Rights council seeks unity that Jewish, Muslim envoys couldn’t achieve: Miller

2026/07/06 Leave a comment

Not sure whether the council will work (an earlier initiative by Public Safety, the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security (CCRS) last evaluation dates from 2008-9, about the same period when I participated, highlighting the limited impact). But clearly the envoy approach didn’t.

“The CCRS has had an impact on the Government’s understanding and sensitivity to community needs. As well, some concrete examples were noted of CCRS impacts on GoC policies, directives and communications materials. However, there is limited evidence that the CCRS has contributed to better community understanding of national security policies, practices and challenges. This may be due to the fact that there are no formal mechanisms in place for disseminating information to communities, and there has been limited formal CCRS member-organized outreach conducted to date. As well, some interviewees noted a lack of clarity as to whether or not CCRS is mandated to do outreach.”

Don’t envy the officials responsible:

Heritage Minister Marc Miller says the government’s widely criticized advisory council on inclusion is meant to unify Canadians in a way previous federal envoys tasked with tackling antisemitism and Islamophobia could not.

“This is an advisory committee that is going to foster dialogue and a space to talk about some extremely difficult issues, chief of which is the current scourge of antisemitism in the country,” Miller told The Canadian Press.

Ottawa first created the role of a special envoy for combating antisemitism in 2020 and a similar position dealing with Islamophobia in 2023.

In February, the government announced it was scrapping both of those stand-alone federal envoy positions and replacing them with a new, broader “advisory council on rights, equality and inclusion” composed of prominent academics, experts and community leaders.

At the time, Prime Minister Mark Carney framed the measure as one aimed at addressing hatred of Muslims, Jews and Indigenous Peoples. 

When he officially launched the council a month ago, the prime minister said it would investigate the causes of antisemitism and improve research and data collection on hate incidents.

Since then, the government has been hit with a torrent of criticism — particularly from Jewish advocacy groups who argue the causes of antisemitism are well understood and documented in parliamentary reports.

“If we are looking at the threats that our community is facing, it’s going to take a lot more than people sitting at a table and speaking to one another to stop bullets from flying through the windows of synagogues and schools,” said Noah Shack, head of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

“When we have international actors directing attacks on Jewish community targets in Canada, and we have radicalized people in the spirit of the Islamic State plotting terror attacks similar to the one that occurred at Bondi Beach in Australia … these are issues that are not going to be solved by dialogue,” Shack said.

His group and other large Jewish organizations have called on Canada to do more to prevent hate crimes and to call out groups affiliated with the Iranian government.

Some groups have also called on Ottawa to restore the antisemitism envoy role and reform it. CIJA had previously suggested modifying the envoy role when the government had left it vacant, but is no longer calling for either envoy’s role to be restored.

He said it’s “a noble endeavour” to seek common ground across communities but he worries the effort will distract the government from directly addressing the elevated threats Jews face.

“Really, what we need is concrete action right now to demonstrate that the government isn’t just convening to explore and study issues but is committed to solving them,” Shack said.

In a statement, the National Council of Canadian Muslims said it wants “a real plan to counter the rise in Islamophobic incidents across Canada” and says Muslims have worked before with other communities on addressing hate.

“Talking about the things the (Islamophobia envoy) office supposedly didn’t do ignores both its mandate and the positive work it did accomplish,” wrote National Council of Canadian Muslims spokesman Steven Zhou, adding the group will work with the advisory council.

Miller said his government is also pursuing anti-hate policies and legislation.

Parliament passed Bill C-9 last month, which creates new criminal offences for intimidating or obstructing someone outside a religious or cultural institution, and codifies a definition of hatred in criminal law.

Miller said the former envoys on Islamophobia and antisemitism, Amira Elghawaby and Deborah Lyons, both provided helpful guidance to the government. He said they were not to blame for the failure to significantly boost dialogue between Jews and Muslims in Canada.

“Perhaps (it’s) unfair to expect real improvement in very polarized groups in society … that largely are not speaking to each other,” Miller said.

“The work that those two (envoys) have done, we can build on. But the focus, I think — and I agree with the prime minister in this — was to make sure that we had a broader group … focused on national unity that, visibly, whether we like it or not, those two secretariats were not achieving.”

Lyons, the former antisemitism envoy, has said that Jewish and Muslims groups disapproved of attempts she and Elghawaby had made to work together on things like provincial school curriculums. Elghawaby has said she wasn’t aware of those sentiments in Muslim communities.

Shack said the mandate for the envoys didn’t appear to mention unifying communities.

“You can’t conflate these two things. Often we would see antisemitism and Islamophobia routinely mentioned in the same breath. I think each community is having its own experience,” he said.

Miller said Carney came up with the idea for the council and discussed it with him back in December, shortly after his appointment as heritage minister.

“We had a long conversation about the unity of the country … but also his concern with the state of polarization,” he said.

The idea behind the council is to have eminent people who are generally representative of Canada’s diversity who can encourage social cohesion, Miller said, because “that fabric has been torn” by multiple factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic and events in the Middle East.

“This isn’t about trying to identify new forms of hate. It’s about looking at the ones that are already there — that in the case of antisemitism is one of the oldest, if not the oldest form of hatred — and look at the current drivers of it,” he said.

