Press Feed
FR EN
Pages Menu

Why Canada should rethink its immigration policy

Despite pro-immigration “diversity is our strength” platitudes/rhetoric coming from the Federal Liberals, the facts are starting to show that this may not be true. PhD student Sanjay Jeram, who was quoted in a column by Douglas Todd for the Vancouver Sun, said, “Housing, employment, urban congestion, the welfare state and training are all affected by Canadian immigration policy”. With 300,000 people entering the country each year (to put that in perspective, it’s the population of Laval is 420,000) it’s fair to ask how those numbers are bearing out. Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec and Alberta are the provinces that carry the biggest burden when it comes to accepting new immigrants. Ontario is leading the way, receiving a staggering 52 per cent of new immigrants—the grand majority of which are going to Toronto, and Quebec amd British Columbia receiving 17 and 16 per cent, respectively. The Globe and Mail claimed that, out of one million immigrants this government plans to take in, 58 per cent will be economic, 27 per cent family class and 14 per cent will be refugees. While 58 per cent being economic immigrants might sound nice, the fact is even the most well-educated immigrants coming to Canada have a difficult time acquiring work in the country within the first five years of arrival, according to a Global News article. This puts a tremendous burden on our welfare system. Furthermore, “millionaire migrants,” as described in David Ley's book of the same name, showed that many were paying less taxes on average than other immigrants and refugees, and not declaring their global assets. This once again puts tremendous short-term strain on landed immigrants and natives alike. Wealth inequality has also risen more quickly in Canada than it has in the United States over the last decade, according to the Canadian… Read More

Islamophobia needs to be approached rationally, not emotionally

When students ask me if Islamophobia exists, my reply is always the same: It does—if you can prove it. I advise them to follow the evidence when ascertaining whether a claim against Muslims or Islam possesses any merit. Unfortunately, not everyone adopts a scientific approach to understanding this social phenomenon. It has even become fashionable of late to discredit the reality of Islamophobia or deny its existence altogether. For instance, when interviewed on The Rebel, University of Toronto professor Dr. Jordan Peterson referred to Islamophobia as a term “without integrity.” Likewise, Toronto Sun columnist Tarek Fatah insisted that Islamophobia could not be defined, since it was a “fraud.” In the National Review, journalist Brendan O’Neill labelled Islamophobia a “myth.” Writing for the Prince Arthur Herald, political science professor Henry Srebrnik called Islamophobia a media “obsession.” None of these characterizations, however, are sufficient from a scholarly viewpoint. Self-evident positions, quick dismissals or gross exaggerations tend to detract from the main issue, that being whether a given claim made against Muslims or Islam is rational or irrational. Take, for instance, the statements made by conservative political commentator Mark Steyn. He remarked in the National Post, “most Muslims either wish or are indifferent to the death of the societies in which they live.” Yet Steyn provides no statistical analysis to support his case. Here is what the evidence states concerning Muslim attitudes towards violence. In a 2016 Environics poll, only one per cent of Canadian Muslims believe that “many” or “most” Muslims in Canada support violent extremism. Globally speaking, Muslims overwhelmingly reject suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam. Studies conducted by the Pew Research Center found that Muslims view such extremism as rarely or never justified, including 96 per cent in both Bosnia-Herzegovina and Azerbaijan, 92 per… Read More

Dalhousie’s code of conduct violates university values

Early last summer, Dalhousie University Student Union Vice President, Masuma Khan, proposed a motion that the student union should boycott Canada Day celebrations. Responding to criticism, Khan took to social media: “At this point, f—k you all. I stand by the motion I put forward. I stand by Indigenous students. (…) Be proud of this country? For what, over 400 years of genocide?” She added: “white fragility can kiss my ass. Your white tears aren’t sacred, this land is.” These posts violated Dalhousie’s student code of conduct, which prohibits “unwelcome or persistent conduct that the student knows, or ought to know, would cause another person to feel demeaned, intimidated or harassed.” That’s the official finding Arig al Shaibah, Dalhousie’s vice-provost of student affairs, made after conducting a formal investigation. The investigation followed a complaint from another Dalhousie student alleging that Khan’s “targeting [of] ‘white people’ who celebrate Canada Day is blatant discrimination.” Khan has declined to participate in an informal resolution process, which would have had her receive counseling and submit an essay. Dalhousie was slated to begin a formal process to determine her punishment, but they have since withdrawn their complaint due to public backlash. Universities these days neither understand nor appreciate freedom of expression on campus. That Khan was being persecuted for the content of her expression, or the manner in which she expressed it, was just one incident in a long line. Without freedom of expression on campus, though, universities cannot fulfill their mission as places of inquiry and discussion. Let us agree, just for the sake of argument, with the finding that Khan violated the student code of conduct. Let us also agree that she was abusive and that there is no place for abusive expression on campus. Why, then, was Dalhousie’s approach wrongheaded? What should… Read More

