looks anything like what handpicked experts envision, it will be painfully out of touch. It will cost. It will reek of unfairness, diverting even more public resources to a fraction of Canadians to the detriment of everyone else. And it will be genuinely harmful by hamstringing the state’s ability to separate bad actors from the law-abiding public — by imprisonment or deportation.

Perhaps worst of all, it will promote the corrosive conception of Canada as a confederacy of racial groups rather than a unified state for Canadian citizens.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Expect more injustice from the Liberals’ forthcoming Black Justice Strategy

Jamie Sarkonak: Liberals water down citizenship for grandkids of convenience Canadians

While there is a diversity of perspectives among right leaning media, Sarkonak represents the consensus:

…Applying the court’s logic to any other situation reveals the absurdity of it all. If withholding citizenship from Canadian spawn two generations removed from home is discrimination, why not three? Four? And if any rule somehow can be perceived by a judge to reinforce a negative stereotype, what else violates equality rights?

Any reasonable government would have appealed, but not our feds. This decision granted legalistic cover to hand out more passports Oprah-style, and a higher court may not have been so generous.

The PR campaign to advance C-71 has taken care to focus on the saddest, most sympathetic stories that can be found: the cases of Type-A parents whose children have high “Canadian-ness” — speak our language, participate in our culture, share our values — but can’t, for whatever administrative reasons, obtain citizenship. These individual cases could be resolved through ministerial intervention today by Miller, which he knows and admits, but his government wants a rule so broad to include all.

On the other hand, there are others who barely have a Canadian connection at generation zero. Some are passport babies, whose mothers travelled to Canada for the purpose of obtaining citizenship for their children. According to Canadian Institute for Health Information data, compiled by analyst Andrew Griffiths for Policy Options magazine, there have been more than 40,000 of such births from 2010 to 2022.

Others have obtained Canadian privileges but have returned home. This was especially apparent in 2006, when the Lebanon civil war broke out that July. Some 40,000 people in Lebanon were registered with the Canadian embassy at the time, and $94 million was spent to evacuate about 14,000 of them to Canada; by September, the government estimated that 7,000 of those evacuees had returned to Lebanon, providing the catalyst for the Harper government to tighten citizenship rules in the first place.

New conflicts shake out new numbers. After fighting erupted in Sudan last year, prompting Canada to evacuate 175 Canadian citizens and permanent residents, Post columnist John Ivison spoke with a government source who estimated that up to half of the evacuees were “refugees who were granted status in Canada and then returned to Sudan, with some continuing to claim welfare and child benefits.”

“Most of these people have been living in Sudan for years,” said the source. “Sometimes they never really lived in Canada and don’t speak English or French.”

And who knows what the tally in Gaza is; in November, the foreign affairs department estimated that 600 Canadians, permanent residents and family members were in the strip. Some of these no doubt include aid workers, but by news reports, they also include young families who are clearly being raised intentionally abroad.

Those children can grow up elsewhere, without learning any English or French, without becoming attuned to our ways of life, our common sense of right and wrong; without ever paying Canadian taxes. Without giving anything in return, they can turn to the Canadian state for help — rescue, health care, and so on. The same can be said for their children, who only need to spend a few years in Canada to be eligible to pass on the same to their children.

The Liberal bill would ensure that the rest of Canada — those of us who have received the Canadian tradition and intend to preserve it for our children, who have a direct interest in our state’s success, who pay income taxes throughout our lives — could be obligated to support three whole generations of convenience-citizens as if they were our countrymen the whole time. It would do so under the guise of helping a narrow group of expats who can, at best, receive help from the minister, and, at worst, have their children apply for citizenship the normal way.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Liberals water down citizenship for grandkids of convenience Canadians

Jamie Sarkonak: Zealous DEI commissars threaten integrity of Canada’s medical profession

Captures the perspective and views of what a possible Conservative government thinks about DEI and what they might do with respect to employment equity:

…The next place DEI intends to colonize is the foundational set of themes that underpin physician training in Canada, the CanMEDS framework. Last revised in 2015, CanMEDS is up for renewal in 2025. The most radical change? DEI.

Doctors involved in the revision are proposing to make progressive-left values standard in physician training, including anti-racism, social justice, cultural humility, decolonization and intersectionality — all concepts coined by progressive, redistributive racialists who tend to despise western culture.

Health equity experts are all-in on this stuff, so expect the “experts say” coverage to be overwhelmingly positive. A preview is offered by Kannin Osei-Tutu, a medical professor at U of C, who recently hailed the upcoming CanMEDS revision as an “unprecedented opportunity” for transformation.