“You will find naysayers. We owe it to ourselves — and we owe to our country — to try.”

Source: Rights council seeks unity that Jewish, Muslim envoys couldn’t achieve: Miller

Filed under Multiculturalism, Radicalization Tagged with , ,

Canadian Museum for Human Rights made ‘error’ in Nakba exhibit presentation, minister says, Others defend as site for solidarity

2026/07/02 2 Comments

Of note:

Heritage Minister Marc Miller said Monday the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg made “an error” in its presentation of an exhibit about displaced Palestinians.

In an interview with The Canadian Press on Monday, Mr. Miller said the museum should change how it portrays the current conflict between Israel and Palestinians and update the museum’s oversight.

“It isn’t up to me to speak to, or insert myself in, the curation of any particular exhibit. But manifestly, you cannot deny the fact that this is an exhibit that is born in controversy – and perhaps some of it could have been avoided,” Mr. Miller said.

The museum says it is collecting feedback but is defending its phrasing in the exhibit.

In an interview Monday, Mr. Miller said he visited the Winnipeg museum Thursday morning and was troubled by how the exhibit portrayed the conflict that started in October, 2023.

On Oct. 7, 2023, Palestinian militants from Hamas – which Canada has listed as a terrorist entity for more than two decades – and its partners killed 1,200 civilians and soldiers in Israel. That attack prompted Israel to bombard the Gaza Strip in a relentless war that has killed roughly 73,000 people in the territory, according to data sourced in part from Gaza’s Hamas-controlled health ministry.

Mr. Miller said there are flaws in the museum exhibit that should be addressed.

“There are some words in there that are regrettable. Not identifying Hamas as a terrorist organization is, I think, a failure. And not clearly stating that, for example, Hamas intended to kill Jews is, I think, an unfortunate error in curation and should be rectified,” Mr. Miller said.

The exhibit, which opened to the public Saturday, focuses on the Nakba – Arabic for catastrophe – the forcible displacement of about 750,000 Palestinians from the region during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

Museum spokeswoman Amanda Gaudes said Mr. Miller’s office has shared his concerns and they will be part of “an established content revision process.”…

Source: Canadian Museum for Human Rights made ‘error’ in Nakba exhibit presentation, minister says

The Canadian Museum for Human Rights’ Nakba exhibit can serve as a site for solidarity

…The exhibit’s historic opening was an occasion for people from the Palestinian and Jewish communities in Canada to convene. There were many shared meals and receptions in the museum, Winnipeg restaurants and local community halls where Nakba and Holocaust survivors and their descendants broke bread together.

Having seen the exhibit and the processes behind its creation, the opening of this exhibit in a major human rights institution feels historic. It is a breakthrough for challenging the Palestine exception, and a stepping stone to deepening solidarity across difference.

To that end, all Canadians owe a debt of gratitude and respect to the Canadian Museum for Human Rights for sharing this exhibit. It may have been difficult, but it validates Palestinian experiences, and, in so doing, reaffirms the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: that all humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Source: The Canadian Museum for Human Rights’ Nakba exhibit can serve as a site for solidarity

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Propos sur le « frérisme »: Ottawa accuse le chef du PQ de propager « une théorie du complot »

2026/04/27 Leave a comment

Valid criticism of PQ:

« Je pense que cela ressemble pas mal à une théorie du complot », a déploré mercredi le député de la région de Québec et ex-ministre Jean-Yves Duclos.

« La politique la plus facile, c’est celle de diviser. Il faut absolument travailler autrement dans le contexte mondial dans lequel on vit. Il faut qu’on soit unis et que l’on travaille ensemble et éviter de se polariser comme d’autres pays le font », a-t-il ajouté.

Pour sa part, le ministre de l’Identité et de la Culture canadiennes, Marc Miller, a qualifié de « ridicules » les propos du chef péquiste.

Le libéral réagissait aux déclarations de Paul St-Pierre Plamondon qui a affirmé que le « frérisme » – une idéologie prônée par les Frères musulmans qui vise à islamiser les sociétés occidentales – « est une réalité documentée dans plusieurs pays d’Europe », mais que « la seule raison pourquoi on ne la documente pas au Canada, c’est que c’est l’agenda du gouvernement en place ».

« Je suis désolé, mais c’est ça », a soutenu le chef du Parti québécois, qui a ajouté que le « Québec n’étant pas un pays est subordonné à des décisions et à un service de renseignements absolument pas orienté par l’intérêt public à [son] avis ».

Il a tenu ses propos lors d’une assemblée publique (townhall) organisée par Centre consultatif des relations juives et israéliennes, le 15 avril. Il répondait alors à une question de Léo Dupire, du groupe de droite Québec Fier, qui lui demandait de reconnaître « qu’il y a un problème avec l’immigration musulmane de masse ». M. Dupire relaie lui-même l’extrait sur les réseaux sociaux.

Le leader souverainiste apporte rapidement des nuances à la question de son interlocuteur. « Je vise la paix sociale », affirme-t-il. M. St-Pierre Plamondon déplore ensuite « l’immigration incontrôlée » imposée par Ottawa et propose de « revenir à l’immigration planifiée ».

