Here’s how much the cuts to Canada’s international students have hurt Ontario colleges and universities

Starting to get a better sense of the numbers and how governments created this problem through a mixture of underfunding of post-secondary education and over-reliance on international students:

Ontario colleges and universities have been hit with more than $4.6 billion in lost revenues amid the drastic cuts to international students, new post-secondary figures obtained by the Star show.

And with Ottawa just announcing even fewer foreign students for 2026, for universities alone the impact is expected to increase from the $2.1 billion blow they are already dealing with.

The new numbers have the province’s universities now warning they “cannot cut their way out of these growing fiscal challenges.”

…Universities have already cut $550 million in the last few years, mainly through program loss, fewer services and staff cuts, and many schools are staring down deficits this school year. 

Colleges have cut $1.8 billion in the 2024-25 and 2025-26 school years, by cutting up to 10,000 jobs, and 600 programs as well as shuttering a number of campuses. …

Source: Here’s how much the cuts to Canada’s international students have hurt Ontario colleges and universities

Ontario cancels fast-track immigration program for skilled trades

Sigh…. Will see if the minister responsible, Piccini, resigns or not:

Ontario has quietly suspended a fast-track immigration stream for skilled tradespeople and is cancelling all current applications to the stream, leaving candidates who were awaiting decisions in limbo − and at risk of losing their right to live and work in the province.

The Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program (OINP) allows the province to recruit and retain foreign workers by granting permanent residency to those with in-demand skills, and has previously been touted as a critical means of filling labour shortages.

Qualified workers can be nominated by employers or invited by the province to apply based on their skill set. Last year, the province nominated about 4,100 candidates through its skilled worker stream − with the Labour Ministry describing the OINP as the “best tool the province has” to fill job gaps. The government has previously forecast that it will need 100,000 skilled tradespeople over the next decade to meet its infrastructure goals.

But the Labour Ministry’s oversight of the program has also attracted scrutiny from the province’s Auditor-General’s office, which last year identified weaknesses in detecting “integrity concerns.”

On Friday, an update posted to the OINP website said an internal review of the skilled trades initiative had “identified systemic misrepresentation and/or fraud,” prompting the Labour Ministry to suspend the stream.

That afternoon, candidates were notified by a director at the Labour Ministry that their applications had been terminated, according to a ministry e-mail obtained by The Globe and Mail.

Source: Ontario cancels fast-track immigration program for skilled trades

Dozens fined for breaking rules of Ontario immigrant program that has come under scrutiny

Of note. Good that some have been caught:

Ontario has issued $509,100 in penalties against 77 legal representatives and employers for breaking the rules of a program that gives the province the power to pick immigrants who best suit its labour needs.

That’s the total amount of fines levied since the introduction of a provincial law in 2018 that established an administrative and enforcement regime to ensure the integrity of the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program (OINP). 

The fast-growing program — which has seen a tripling of allocated spots from 6,000 in 2018 to 21,500 in 2024 — was the focus of a critical report by the Auditor General last year that revealed “weaknesses” in its ability to prevent and detect misrepresentation. 

Under the program, a foreign national needs a certificate of nomination from Ontario before applying for permanent residence through the federal Immigration Department. There are nine OINP streams, including three that require a job offer by an employer in the province. 

Those fined include a lawyer, 21 immigration consultants and 55 employers, according to a freedom-of-information request made to the Ontario Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development.

The violations include failing to provide information that is accurate, correct and not misleading, or failing to make “reasonable efforts” to ensure that in applications, the ministry said on its website.

Between 2018 and 2024, program staff issued 6,506 notices of intent to refuse an applicant’s nomination application, said the ministry. Out of those, 2,703 ended up being rejected after further inquiries. Notices of intent are issued when an individual’s qualifications and information are in question….

Source: Dozens fined for breaking rules of Ontario immigrant program that has come under scrutiny

Davantage de demandeurs d’asile en Ontario, mais moins de débats?