“Transformative change in medical education and practice demands explicit integration of anti-oppressive competencies,” he wrote in last month’s issue of the Canadian Medical Journal of Health (which only ever seems to publish one side of this great debate).

“Progress hinges on cultivating a critical mass of physicians committed to this change, thus paving the way for more equitable and just health care.”

Wondering where all this goes? Look to New Zealand, a fellow British colony that has taken to reconciling with extreme self-flagellatory policies. In 2023, some of the island nation’s hospitals began prioritizing Indigenous Māori and Pacific patients on elective surgery wait lists on the basis of race.

“It’s ethically challenging to treat anyone based on race, it’s their medical condition that must establish the urgency of the treatment,” one anonymous doctor told the New Zealand Herald.

Plenty more like-minded doctors exist in Canada, but they are drowned out by heavy-handed administrations that insist on turning their profession into another stage of ideological performance. Their best recourse? Their provincial ministers of health and post-secondary education, who are uniquely empowered to turn things around.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Zealous DEI commissars threaten integrity of Canada’s medical profession

Advocates, union applaud legislative commitment for groups for Black, LGBTQ+ workers, Sarkonak: Liberals to mandate reverse discrimination with job quotas for Black, LGBT people

Two contrasting takes, starting with predictable support from advocates:

A news release by Employment and Social Development Canada said that, on top of creating the two new groups, “initial commitments to modernize the Act” included replacing the term “Aboriginal Peoples” with “Indigenous Peoples,” replacing “members of visible minorities” with “racialized people” and making the definition of “persons with disabilities” more inclusive.

Adelle Blackett, chair of the 12-member Employment Equity Act Review Task Force, said the recommendations were designed to address a lack of resources, consultation and understanding of how legislation should be applied.

Blackett noted that the report offered a framework to help workplaces identify and eradicate barriers to employment equity.

Nicolas Marcus Thompson, executive director of the Black Class Action Secretariat, a group that in 2020 filed a lawsuit against the federal government claiming systemic workplace discrimination against Black Canadians, said the commitment marked a “historic win” for workers.

He added this could not have been done without the work of the Black Class Action.

…….

Jason Bett of the Public Service Pride Network said that group “wholeheartedly” endorsed the report’s recommendation to designate Black people and 2SLGBTQIA+ people as designated groups under the Employment Equity Act.

“Our network has been actively engaged in the consultation process with the Employment Equity Review Task Force, and we are pleased to note our contribution to the report,” Bett said. “The PSPN is committed to collaborating on the effective implementation of the recommendations, contributing to a more inclusive and equitable employment landscape in the federal public service.”

Source: Advocates, union applaud legislative commitment for groups for Black, LGBTQ+ workers

Equally predictably, the National Post’s Jamie Sarkonak has criticized the analysis and recommendations (valid with respect to a separate category for Black public servants given that disaggregated data in both employment equity and public service surveys highlight that 2017-22 hiring, promotion and separation rates are stronger than many other visible minorities groups and indeed, not visible minorities: see ee-analysis-of-disaggregated-data-by-group-and-gender-2022-submission-1):

Why would the task force recommend a special category for Black people when the law already privileges visible minorities? The report writers largely cited history (slavery and segregation), as well as employment data. Drawing attention to hiring stats, it said that when comparing Black people to other visible minorities in the federal government, “representation between the period of job application, through automated screening, through organizational screening, assessment and ultimately appointment fell from 10.3 per cent down to 6.6 per cent.”

This analysis ignored the fact Black people, accounting for only four per cent of the population, apply and are hired at higher rates compared to Chinese (five per cent of the population) and Indian minorities (seven per cent). Because Black people are comparatively overrepresented in hiring, this should satisfy DEI mathematicians. The numbers also don’t explain why failed applicants were screened out: were these applicants simply unqualified?

The report also finds that Black employees from 2005 to 2018 had a negative promotion rate relative to non-Black employees — another non-proof of racism, because it’s possible those employees simply didn’t merit a promotion. Federal departments, noted the report writers, have nevertheless wanted to make up for these discrepancies by focusing their efforts on hiring Black people — but were unable to, because the diversity target law targets the broader “visible minorities” group.