« Je n’irais pas à dire l’immigration musulmane parce que j’ai eu plusieurs discussions avec des gens qui ont fui des régimes iraniens, saoudiens, afghans. Des gens qui disent : “Moi, j’ai vu comment une société peut virer et je suis conscient du totalitarisme religieux, donc j’ai choisi le Québec pour ne pas vivre là-dedans” », explique le chef péquiste, qui dit vouloir « inclure tout le monde » dans la discussion.

Le Conseil national des musulmans canadiens a dénoncé des déclarations qui ne font « qu’alimenter la peur entre les Québécois avec des idées importées d’Europe ».

« Les propos tenus par M. St-Pierre Plamondon sont à l’image de sa rhétorique habituelle qui laisse planer la suspicion envers nos concitoyens de confession musulmane. En tant que prétendant au pouvoir, il doit être capable d’affirmer clairement que les Québécois de confession musulmane ne sont pas une menace pour notre société », a déploré le président-directeur général, Stephen Brown.

Dans un point de presse mardi à Québec, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon a rappelé que le Parti québécois « est capable d’attirer des candidatures de toutes les religions » qui sont « d’accord sur le contrat social qu’incarne » sa formation politique. Les candidats péquistes dans Jeanne-Mance–Viger et Anjou–Louis-Riel sont notamment de confession musulmane.

De « l’aveuglement volontaire »

Le leader péquiste a également précisé ses propos à l’égard d’Ottawa, mardi. « L’agenda, c’est le multiculturalisme et l’aveuglement devant l’ingérence étrangère », a-t-il expliqué.

Selon lui, il y a matière à inquiétude sur le phénomène du « frérisme » : « Ce serait surprenant qu’il n’y ait pas cette forme d’ingérence étrangère au Québec alors qu’on est en train de la documenter de manière assez précise dans plusieurs pays européens. » Il montre du doigt « la doctrine fédérale » qui est « de fermer les yeux » et d’ouvrir les vannes de l’immigration.

« C’est ce que Trudeau appelait le postnational. Le postnational, c’est un peu l’effondrement de l’État national qui surveille ses intérêts, puis qui voit à une planification », a-t-il dit, ajoutant ne pas observer de changement avec l’arrivée de Mark Carney.

Le ministre des Transports, Steven MacKinnon, s’est montré tout aussi cinglant que Jean-Yves Duclos. « L’agenda du gouvernement, c’est d’assurer la prospérité et la qualité de vie de l’ensemble des Canadiens. Mais venant du gars qui a regardé la caméra pour dire aux gens de l’Outaouais : “C’est ça qui est ça. Vous allez perdre votre job, mais vous allez agir en bons Québécois quand même”, cela ne me surprend pas », a-t-il décoché.

Source: Propos sur le « frérisme »: Ottawa accuse le chef du PQ de propager « une théorie du complot »

“I think it looks a lot like a conspiracy theory,” lamented Quebec City region MP and former Minister Jean-Yves Duclos on Wednesday.

“The easiest policy is to divide. It is absolutely necessary to work differently in the global context in which we live. We must be united and work together and avoid polarizing ourselves as other countries do, “he added.

For his part, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, Marc Miller, described the words of the Péquista leader as “ridiculous”.

The liberal reacted to the statements of Paul St-Pierre Plamondon who said that “fraerism” – an ideology advocated by the Muslim Brotherhood that aims to Islamize Western societies – “is a documented reality in several European countries”, but that “the only reason why it is not documented in Canada is that it is the agenda of the government in place”.

“I’m sorry, but that’s it,” said the leader of the Parti Québécois, who added that “Quebec, not being a country, is subject to decisions and an intelligence service absolutely not oriented by the public interest to [his] opinion.”

He made his remarks at a public meeting (townhall) organized by the Advisory Center for Jewish and Israeli Relations on April 15. He then answered a question from Léo Dupire, of the right-wing group Québec Fier, who asked him to recognize “that there is a problem with mass Muslim immigration”. Mr. Dupire relays the excerpt himself on social networks.

The sovereignist leader quickly brings nuances to the question of his interlocutor. “I aim for social peace,” he says. Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon then deplores “the uncontrolled immigration” imposed by Ottawa and proposes to “return to planned immigration”.

“I would not go to say Muslim immigration because I have had several discussions with people who have fled Iranian, Saudi, Afghan regimes. People who say: “I have seen how a society can turn and I am aware of religious totalitarianism, so I chose Quebec not to live in it,” explains the Pequist leader, who says he wants to “include everyone” in the discussion.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims denounced statements that “only fuel fear among Quebecers with ideas imported from Europe”.

“The remarks made by Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon are in the image of his usual rhetoric that leaves suspicion towards our fellow citizens of Muslim faith. As a contender for power, he must be able to clearly state that Muslim Quebecers are not a threat to our society, “lamented President and CEO Stephen Brown.

In a press briefing on Tuesday in Quebec City, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon recalled that the Parti Québécois “is able to attract applications from all religions” who are “agree on the social contract that embodies” its political formation. The Péquist candidates in Jeanne-Mance–Viger and Anjou–Louis-Riel are in particular Muslim.