Good long read in Le Devoir contrasting Ontario and Quebec, featuring comments by Mireille Paquet and me:

Depuis maintenant près de deux ans, le gouvernement de François Legault réclame une meilleure répartition des demandeurs d’asile au Canada. L’un de ses arguments phares, répété récemment par le ministre de l’Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, est le fait que le Québec accueille plus de demandeurs d’asile que sa part démographique dans le Canada.

En d’autres mots, la province représente 22 % de toute la population canadienne, mais compte 40 % de tous les demandeurs d’asile sur son territoire, selon Statistique Canada.

C’est vrai, mais c’est aussi le cas en Ontario. Bon an mal an depuis au moins 2021, la province voisine compte sur son territoire près de la moitié des demandeurs d’asile au pays, alors que son poids démographique est de 39 %. Les données montrent ainsi une histoire légèrement différente du récit politique.

Ainsi, même lorsque Québec a transféré des demandeurs d’asile par autobus, surtout vers l’Ontario, à partir de l’été 2022 et plus intensivement à l’hiver 2023, la province voisine comptait déjà entre 46 % et 49 % de tous les demandeurs au pays.

Le Québec a bel et bien reçu plus de demandes d’asile que son voisin pendant plusieurs années depuis 2017 ; mais l’Ontario l’a aussi dépassé en 2021, en 2024 et pour les quatre premiers mois de 2025. Les arrivées sont donc à distinguer du nombre de personnes présentes ou réellement installées dans une province.

Le phénomène est aussi plus complexe, car il s’étend souvent dans une migration secondaire : les demandeurs en question peuvent atterrir au Québec ou franchir la frontière vers la province, mais ensuite se déplacer vers l’ouest. Le Devoiravait déjà révélé qu’entre 25 % et 33 % des demandeurs d’asile avec une première adresse au Québec déménageaient ensuite dans une autre province.

Politisation

Le premier ministre de l’Ontario, Doug Ford, a beau avoir essayé de faire des vagues autour des permis de travail pour les demandeurs d’asile au Conseil de la fédération en juillet, il s’est rétractéune semaine plus tard. Il faut dire que la délivrance des permis de travail est maintenant beaucoup plus rapide qu’en 2022 ou en 2023, c’est-à-dire en 45 jours, a confirmé au Devoir Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté Canada.

M. Ford a aussi formulé le souhait d’avoir plus de pouvoirs en immigration, notamment en 2022 pour pouvoir accueillir plus de travailleurs qualifiés — et non moins. S’il l’a mentionné au détour d’une ou deux conférences de presse, il n’a pas utilisé le dossier dans un bras de fer avec Ottawa, contrairement au Québec, où les échanges sont même devenus plutôt acrimonieux.

Pour Mireille Paquet, professeure à l’Université Concordia, difficile de dire si l’on en parle réellement moins en Ontario qu’au Québec, puisqu’elle ne connaît pas d’études sur cette question précisément. « On en parle certainement différemment », affirme-t-elle toutefois, reconnaissant une politisation de l’immigration propre au Québec.

Ses recherches montrent que les questions migratoires sont en effet de plus en plus politisées dans l’espace politique québécois, et plus clairement depuis le scrutin de 2018, qui a porté la Coalition avenir Québec au pouvoir. « Le gouvernement provincial a décidé de s’emparer de cette question et d’en faire un enjeu de revendication auprès du fédéral », observe-t-elle.

« Et cela se reflète aussi dans la manière dont le public réfléchit à ces questions : plus on parle du fait que les demandeurs d’asile créent des pressions sur les services, plus on augmente l’anxiété dans la population — que ce soit à tort ou à raison, ce n’est pas à moi de le dire. »

C’est aussi que la province voisine s’est « rapidement désengagée de ce dossier », signale-t-elle. Quand les arrivées ont commencé à s’accélérer plus clairement au chemin Roxham en 2017, « l’Ontario a essayé de se mobiliser, mais a dit rapidement que c’est un domaine de compétence fédérale : on ne s’en mêle pas ».