Why we need Bill 62

Political controversy isn't new to Québec, and every time a new bill gets passed, the news spreads through all of Canada. The latest piece of legislation comes in the form of Bill 62, a bill which prohibits the use of face-coverings while receiving government services. Naturally, the bill is being criticized as Islamophobic as the Islamic face veil -- known as the niqab -- is restricted under this ban. There are fair arguments for opposing the bill. For example, the bill also prohibits riding the bus while having face-coverings. This, I find ridiculous, as it will be difficult to ensure bus drivers will enforce the law. However, unlike some, I look at this bill as an attempt to ensure public safety. In this day and age, terrorism remains a threat, and as unfortunate as that is, the government needs to be able to identify those who they are serving. I agree with the bill solely for the protection of our government institutions. I wouldn't feel comfortable as a government employee serving someone I cannot identify. That includes all face-coverings, not just the niqab. I truly don't understand those who oppose the bill on the grounds of Islamophobia. It is common knowledge the niqab is not an Islamic requirement. Only those in the extreme sects of Islam support its use. If you want to wear the niqab at home, that is your right. However, in a world where identification can be key to the protection of our society, you can't have your face covered when dealing with government officials or offices. This debate is reminiscent of the legal battle in 2015 fought between the then-Conservative government under Stephen Harper, and Zunera Ishaq. Where Ishaq fought and won the right to wear her niqab while being sworn in as a Canadian citizen.… Read More

Age requirements for the Canadian citizenship test should not change

As of Oct. 11th, several changes occurred in the required steps for Canadian citizenship. Most of these changes are minor issues centered around the amount time spent in Canada while applying, meaning that applicants have to stay in Canada for a certain amount of time while the application goes through. Frankly, these mean very little to me. What has me angry is the new age range for the Canadian citizenship test. The new regulations, as quoted from the Canadian government website are such, ”[The] age range for language and knowledge requirements reduced to 18-54 years old”. The ages were previously 14-64. To me, reducing this age requirement is insane. I believe most naturalized Canadian citizens don't know enough about our country's history--so why are we scaling back the expectations needed for future Canadians? As for the language requirement, does it not seem crazy that immigrants aged 14-17 and 55-63 don’t need to be qualified in English or French when they become Canadians? The younger immigrants are somewhat understandable, as they are children, but even so, how will they succeed in Canadian schools? The older immigrants should have to know English or French, or else how will they get jobs and contribute to the Canadian economy? Immigrants make up a large portion of our economy, but to have them lacking in our two languages seems ridiculous.     I am all for immigration to Canada, as we are a multicultural nation with varied backgrounds. However, Canada has a long and rich history, and to allow some immigrants not to take this test is an insult to the history of Canada, especially during the 150th year of confederation. Shouldn't we all know about the places we live in? Even children aged 14-17 should have to take the test. They will be taking Canadian… Read More

Trudeau and the Canadian left’s hypocritical “feminism”

The only women worth listening to, according to the Liberals and the NDP, are pro-choice women. The only women worthy of representing women, according to our country’s political left, are women who believe what they believe.   And this show’s the Trudeau government’s blatant hypocrisy when it comes to feminism and women’s rights—namely, a woman’s right to independent thought.   Last Tuesday, the Liberals and NDP successfully ousted pro-life Lethbridge MP Rachael Harder as chair of the government’s status of women committee, after having protested her nomination just a week before.   The Liberal and NDP-majority committee used its power and, instead, voted in pro-choice Conservative MP Karen Vecchio, despite Vecchio’s objections and demands to be withdrawn from nomination.   Indeed, the Liberals and NDP would rather have a committee chair entirely uninterested in the position, rather than one that challenges their views.   And there is much to challenge. A 2016 Ipsos poll found that 21 per cent of respondents supported limited access to abortion, in cases such as rape; eight per cent supported it only if the mother’s life was in jeopardy; and three per cent were against it no matter the circumstances.   Yes, a majority—57 per cent—of Canadians support access to abortion, according to the poll, but this support is not universal. Only 47 per cent of Albertans, for example, support access to abortion—the lowest approval rating in the country, and the area of the country Harder represents.   Despite Canadians’ clear division on the issue, Canada is one of the few countries in the world with no restrictions on abortion. According to an article in the Globe and Mail, this unfettered access to abortion has created a problem for some girls within Canada’s immigrant communities.   Two studies published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal,… Read More
Page 1 of 2812345...1020...Last »