Of “voluntary blindness”

The Pequist leader also clarified his remarks about Ottawa on Tuesday. “The agenda is multiculturalism and blindness to foreign interference,” he explained.

According to him, there is cause for concern about the phenomenon of “frarism”: “It would be surprising if there was no such thing as this form of foreign interference in Quebec when it is being documented quite precisely in several European countries. He points to “the federal doctrine” which is “to close the eyes” and open the floodges of immigration.

“This is what Trudeau called the postnational. The post-national is a bit of the collapse of the national state that monitors its interests, then sees to planning, “he said, adding that he did not observe any change with the arrival of Mark Carney.

Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon was just as scathing as Jean-Yves Duclos. “The government’s agenda is to ensure the prosperity and quality of life for all Canadians. But coming from the guy who looked at the camera to say to the people of the Outaouais: “That’s what it is. You will lose your job, but you will act like good Quebecers anyway,” it does not surprise me, “he said.

Filed under Islamophobia, Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

Asylum crackdown passed under Carney first requested by Trudeau’s immigration minister

2026/04/16 Leave a comment

Not surprising. Miller was able to successfully change course in terms of lower levels and limits on temporary workers and international students, which of course did not require legislation, unlike these changes:

Major changes to Canada’s asylum system passed into law this year were first sought by the federal immigration minister in 2024 — but the Trudeau government largely did not act on them.

In a letter obtained by CBC News from the fall of 2024, Immigration Minister Marc Miller wrote to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland requesting that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) be permitted to bar asylum seekers from making refugee claims if they had been in Canada for more than a year.

The request from Miller was retroactive to June 25, 2020 — one day off from the date included in the Carney government’s border law.

Miller also sought to stop asylum seekers from making claims more than 14 days after crossing into Canada from an irregular port of entry on the Canada-U.S. land border, another measure that only wound up passing under Bill C-12 last month.

“The in-Canada asylum system has faced mounting pressure in recent years, largely driven by increasing numbers of asylum seekers, resource constraints and evolving global migration dynamics,” Miller wrote.

“The system has been strained as the number of claims increased dramatically, leading to lengthy processing times and backlogs, and resulting in prolonged uncertainty for migrants.”

There is one provision, eventually passed under Bill C-12, that appeared to have the support of Trudeau’s Prime Minister’s Office.

Miller advocated for IRCC’s ability to mass-cancel groups of visas, which the government publicly mentioned in a suite of border security measures in December 2024. 

Reached for comment, Miller declined, citing cabinet confidentiality. 

The Prime Minister’s Office referred CBC News to current Immigration Minister Lena Diab for questions. A spokesperson for Diab’s office said it could not speculate on the actions of the previous government. 

‘Risk mitigation’ for U.S. policy

Miller wrote that the stricter rules for irregular crossings would “act as a risk-mitigation strategy” for “anticipated changes to U.S. immigration policies” that could cause major changes to “asylum migration trends impacting Canada.”

It is unclear whether the letter was sent by Miller before or after the re-election of U.S. President Donald Trump.

Miller also wrote that the U.S. was “the only comparable jurisdiction internationally that has a similar limit on eligibility.”

“The one-year time limit was chosen in part because a significant majority of claimants make their claim within their first year of being in Canada,” says an annex attached to the letter.

“The use of a one-year period is also a clear and easily communicated timeline for claimants to understand the period in which they are allowed to make a claim.”

Miller was turfed as immigration minister under Prime Minister Mark Carney in March 2025 and returned to cabinet with the heritage portfolio last fall.

C-12’s passage was a battle

The legislation Carney’s government wound up passing was not without controversy. 

First presented in late spring 2025, it was eventually split into two different bills after opposition parties raised a number of concerns over its security and immigration components.

Re-introduced as Bill C-12, it was scrutinized closely by the Senate, which took the unusual step of suggesting multiple amendments, including removing the one-year bar. However, senators agreed to drop those amendments once the government turned them down.

In his 2024 letter, Miller foresaw “vocal criticism from stakeholders and legal challenges” to the proposed changes.

Immigration and refugee advocates and lawyers indeed raised concerns about C-12. 

The law passed with the Liberals finding support from the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois. 

Since coming into effect, IRCC has begun telling tens of thousands of asylum claimants they may not be eligible for refugee status.

Source: Asylum crackdown passed under Carney first requested by Trudeau’s immigration minister

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Carney government replacing Islamophobia and antisemitism envoys with advisory council

2026/02/05 2 Comments

Can’t claim credit but it has been something I have been advocating for some time, as separate envoys tend to accentuate differences:

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government said Wednesday that it is eliminating Canada’s special envoy positions on fighting Islamophobia and antisemitism.The positions, which Carney had pledged to keep when he ran for Liberal leadership, will be replaced by a new advisory council on “Rights, Equality and Inclusion,” Culture and Identity Minister Marc Miller said in a news release.

“The Advisory Council will be comprised of prominent Canadians from academia, experts and community leaders with a mission to foster social cohesion, rally Canadians around shared identity, combat racism and hate in all their forms, and help guide the efforts of the Government of Canada,” Miller said, without immediately announcing its membership.