L’enjeu est alors retombé plutôt sur le gouvernement local à Toronto qui a à son tour réclamé du financement à Ottawa, sans que Queen’s Park soit impliqué.   

Étude comparative

Une rare comparaison a été réalisée par les chercheuses Audrey Gagnon et Lindsay Larios, qui ont utilisé les plateformes électorales et la couverture médiatique du Toronto Star et de La Presse entre 1987 et 2018 dans leur analyse.

Fait intéressant : les deux autrices notent qu’au début des années 2000, les politiques d’immigration étaient davantage discutées pendant les campagnes électorales en Ontario qu’au Québec. Mais cette relative importance a diminué à partir de 2010, « peut-être parce que la politisation n’a pas apporté beaucoup de bénéfices électoraux », indiquent-elles dans leur article publié en 2021 dans le Canadian Journal of Political Science.

La trajectoire du Québec montre plutôt une plus grande importance à partir de 2003, en croissance jusqu’à 2018. Ce sont les tensions autour de l’intégration, ainsi qu’une polarisation plus grande, surtout à partir de l’affaire Hérouxville en 2007. Ce n’est qu’ensuite que les candidats aux élections québécoises « ont su exploiter l’inquiétude de la province concernant la préservation de sa langue et de sa culture ».

En Ontario, « la présence des nouveaux arrivants n’est pas considérée comme une menace pour l’identité culturelle, mais plutôt comme une partie intégrante de celle-ci », écrivent-elles.

Le ton et les arguments

« Au Québec, l’attention est plus soutenue qu’épisodique, à cause des questions identitaires », note aussi Andrew Griffith, ancien directeur général au ministère fédéral de l’Immigration.

« Oui, il y a eu un changement notable dans l’opinion publique au Canada, mais on y communique surtout en termes de besoins en logement, et pas de peurs », note celui qui est aussi un associé de l’Institut Environics. Au Québec, le mot « menace » a été associé explicitement à « demandeurs d’asile » par le ministre Roberge dès février 2024, avant qu’il ne soit à l’immigration.

C’est donc sur le fond et sur le ton que les débats sont différents, observe M. Griffith. Mais cette attention n’a pas que du mauvais, au contraire. Dans le reste du Canada, il était presque tabou de parler d’immigration pendant longtemps : « C’est compréhensible, mais c’est aussi malsain. J’ai toujours pensé qu’il était souhaitable d’avoir une discussion basée sur des faits et de réfléchir aux impacts de l’immigration. »

Les demandeurs d’asile étaient aussi en quelque sorte « plus visibles » au Québec. D’une part, parce que les arrivées à la frontière terrestre par le chemin Roxham ont marqué l’imaginaire dès 2017. Mais aussi parce qu’ils se concentrent ensuite surtout à Montréal, alors qu’ils sont plus dispersés en Ontario dans des agglomérations urbaines comme Ottawa, London, Niagara, Waterloo, York, Durham, Peel et Hamilton.

Dans les dernières années, d’autres questions ont également été politisées avant en Ontario, conclut néanmoins Mme Paquet, notamment celle des étudiants internationaux et des collèges privés.

Source: Davantage de demandeurs d’asile en Ontario, mais moins de débats?

For almost two years now, François Legault’s government has been calling for a better distribution of asylum seekers in Canada. One of its key arguments, recently repeated by the Minister of Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, is the fact that Quebec welcomes more asylum seekers than its demographic share in Canada.

In other words, the province represents 22% of the entire Canadian population, but has 40% of all asylum seekers in its territory, according to Statistics Canada.

It’s true, but it’s also the case in Ontario. Good year bad year since at least 2021, the neighboring province has on its territory almost half of the asylum seekers in the country, while its demographic weight is 39%. The data thus show a slightly different history of the political narrative.

Thus, even when Quebec transferred asylum seekers by bus, especially to Ontario, from the summer of 2022 and more intensively in the winter of 2023, the neighboring province already had between 46% and 49% of all applicants in the country.