The task force also pointed to Canada’s “distinct history of slavery,” abolished by the comparatively progressive British Empire in 1834 before Confederation, as another reason for special status

Slavery was objectively wrong, but it is much less clear why it should factor into special hiring considerations today. There were relatively few slaves in Canada and not all of them were Black. It would be notoriously difficult to determine who in Canada is still affected by this history — and impossible to hold others living today responsible. Additionally, the majority of Canada’s Black population is made up of immigrants who are unlikely to trace family lines back to enslaved Canadian ancestors.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Liberals to mandate reverse discrimination with job quotas for Black, LGBT people

Link to full report: A Transformative Framework to Achieve and Sustain Employment Equity – Report of the Employment Equity Act Review Task Force (on my reading list)

Jamie Sarkonak: Multicultural ‘awareness months’ fail to raise awareness

Unfortunately, she has a point. But they are important to specific communities and provide opportunities for political announcements and events.

Was essential part of the job when working at multiculturalism, drafting press releases and ministerial and other speeches and talking points:

October is Women’s History Month. It’s also Latin American Heritage Month. And German Heritage Month. And Canadian Islamic History Month. And 2SLGBTQQIA+ History Month (though this has not been recognized by the federal government — yet). Some provinces recognize this to be Canadian Library Month.

It’s a fairly busy time in our modern update to the old liturgical calendar. Instead of numerous saintly feasts, we get cultural awareness months, remembrance days and the like. Paradoxically, there are now so many of these observances that they don’t seem particularly worth observing at all. Everyone is special, so no one is.

Who actually celebrates these things? I don’t. October, to me, is simply “Halloween Month.” For the most part, these events — which don’t come with the benefit of time off, as statutory holidays do — seem to be an opportunity for corporations to market themselves and for public-sector communications staff to have something to write about.

In the federal government, efforts to fill the multicultural calendar are fairly recent. A 2017 list of Canada’s “important days” marked only 26 special events (back then, October’s only observance was Women’s History Month). In 2023, that number has more than doubled to 62, with many of the additions recognizing some flavour of cultural heritage. The number of LGBT-related observances on the list went from zero to six, indicating a new significance for the once under-the-radar demographic.

The list of “commemorative days” on the federal government’s website picks and chooses what to highlight, which makes it a decent gauge for identifying the priorities of whoever is in the driver’s seat. Other observances have been officially designated, but they aren’t on the list.

Examples include the obscure National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day in September and Pope John Paul II Day in April, both of which were established in 2014. Also established in 2014 was Lincoln Alexander Day, which actually did make the cut for the current federal government’s calendar. It celebrates the first Black member of Parliament (Alexander had many other achievements).

Why an emphasis on identity? Probably because of our national multiculturalism policy. Government departments and Crown corporations are beholden to the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, which states that Canadian policy involves the “recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society” — hence, awareness months.

In their annual accountability forms to prove to Canadian Heritage that they’ve been adhering to the multiculturalism policy, departments must provide examples of actions taken to “promote and celebrate the historical contribution and heritage of communities of all origins to Canadian society.”

In its latest set of responses, CBC explained that it complied with the law by observing Asian Heritage Month, National Indigenous History Month and Black History Month. The Bank of Canada noted the same occasions, with the addition of Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Canadian Heritage dutifully carries out Parliament’s instructions to grow the list of observances. Irish Heritage Month and Emancipation Day (celebrating the abolition of slavery) were the “two new commemorative date initiatives” of 2021.

“These commemorative dates present an excellent opportunity for Canadians to learn more about the richness of the cultures and the historical contributions of these communities, and reflect upon both the proud moments in our history as well as the darker moments, to better shape our futures,” the department wrote in its annual report. “The Government of Canada looks forward to celebrating these new dates which play an important role in raising awareness of the richness of Canada’s cultural diversity.”

That is, the more calendar days celebrated, the better we’re upholding multiculturalism.

Holocaust remembrance and the end of slavery mark historical events of significance — they make sense to recognize. It’s important to keep memories of the Canadian past alive. In a similar vein, there’s a day dedicated to the first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, and a day dedicated to a Swedish man who became Canada’s first honorary citizen for helping save more than 100,000 Jews from Nazi persecution. These additions to the calendar are worthwhile.

But broader heritage celebrations seem odd to build the national calendar around. Black History Month, one of the older awareness months intended to highlight stories that often went untold, seemed much more significant back when it was fairly unique. Now, it’s lost in the crowd.

Going forward, the list can still grow. We still lack heritage months celebrating the English (though we have one for the Irish), the Spanish (though we have one for the Portuguese) and the Japanese (though we have one for the Philippines). There are months that celebrate Jewish, Islamic and Hindu heritage — but nothing for the Buddhists or Christians.