First reported by the Star, the move comes as the Liberal government had been looking to fill the special envoy position on combating antisemitism and Holocaust remembrance after former representative Deborah Lyons retired in July, several months before her term was set to end.

Speaking to reporters following a Liberal caucus meeting, Miller said the new council will address rising polarization and division coming in part due to the war in Gaza, but will still recognize the “specificities” of Islamophobia and antisemitism.

“I think we have to give the opportunity to people to be upset,” Miller said. “I think the focus here, though, is to make sure that we are focusing on the unity of the country, on the division that we know is there that’s been fuelled by a lot of things, and making sure that we have a group of experts that will focus precisely on trying to bring people together.” …

Source: Carney government replacing Islamophobia and antisemitism envoys with advisory council

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Chris Selley: Marc Miller, renegade heritage minister, Michel David: Miller, l’esthète «tanné»

2025/12/05 2 Comments

Miller certainly provoked a firestorm in Quebec, and now being convened by the OL committee in Ottawa. Will see how this plays out but Miller was certainly the strongest Liberal immigration minister and started the sorely needed reductions in levels and other policies. And he’s right that decline in French spoken at home simply reflects immigrant mother tongues:

…But in the meantime, backed by Carney, Miller might have at least done something quite useful here just by calling attention to the fact that the French-language debate in Quebec is a festival of over-torqued hokum.

When a purebred oaf like Legault calls you a full-of-shit disgrace, chances are good you’re on the right track. Same goes for the Parti Québécois and its presumptive next premier of Quebec, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, who on Tuesday assailed Miller as “one of the architects of the greatest decline of French in recent Quebec history.”

That’s many bushels of bananas. It’s a whole shipping container-full. As not-very-successful former immigration Miller noted outside the cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Ottawa been more than happy to indulge Quebec politicians’ desire not just for language restrictions, but for ever-greater francophone immigration to Quebec.

Miller didn’t mention, but could have, that Quebec officialdom is now annoyed by many of these francophone immigrants because they insist on believing in their strange God. Miller could have mentioned, but did not, that if native-born Quebecers aren’t going to have a lot more babies, and if Quebec doesn’t want francophone immigrants from anywhere other than Metropolitan France — and only atheists, at that — then it really might be screwed in the long term.

But as I say, Miller didn’t say that. To my knowledge, Miller has never disputed that the “French fact” in Quebec has downside risks. Rather, as he said on Tuesday, he rejects the “dogma that some political parties want to impose claiming that French is in total decline.” I hope he doesn’t shut up about it, because he’s right, and people really need to hear it.

The “Louisianisation” narrative is garbage. Every four years the Census reports essentially flat numbers on knowledge and use of French in Quebec: In 2021, Statistics Canada found, 94 per cent of Quebecers said the they knew how to speak French; 78 per cent claimed French as their mother tongue (not that mother tongue should matter, if Quebec nationalism is civil rather than ethnic); 79 per cent said they spoke French most often at home; 85 per cent said they spoke French most often at work.

Needless to say, that’s nothing whatsoever like Louisiana. French isn’t even Louisiana’s first second language.

Miller’s crimes against Quebec’s idea of political correctness don’t end there. He has gone so far as to suggest the fact that he speaks Swedish at home with his wife (she’s Swedish; they didn’t just take it up as a hobby) has no negative knock-on effects with respect to the state of French in Quebec. And of course that’s true as well. You’re just not officially allowed to say it in Quebec, which is the only place in the developed world where multilingualism is seen officially (though of course never by officials with respect to their own children) as a bad thing.

Miller has also been sworn into cabinet, in the past, while holding both a Bible and a Koran — a symbol of solidarity with Muslims, he said, but also a double-whammy in a province whose politics is obsessed with both secularism and with the threat of Islam.

The Liberals’ Quebec blind spot is especially remarkable considering how reliable their electoral results in that province are. But if Miller wants to be the minister who shakes things up, speaks truth to nonsense, about the state of play in his home province, I think we should wish him Godspeed.

Source: Chris Selley: Marc Miller, renegade heritage minister

Michel David in Le Devoir:

…Il ne fait aucun doute que M. Miller aime sincèrement la langue française, qu’il parle admirablement, mais cela ressemble davantage à l’amour de l’esthète pour les beaux objets, qui ont l’avantage de se laisser admirer sans faire d’histoires. Le problème est que les histoires de langue sont au cœur de son nouveau mandat.

Le déclin du français au Québec a toujours été contesté au sein de la députation anglo-montréalaise du Parti libéral du Canada. La députée de Saint-Laurent, Emmanuella Lambropoulos, avait dû quitter le comité permanent des langues officielles pour l’avoir nié. Son collègue de Mont-Royal, Anthony Housefather, s’était opposé à la nouvelle version de la Loi sur les langues officielles, craignant plutôt pour les droits des anglophones du Québec.

Sans le nier, M. Miller met des bémols au déclin du français. Au recul de la proportion de ceux dont c’est la langue maternelle, parlée à la maison ou encore au travail, il oppose la hausse du pourcentage de ceux qui sont en mesure de le parler.

Un plus grand usage du français dans l’espace public n’exclut cependant pas la nécessité de maintenir une masse critique suffisante de francophones de souche pour assurer le développement d’une culture française, même si tout le monde reconnaît la richesse de l’apport des diverses communautés.