Quebec has indeed received more asylum applications than its neighbor for several years since 2017; but Ontario has also surpassed it in 2021, in 2024 and for the first four months of 2025. Arrivals are therefore to be distinguished from the number of people present or actually settled in a province.

The phenomenon is also more complex, because it often extends into a secondary migration: the applicants in question can land in Quebec or cross the border to the province, but then move west. Le Devoir had already revealed that between 25% and 33% of asylum seekers with a first address in Quebec then moved to another province.

Politicization

Ontario Premier Doug Ford may have tried to make waves around work permits for asylum seekers at the Federation Council in July, but he retracted a week later. It must be said that the issuance of work permits is now much faster than in 2022 or 2023, i.e. in 45 days, confirmed to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

Mr. Ford has also expressed the desire to have more powers in immigration, especially in 2022 to be able to accommodate more skilled workers – and not less. If he mentioned it at the turn of one or two press conferences, he did not use the file in a tug-of-war with Ottawa, unlike in Quebec, where the exchanges even became rather acrimonious.

For Mireille Paquet, a professor at Concordia University, it is difficult to say whether we really talk about it less in Ontario than in Quebec, since she does not know any studies on this issue precisely. “We certainly talk about it differently,” she says, however, recognizing a politicization of immigration specific to Quebec.

His research shows that migration issues are indeed increasingly politicized in Quebec’s political space, and more clearly since the 2018 election, which brought the Coalition avenir Québec to power. “The provincial government has decided to seize this issue and make it a challenge with the federal government,” she observes.

“And this is also reflected in the way the public thinks about these issues: the more we talk about the fact that asylum seekers create pressures on services, the more we increase anxiety in the population – rightly or wrongly, it’s not up to me to say. ”

It is also that the neighboring province has “quickly disengaged from this file,” she says. When arrivals began to accelerate more clearly on Roxham Road in 2017, “Ontario tried to mobilize, but quickly said it was a federal area of competence: we don’t get involved.”

The issue then fell rather on the local government in Toronto, which in turn called for funding in Ottawa, without Queen’s Park being involved.

Comparative study

A rare comparison was made by researchers Audrey Gagnon and Lindsay Larios, who used election platforms and media coverage of the Toronto Star and La Presse between 1987 and 2018 in their analysis.

Interestingly, the two authors note that in the early 2000s, immigration policies were more discussed during election campaigns in Ontario than in Quebec. But this relative importance has decreased since 2010, “perhaps because politicization has not brought many electoral benefits,” they indicate in their 2021 article in the Canadian Journal of Political Science.

The trajectory of Quebec shows rather greater importance from 2003, in growth until 2018. These are the tensions around integration, as well as greater polarization, especially since the Hérouxville affair in 2007. It was only then that the Quebec election candidates “were able to exploit the province’s concern about the preservation of its language and culture”.

In Ontario, “the presence of newcomers is not seen as a threat to cultural identity, but rather as an integral part of it,” they write.

The tone and arguments

“In Quebec, attention is more sustained than episodic, because of identity issues,” notes Andrew Griffith, former Director General at the Federal Ministry of Immigration.

“Yes, there has been a notable change in public opinion in Canada, but we communicate mainly in terms of housing needs, and not fears,” notes the one who is also a partner of the Environics Institute. In Quebec, the word “threat” was explicitly associated with “asylum seekers” by Minister Roberge in February 2024, before he was in immigration.

It is therefore on the substance and on the tone that the debates are different, observes Mr. Griffith But this attention is not only bad, on the contrary. In the rest of Canada, it was almost taboo to talk about immigration for a long time: “It’s understandable, but it’s also unhealthy. I have always thought it was desirable to have a fact-based discussion and to reflect on the impacts of immigration. ”

Asylum seekers were also somehow “more visible” in Quebec. On the one hand, because the arrivals at the land border by Roxham Road marked the imagination as early as 2017. But also because they then concentrate mainly in Montreal, while they are more dispersed in Ontario in urban agglomerations such as Ottawa, London, Niagara, Waterloo, York, Durham, Peel and Hamilton.