More days could be added, which would be consistent with government policy. But to what end? As the calendar grows, the significance of each day shrinks. Anyway, happy Halloween Month.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Multicultural ‘awareness months’ fail to raise awareness

Canadian military sees rise in applications from new immigrants

Long standing challenge among general recruitment challenge:

More than 6,000 new immigrants have applied to join Canada’s Armed Forces (CAF) over the past two months after the military dropped citizenship requirements to bolster its ranks, according to the latest data provided to New Canadian Media.

“We have seen a huge interest from new Canadians since we’ve opened the door to permanent residents,” Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan, the military’s Chief of Professional Conduct and Culture told NCM in an interview during her recent visit to Vancouver.

“The number of folks from different backgrounds…new Canadians has increased from 23 per cent to over 30 per cent of applicants,” she said. “This is very, very good news.”

NCM reported on Nov 11 that Canada’s military would be opening its doors wider to attract new immigrants into its ranks after the CAF recruitment site was updated to reflect policy change. Before the change, only Canadian citizens were eligible to apply for employment within the country’s military. Permanent resident status — except in certain categories — did not qualify.

Permanent residents who join the military now will not be subject to the minimum residency requirements — to keep permanent resident status, a new immigrant must be living in Canada for at least 730 days in the last five years — and will be allowed to leave the country for overseas postings or personal reasons. 

The CAF is now recruiting for more than 100 positions, including radiologists and marine technicians.  As of July 2022, the regular force had approximately 63,500 members — about 8,000 short of its mandated strength. The CAF had a target to bring in at least 5,900 new members through its recruiting centres by March 2023. 

Top down, bottom up changes

LGen Carignan, who leads the command team for the military group tasked with leading the Canadian Armed Forces’ cultural transformation, said the recruitment uptick bodes well with her unit’s efforts to modernize the institution.

The mother of four and the first woman in the Canadian Armed Forces to lead a combat unit said her central mission now is to unify and consolidate culture change within the various departments in the CAF and the Department of National Defence (DND).

“This is a whole defence undertaking – bottom up, top down, and horizontally across the CAF,” she said. 

“We need to move towards a space where people can be themselves, be authentic and at the same time, contribute to the common mission.

Within LGen Carignan’s organization, there are these five advisory groups that represent visible minorities, Indigenous peoples, the LGBTQA+ community, people with disabilities, and women’s rights advocates.

“We gather their feedback every time we build a new policy… every time we go out and implement various initiatives,” LGen Carignan said. “And they do inform our strategies, our processes and our policies.”

“We are bringing our game up in terms of inclusive behavior,” she said.

The sweeping changes being imposed under LGen Carignan include everything from a new gender inclusive dress code to other aspects of appearance, including the length of one’s hair, and establishing a restorative engagement process, which she expects will guide culture change strategies and resolve personnel conflicts.

There will also be a restructuring of the defence department’s complaints management system and an overhaul to improve the training and promotion of managers.

“I expect a performance measurement framework that will provide quantitative and qualitative data on whether CAF is progressing in terms of creating a healthy culture, to be ready soon,” she said.

LGen Carignan said NATO members are also looking at what the CAF is doing in terms of enabling culture change within its leadership and ranks.

“Recently, I sat down with 25 of our allies within NATO who are very very interested in what we are doing,” she said.

Backlash

LGen Carignan said while most of the military family is very supportive of the required culture changes, she acknowledged that there are some within the military and media who feel otherwise.

Among the critics are Retired Lt.-Gen. Michel Maisonneuve who got a standing ovation from serving senior military officers after a dinner speech last November in Ottawa where he slammed the changes to military dress regulations, reported the Ottawa Citizen.

Thomas Juneau, a former National Defence analyst wrote on Twitter that Maisonneuve’s speech “was an embarrassment and a good illustration of the culture of entitlement that has led to the systematic abuses of power in the senior ranks of the military,” the paper said.

Others like National Post columnist Jamie Sarkonak have suggested that the military’s focus on diversity, equity and inclusion is getting in the way of training for war. 

“It’s hard to see why any of this would be relevant to the Armed Forces, which should be focused on defending all Canadians equally,” Sarkonak wrote.

LGen Carignan said building lasting, positive culture change in the military will ensure Canada’s effectiveness in responding to growing threats at home and around the world.

“This has never been a distraction… your teams are not conducive to be the best that they can be if its members do not feel protected and respected when they wear a uniform,” she said.

“What resulted in success in the past will not be what makes us successful in the future. We are at a time where a shift is required in how’ we conduct ourselves, how’ we exercise leadership, and how we understand power and authority,” LGen Carignan responded in an update about her unit.