M. Miller fait valoir qu’il y a eu des progrès depuis l’adoption de la Charte de la langue française (1977). À ce compte, on pourrait répliquer à ceux qui n’ont pas accès à un médecin de famille que la situation s’est améliorée quand même depuis l’instauration du régime d’assurance maladie (1970).

La réaction du premier ministre Legault aux « conneries » de M. Miller, avec lequel il avait déjà un contentieux, a peut-être été excessive, mais la recrue de Mark Carney n’en a pas moins ruiné d’un coup les efforts du successeur de Justin Trudeau pour dissiper la fâcheuse impression que le Québec et le français ne l’intéressent pas.

Le ministre québécois de la Langue française, Jean-François Roberge, a manifestement compris que cela risquait aussi d’apporter de l’eau au moulin souverainiste. Sa réaction aux propos de M. Miller a été bien différente de celle de M. Legault. « Bien, c’est bon, s’il est tanné du déclin du français, il va nous aider à le régler […]. Le Canada, ce n’est pas facile tous les jours, mais on y arrive », a-t-il déclaré.

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon a d’abord réagi avec une modération inhabituelle, constatant simplement que M. Miller est « un gars qui a travaillé très fort contre le Québec dans plusieurs dossiers ». Quelques heures plus tard, son naturel belliqueux a repris le dessus, mais l’objet de sa colère était pour le moins étonnant.

Dénoncer, en disant avoir « honte », la « vacuité intellectuelle », « l’aplaventrisme » et la « déloyauté » d’une « partie substantielle » du milieu culturel québécois, dont les représentants ont salué la nomination de M. Miller, n’est certainement pas la meilleure façon de le rallier à la cause de l’indépendance.

Le chef du Parti québécois devrait prendre acte du fait que le Québec n’est pas encore souverain. Tant qu’ils envoient 40 % de leurs impôts à Ottawa, il ne faut pas s’étonner que les Québécois, y compris les artistes, cherchent à obtenir la part qui leur revient.

Source: Michel David | Miller, l’esthète «tanné»

There is no doubt that Mr. Miller sincerely loves the French language, which he speaks admirably, but it is more like the aesthete’s love for beautiful objects, which have the advantage of being admired without making a fuss. The problem is that language stories are at the heart of his new mandate.

The decline of French in Quebec has always been contested within the Anglo-Lonreal deputation of the Liberal Party of Canada. The MP of Saint-Laurent, Emmanuella Lambropoulos, had to leave the Standing Committee on Official Languages for denying it. His colleague from Mont-Royal, Anthony Housefather, had opposed the new version of the Official Languages Act, fearing instead for the rights of English speakers in Quebec.

Without denying it, Mr. Miller puts flats on the decline of French. To the decline in the proportion of those whose mother tongue is spoken at home or at work, it opposes the increase in the percentage of those who are able to speak it.

A greater use of French in public space, however, does not exclude the need to maintain a sufficient critical mass of native Francophones to ensure the development of a French culture, even if everyone recognizes the richness of the contribution of the various communities.

Mr. Miller argues that there has been progress since the adoption of the Charter of the French Language (1977). To this account, we could reply to those who do not have access to a family doctor that the situation has improved since the introduction of the health insurance plan (1970).

Prime Minister Legault’s reaction to Mr. Miller, with whom he already had a dispute, may have been excessive, but Mark Carney’s recruit has nevertheless ruined Justin Trudeau’s successor’s efforts to dispel the unfortunate impression that Quebec and France are not interested in him.

The Quebec Minister of the French Language, Jean-François Roberge, clearly understood that this also risked bringing water to the sovereignist mill. His reaction to the words of Mr. Miller was very different from Mr. Legault “Well, it’s good, if he is tanned by the decline of French, he will help us settle it […]. Canada is not easy every day, but we can do it,” he said.

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon initially reacted with unusual moderation, simply noting that Mr. Miller is “a guy who has worked very hard against Quebec in several cases”. A few hours later, his warlike naturalness took over, but the object of his anger was surprising to say the least.

Denounce, by saying that they have “shame”, the “intellectual emptiness”, “aplantrism” and “disloyalty” of a “substantial part” of the Quebec cultural community, whose representatives welcomed the appointment of Mr. Miller, is certainly not the best way to rally him to the cause of independence.

The leader of the Parti Québécois should take note of the fact that Quebec is not yet sovereign. As long as they send 40% of their taxes to Ottawa, it is not surprising that Quebecers, including artists, are looking to get their share.

In La Presse, Déclin du français Marc Miller devra s’expliquer devant le comité des Langues officielles

La motion, adoptée jeudi à l’unanimité par les membres du comité, exhorte le ministre Miller à « témoigner pour une période de deux heures concernant sa position sur le déclin du français au Canada, incluant au Québec » au plus tard le 12 février. 

L’adoption de cette motion fait suite aux propos tenus mardi par le ministre Miller, qui s’est dit « assez tanné » du débat public entourant le déclin du français, le qualifiant de « généralement identitaire et électoraliste ».  