In recent years, other issues have also been politicized before in Ontario, however, concludes Ms. Paquet, especially that of international students and private colleges.

Doug Ford and other premiers want provincial work permits for refugee claimants. It may not solve anything

Nothing burger given quick processing of 45 days?

With refugee claimants now getting work permits fairly quickly and housing being less of a pain point, why do Canada’s premiers want to seize power from Ottawa to issue work permits?

This week, the provincial leaders emerged from the premiers’ meeting united in seeking the powers under the Constitution to issue work authorization to asylum seekers, which is currently under the federal government’s jurisdiction.

The reason behind the move, Premier Doug Ford said Wednesday, is that a lot of asylum seekers living in hotels would like to work and be self-sufficient, but can’t because it’s taking too long for Ottawa to process their work permits.

While any initiative that would help claimants to get on their feet and start working as quickly as possible is positive, Toronto refugee lawyer Adam Sadinsky isn’t sure if that push is based on “outdated information.” (The Immigration Department’s website shows work permit application processing for non-refugees currently takes 181 days.)

“It was an issue a couple of years ago,” said Sadinsky, whose clients in Canada generally now receive their work permits in about six weeks. “In my practice, I haven’t seen that it is really a significant issue anymore.”

Section 95 of the Constitution Act outlines the concurrent jurisdiction of the Canadian Parliament and provincial legislatures including immigration, education and health care. It states that both levels of government can make laws in these areas, but in a conflict, federal laws prevail. 

In fact, the two levels of governments have already shared jurisdiction in some areas of immigration. The provincial nominee immigration programs, for example, allow provinces to select prospective permanent residents for Ottawa’s stamp of approval.

Currently, the only provincial-based work permits are those related to the provincial nominee program, where the province can approve the work authorization of a selected candidate, who will ultimately get the permit from the federal government.

“The provinces and the feds have worked together,” said Toronto immigration lawyer Rick Lamanna on behalf of the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association. 

But could it be just a bluff from the premiers?

“We’ll know more if or when you start to see things coming out, whether it’s from Ontario or Alberta or other provinces, putting more meat on those bones,” Lamanna said. 

“When you start to see logistical plans, if they start opening up stakeholder consultations, if they make announcements like expansion of Service Ontario to facilitate the issuance of these permits, I think that’s when we’ll know.” 

In a statement to the Star, the Immigration Department said claimants must submit a completed application, including a medical exam, and are determined to be eligible to seek protection before they are issued a work permit. On average, it now takes 45 days to process.

Officials have also found more sustainable and cost-effective solutions such as the new refugee reception centre in Peel to house and support asylum seekers….

Source: Doug Ford and other premiers want provincial work permits for refugee claimants. It may not solve anything

Federal envoy urges Ontario to act on antisemitism in its public schools

Of note:

Canada’s special envoy on antisemitism says Ontario school boards need to take seriously incidents of anti-Jewish bigotry targeted at students in public schools.

Deborah Lyons commissioned a survey of nearly 600 Jewish parents in the province, and found hundreds of children were subjected to incidents including antisemitic bullying and blame for the carnage of Israel’s military conduct in the Gaza Strip.

The survey logged 781 incidents between October 2023 and January 2025 that Jewish families reported as antisemitic, such as children chanting Nazi slogans and giving salutes, and teachers telling students that Israel does not exist.

Of the reported incidents, 60 per cent involved what the survey deemed “extreme anti-Israel sentiments,” such as describing Israel as “fundamentally a racist state, that it is committing genocide in Gaza.”

The other 40 per cent involved anti-Jewish attitudes writ large, such as denying the Holocaust, or describing Jews as cheap or having control over the media.

Lyons’ office approached various Jewish groups to promote the survey to their members and ask them to complete it.