“We at CPCC are inspired by the changes and evolution we have seen over the past months and are convinced of our capacity to continue to improve together.”

Source: Canadian military sees rise in applications from new immigrants

Sarkonak: Why Canadian universities are blocking able-bodied white men from some positions

Affirmative action debates, Canadian version. From softer preference to hard requirement. Not a fan of hard quotas as softer approaches can be effective without raising concerns, valid or not, about qualifications and merit.

And will the government move to hard quotas in public service hiring and the employment equity act?

People should not be barred from jobs because of their skin colour, or their gender. We call that “discrimination” — and it’s generally considered a bad thing. It’s also bad that universities across Canada are refusing to hire white men for various research positions, simply because they’re white, male and don’t claim to have any disabilities.

That’s right: the federally funded Canada Research Chair program, which doles out roughly $300 million every year to 2,000 academics, adheres to an identity quota system. Universities risk losing funding for positions if they haven’t hired the designated number of research chairs by 2029 in each “identity category” (women, visible minorities, Indigenous people and people with disabilities). As a result, some resumes are going straight into the trash.

I wish I was exaggerating. Being not white, male or able-bodied was a requirement for the University of British Columbia’s 2022 research chair job postings in food science and quantum computing. A mathematics department job posting for a research chair in computational cell biology specifically says that the “selection will be restricted to members of the following designated groups: women, visible minorities (members of groups that are racially categorized), persons with disabilities and Indigenous peoples.” 

Similar requirements were listed for the University of Toronto’s positions in managementeducationdentistryengineering and medicine. Queen’s University only wants women for geotechnical engineeringnuclear waste storage and applied artificial intelligenceWestern University doesn’t care about the researcher’s area of study in one opening, but requires that the candidate have a disability. A McGill posting prefers those who say they have a disability or are Indigenous. 

There are 78 schools in the Canada Research Chair program. Just Google “CRC” and any university’s name to look for more.

The Canada Research Chair program is doing this because of a Federal Court order that requires research appointments to reflect the Canadian population by 2029. It’s just following the law. Personally, I don’t think equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) should require exclusion, but alas. 

There’s a bigger picture to all this. The Canada Research Chair program is one of many under the nation’s three federal research funding agencies, which spend a combined $3 billion every year to advance our knowledge in health, science and the humanities.

They support numerous research positions, student jobs, academic awards and grants. Per their “Tri-Agency EDI Action Plan,” they’ve been tasked since 2018 with making students and researchers “representative of the Canadian population.” Universities, in their agreements to receive federal funding, must agree to promote “equitable practices.” 

At a glance, you’d think this means simply making sure that procedures are fair to everyone, regardless of background. But the Canada Research Chair program shows this can mean dismissing applicants outright if the quotas (or “equity targets”) haven’t been met. Good intentions appear to have paved the way to mandated discrimination.

Values attestations are making their way into job applications as well. A University of Ottawa job posting for a research chair in green chemistry — that is, the study of chemical reactions — requires a demonstrated history of incorporating EDI and a statement about doing so. Researchers should be free to talk about their values, including those who don’t agree with EDI. Academic freedom is supposed to allow for diverse ideas. Yet in this case, only one way of thinking is eligible. 

You might wonder if any professors oppose this kind of thing. Perhaps, but if promotions, funding and teaching positions are increasingly tied to their embrace of EDI, there’s a pretty big incentive to say nothing. Professors have families to feed, after all.

Those who have publicly dared to question these openly discriminatory practices haven’t been answered. During question period in the House of Commons on March 29, Bloc Québécois MP Martin Champoux raised concernsover the Canada Research Chair hiring exclusions at Laval University, and asked if the government agreed that exclusion is “not the way to go.” 

Reading from prepared notes, Andy Fillmore, the Liberal parliamentary secretary to the minister of democratic institutions, blamed former prime minister Stephen Harper’s government and assured the member that the current government is “committed to providing the resources and tools our scientists need to bring tangible benefits to Canadians’ health, environment, communities and economy,” which “will make Canada a leader in innovation.”

Although Fillmore refused to answer the question, it’s quite possible we’re headed for more mandatory diversity. The government used similar language in its bill to change the Broadcasting Act, Bill C-11, which would require media to “reflect” the viewpoints of the population. 

The problem isn’t that these ideas exist; the problem is that they’re being used to deny opportunities to people because of the body they were born in. When inclusion turns into active exclusion, it isn’t inclusion anymore.

Source: Sarkonak: Why Canadian universities are blocking able-bodied white men from some positions