Le ministre Miller était déjà attendu jeudi devant le Comité permanent des langues officielles pour répondre aux questions entourant l’étude sur l’usage du français par le premier ministre Mark Carney, mais M. Miller n’était pas autour de la table lors de la rencontre, à la grande surprise du député conservateur Joël Godin.

The motion, adopted unanimously on Thursday by the members of the committee, urges Minister Miller to “testify for a period of two hours regarding his position on the decline of French in Canada, including Quebec” no later than February 12.
The adoption of this motion follows the remarks made on Tuesday by Minister Miller, who said he was “quite tanned” with the public debate surrounding the decline of French, describing it as “generally identity and electoralist”.
Minister Miller was already expected Thursday before the Standing Committee on Official Languages to answer questions surrounding the study on the use of French by Prime Minister Mark Carney, but Mr. Miller was not around the table during the meeting, much to the surprise of Conservative MP Joël Godin.



Filed under Interculturalisme, Language, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

This Trudeau minister kickstarted Canada’s immigration cuts. Here’s what he thinks about Carney’s new plan

2025/11/10 Leave a comment

Suspect that he will be viewed as one of the more substantive immigration ministers:

Whether people agree or disagree with Ottawa’s new immigration targets, the plan will help Canada regain control of the system, says the man who launched the mission to bring it back on track.

“It denotes stability, whether you like or not the important reforms that I put through in the last two years,” said Liberal MP and former immigration minister Marc Miller. Miller was tapped in 2023 by then prime minister Justin Trudeau to rein in rapid immigration growth amid a public outcry.

The reforms “put some instability into the system and it’s not something that’s great for the economy or for immigrants or immigration generally to constantly have change.”

During his tenure, Miller not only reduced the admissions of permanent residents by 21 per cent — the first reduction after years of steady increases going back to the 1990s — but made bold changes to slash the intakes of international students and temporary foreign workers into the country.

In a rare media interview since he was removed from his post by Prime Minister Mark Carney in March, Miller shared his thoughts on the Liberal government’s new immigration levels plan, which sets the admission targets for individual programs for 2026-2028.

Under the new plan, Canada will welcome 380,000 new permanent residents in each of the next three years, which he said is within the bands he previously set.

“Three-eighty is probably a sweet spot,” said Miller, adding that a data analysis by his department found anything below that number would start to get “recessionary” and cause negative implications on population growth. 

The latest Statistics Canada data showed the country’s population has grown by just 157,521 or about 0.4 per cent since January, to 41,651,653, largely due to the decline in new temporary resident admissions.

In response to Canadians’ concerns over the lack of housing and a strained health-care system, Miller was tasked with reducing temporary residents to five per cent of Canada’s population, from 7.2 per cent. One of the first things he did was cut the number of study permits issued by 35 per cent in 2024 from 2023’s level, to 364,000, and he imposed a further 10 per cent reduction in 2025. 

Carney’s immigration plan — in which Miller had no part — is going to chop that further to just 150,000, from the previous target of 305,900. The 24 public colleges in Ontario alone said they are going to see their international tuition revenue go down by $2.5 billion. While the new cut appears “significant,” Miller said the study permit ceilings that he had set were not reached by some post-secondary institutions and overall at the national level.

“Obviously, a lot of (unscrupulous institutions) are living high on the hog and should have been cut down, but I think moving back to a quality proposition from a quantity proposition, it needs to be further refined,” said Miller.

“There are some bright minds out there that should be going to some of our best schools, and frankly there are colleges and some fly-by-night operations that need to be shut down. In the supplemental information (of the plan), there isn’t that sort of qualitative analysis.” 

Under the immigration plan, Ottawa is going to implement a one-time measure to “accelerate” the transition of 33,000 work permit holders to permanent residency in 2026 and 2027. However, as of the end of the third quarter of 2025, slightly more than three million non-permanent residents were still in Canada.

They include the thousands of Ukrainians, Hong Kongers and Sudanese who were welcomed to Canada for temporary refuge; many are having a hard time securing permanent status, in part due to the reduced permanent resident intakes.

“It does make things longer for people to become PR here, but that may be an adjustment that needs to be dealt with,” Miller said. “When you do the immigration levels planning, there’ll unfortunately be some sacrifices in some places. What’s important in all these cases is for those individuals to be safe in Canada.” 

He said Canada has made some important policy decisions in welcoming people on humanitarian grounds in the last decade, starting with Syrians fleeing war.

“Sometimes by being too open you can create a reverse effect on that and really change Canadians’ attitudes,” said Miller. “We can’t accept just anyone. We need to do it within our means and at the same time, remain quite generous, which I think the plan is still.”

There have been concerns that a good percentage of temporary residents would move underground if they find themselves at a dead end. Miller agreed there’s a significant group of people that should be regularized with permanent status because they are established here and “by any other argument, Canadians, other than having a piece of paper.”

Miller said he’s particularly happy that Carney’s immigration plan will include a one-time measure to grant permanent residence over two years to 115,000 protected persons, who have been given asylum but are caught in processing backlogs in Canada.

“It is something that I actually tried to do and didn’t get it across the finish line.”

Marc Miller was tapped in 2023 by then prime minister Justin Trudeau to rein in rapid immigration growth amid a public outcry.