Some parents reported moving their children to different schools, or having their children remove things that identified them as Jewish while attending school.

The report marks a rare move of federal rapporteurs singling out issues outside of Ottawa’s jurisdiction.

The Ontario government said antisemitism is unacceptable in its schools.

“We expect school boards across the province to focus on student achievement and creating supportive classrooms,” wrote Emma Testani, press secretary for provincial education minister Paul Calandra.

“We will continue working with our education partners to keep politics out of the classroom and ensure schools remain focused on helping students succeed.”

Michael Levitt, a former Liberal MP who runs a Jewish advocacy group, called the survey “a searing indictment” of how the education system treats Jewish students.

“While the Ontario government and some school boards are making an effort to bring antisemitism training and Holocaust education to staff and students, our education system must do more to root out antisemitism and hold perpetrators accountable,” wrote Levitt, head of the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Canada has endorsed the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which has attracted controversy among academics and free-speech advocates.

The IHRA definition says it is anti-Jewish to single out Israel for criticism not levelled at other countries, to deem the creation of Israel “a racist endeavour” or to compare Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Pro-Palestinian groups have said the definition could be used against those who accuse Israel of implementing an apartheid system and intentionally starving people in Gaza.

Source: Federal envoy urges Ontario to act on antisemitism in its public schools

ICYMI: Ontario unveils changes to provincial immigration nominee program

Of note:

Ontario has introduced changes to its popular provincial immigration program to meet evolving economic needs.

On Wednesday, the government tabled new legislation which, if passed, will give the provincial immigration minister the ability to establish or remove immigrant nomination streams to quickly respond to the changing job market and labour demand.

The proposed changes to the provincial immigration program would also:

•Allow officials to return applications that no longer match current job market needs or raise concerns;

•Grant inspectors the authority to require in-person interviews with applicants through the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program, to improve program integrity and prevent fraudulent claims;

•Further digitalize the application process by letting employers hoping to sponsor foreign workers for permanent residence submit applications directly and electronically to a new employer portal, starting this summer.

These are among 18 new proposed measures in the Working for Workers Seven Act, 2025 that the Conservative government hopes to adopt to meet changing economic needs and build a stronger workforce.

“We’re proposing changes that will prepare workers and businesses for the jobs of the future, while helping workers facing impacts from U.S. tariffs and economic uncertainty,” said David Piccini, minister of labour, immigration, training and skills development, in a statement.

“This package underscores our unwavering commitment to protecting our province’s most valuable resource — our workers.”…

Source: Ontario unveils changes to provincial immigration nominee program

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

Indeed:

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

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

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

It could not have been said more clearly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ontario missing strategy to match immigration to labour market needs: auditor

Of note but not surprising as once in Canada, immigrants like all people will pursue what appears be be best for them, whether in terms of economics or social and family considerations. Auditor recommendations for better data on where they end up make sense, allowing for further analysis and understanding of their reasons:

Immigrants nominated for permanent residency under Ontario’s provincial program aren’t always going to the regions or sectors that need them the most, a new auditor general report found.

The observation was made by Auditor General Shelley Spence in the audit of the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program (OINP) included in her 2024 annual report, which was released on Tuesday.

According to the report, about 37 per cent of nominees with job offers intended to settle outside of the Greater Toronto Area between 2019 and 2023.

Of those, only about three per cent of job-offer nominees landed in Northern Ontario.

“The ministry does not have an overall strategy towards a needs-based distribution of nominees across the province and particularly to regions outside of the GTA,” the auditor wrote, adding that one of OINP’s objectives is to “spread the benefits of immigration to all parts of the province and help address Ontario’s labour market needs.”

Spence noted that other provinces and the federal government have mechanisms to encourage immigration into less populated areas.

For instance, the federal government launched the Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot “to boost economic immigration to smaller communities and provide a pathway for skilled foreign workers to gain permanent residency,” she wrote.

Five of the 11 participating communities are in Northern Ontario — North Bay, Sudbury, Timmins, Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay — and, as of Dec. 31, 2023, almost 4,600 permanent residents across Canada had come through this pilot, Spence found.

Spence did outline a number of programs launched by the Doug Ford government meant to encourage nominees to settle outside of the GTA, like higher scoring for those with offers elsewhere and a two-year regional pilot to bring 300 nominees to Chatham-Kent, Cornwall and Quinte West/Belleville communities.

The pilot resulted in 147 OINP nominations. However, the auditor said, “No follow-up was conducted to see how successful the individuals were in these communities, or if they continue to reside in these communities.”

The government should also look at specific labour demands in those regions, which are different from those in the GTA, the auditor suggested. Nominations have not helped address the increasing job vacancies for registered nurses and registered psychiatric nurses in central Ontario, she noted.

The report said that within the five-year analysis period, there were 1,730 nursing vacancies in Central Ontario and 11 OINP nominations.

The auditor recommends collecting information on intended settlement locations for all nominee streams and monitoring progress toward regional targets. The government has accepted this recommendation and pledged to “work to integrate available and reliable regional labour market data into our targets where possible.”

Source: Ontario missing strategy to match immigration to labour market needs: auditor

Khan: Ontario’s keffiyeh ban dares to define the scarf’s meaning for everyone, Regg Cohn: Israel and the UN have allowed the kaffiyeh. Why does Queen’s Park need to ban it?

More commentary. Not in favour of this kind of one-off decision. If the legislature chamber is going to allow this, it needs to revise the policy to allow symbols with significant political meaning in a consistent manner:

….The ban is a betrayal of the ideals of the Emancipation Act that Mr. Arnott proudly co-sponsored – namely, upholding the “ongoing struggle for human rights.” After calling on independent MPP Sarah Jama to leave the House for wearing a keffiyeh, he sent an official to deliver the message in person. In an iconic photo, a white man leans over the desk of Ms. Jama, a Black woman clad in a hijab and a keffiyeh, and seated in a wheelchair. Let’s hope the Ontario Black History Society, recognized in the Emancipation Day Act, chronicles this shameful event and sends a letter of protest to Mr. Arnott.

Ontario MPPs had two opportunities to reverse this ban by unanimously voting against it. Yet Robin Martin and Lisa MacLeod, two PC MPPs, supported the ban,keeping it in place. It’s reminiscent of the case of the town of Saint-Apollinaire, Que., in 2017, when 19 naysayers were enough to nix plans for a Muslim cemetery run by the Islamic Cultural Centre, which also operated the Quebec City mosque where six worshippers were massacred just a few months before. That vote was rooted in ignorance and prejudice. Plus ça change.

Premier Doug Ford says he personally opposes the keffiyeh ban. But by declining so far to put forward a government motion to end it, he is failing to stand firmly for the basic human rights of all Ontarians. Now it’s up to the rest of us to strive toward a just society with human dignity at its core.

Source: Ontario’s keffiyeh ban dares to define the scarf’s meaning for everyone

From Martin Regg Cohn:

…Put another way, if it walks and talks like a political protest, it’s a protest. When so many people of all backgrounds suddenly don the Palestinian kaffiyeh, it’s no longer merely cultural or sartorial but political.

Yet even if the Speaker was speaking the truth — and Stiles was surely straining credulity by claiming the kaffiyeh isn’t political at this point — Arnott made the wrong call. Technically, he’s right, but practically his ruling was unenforceable and unsupportable.

Which is why no party leader supported him last month — not just Stiles but her Green, Liberal and Progressive Conservative counterparts asked him to reconsider. Yes, even Premier Doug Ford, mindful of a hard-fought byelection last week with many Muslim voters, echoed the NDP’s call.

The Speaker reminded them all that he is merely their servant, and that they are free to overrule him. But when MPPs were asked to give unanimous consent to permit the kaffiyeh, a number of Tories demurred, leading to the present standoff….

Source: Israel and the UN have allowed the kaffiyeh. Why does Queen’s Park need to ban it?