Source: This Trudeau minister kickstarted Canada’s immigration cuts. Here’s what he thinks about Carney’s new plan

Filed under Immigration Tagged with

Former immigration minister [Miller] rejected officials’ advice to shelve Sudan humanitarian program

2025/11/04 Leave a comment

Of note, classic case of balancing general objectives with the specific:

Immigration officials advised shelving a special humanitarian program, designed to help Sudanese Canadians bring family members here to escape civil war in the African country, over concerns that plans to reduce immigration could be undermined, sources say.

The officials argued that bringing in Sudanese could affect the government’s immigration levels plan: annual targets that the government sets for the number of permanent and temporary residents it plans to admit.

But former immigration minister Marc Miller, two sources say, last year rejected that argument as he thought Canada should help family members of Canadians caught up in what has been described as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. He pressed ahead with establishing a pathway to permanent residence for those with direct family ties to Sudanese Canadians, although processing delays have left thousands who applied stranded. Mr. Miller declined to comment. …

Source: Former immigration minister rejected officials’ advice to shelve Sudan humanitarian program

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with ,

FIRST READING: Immigration minister says Canadian universities bringing in too many Indian students

2025/02/24 Leave a comment

Ongoing pivot. Takes some political courage to deliver these remarks in Brampton, given its large Indo-Canadian population, but the issues of exploitation of Indian students, by colleges, consultants and others are clear:

Immigration Minister Marc Miller accused Canadian universities of sourcing too many students from India, and said he expects a better “diversity” of international students in future.

He also said Canada needs to return to relying on “quality” over “quantity” of immigrants. “I think we do need to make sure that the Canadian brand does focus on excellence, on quality, and less quantity,” he said.

The comments were delivered at a media roundtable in Brampton, Ont., one of the Canadian cities most impacted by an unprecedented spike in immigration overseen by the Trudeau government since 2021. Miller was hosted by Brampton Centre MP Shafqat Ali.

In just the last three years, Canada’s population has grown by 2.9 million — an average influx of 81,000 new people every month. Many of those have come in on temporary visas; as per a November report by Statistics Canada, there are now three million non-permanent residents in Canada.

Brampton has experienced this immigration wave more acutely than anyone else, with immigration making it the country’s fastest growing big city. In just a single year between 2021 and 2022, the city’s population jumped by a record 89,077.

This has also made Brampton the home of Canada’s fastest-growing rents. And it’s made the city a focal point for a new phenomenon of job fairs being utterly overwhelmed by applicants. In one example from 2023, a mid-sized Brampton grocery store advertising open positions attracted a line-up of several hundred applicants snaking around the block.

In October, Miller introduced a package of reforms to “pause population growth,” including stricter quotas on both permanent and non-permanent immigration.

Miller opened the Brampton event by saying that he expected “hopes will be dashed” as many of Canada’s millions of temporary residents see their visas expire without having secured permanent residency.

“It’s going to be a rough ride; part of cleaning up this challenge that we see will mean that people’s hopes will be dashed to some extent,” said the minister, adding that “no one was guaranteed automatic permanent residency.”

He also said, “The solution is not to give visas to absolutely everyone simply because they don’t want to leave.”

Miller also maintained that none of the massive increase in immigration was his government’s fault, placing the blame instead on colleges, provincial governments and other “bad actors” who sponsored outsized numbers of international migrants, sometimes under fraudulent grounds.

Although he allowed that there “probably should have been better oversight, but that’s water under the bridge.”

Miller also accused schools of relying too heavily on students from India – who at times have comprised up to half of all international students in the country.

“I would say universities and colleges have been going to one or two source countries, and constantly going back to the well on that — we expect diversity of students,” he said.

The minister said he’d asked universities and colleges to “put a little more effort into the price of acquisition.”

“You have to be able to invest more in the talent you’re bringing here, and that includes going to more countries,” he said.

The event was held just as Miller’s office published information showing that in 2024 alone, 50,000 people entered Canada on study permits and then never showed up to class.

Canada has also been seeing rising rates of students claiming asylum in an apparent bid to stave off deportation. In just the first nine months of 2024, 14,000 people who entered Canada on student permits claimed asylum.

“It doesn’t make sense that you come here, spend a year, and that if you didn’t have the conditions in your home country to cause you to be an asylum seeker on day one … that you should be entitled to (the asylum) process,” he said, adding that any exceptions are “rare.”

The current waiting list just to have an asylum claim reviewed is up to three years — during which time the claimant can stay in Canada and even secure work permits and government benefits. Miller said that if Parliament wasn’t currently prorogued, he would introduce a bill to ensure that student asylum claims were dealt with in a “more efficient” fashion.

The Feb. 8 roundtable occurred just a few days after Canada was given a reprieve from tariffs threatened by the United States over the issue of border security.

Miller mentioned that Canada receives far more illegal border-crossers from the U.S. than vice versa, but said that the Americans had a point in that security along their northern border keeps intercepting foreign nationals who “have come through airports at Montreal and Pearson (Toronto).”

“That’s not right, we need to have proper control over the issuance of our visas,” said Miller.

Source: FIRST READING: Immigration minister says Canadian universities bringing in too many Indian students

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

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

2025/01/02 Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under Immigration Tagged with

← Older posts