Another interesting assessment of Carney’s management style:
“For too long, when federal agencies have examined a new project, their immediate question has been ‘why?’ With this bill, we will instead ask ourselves ‘how?’” he said.
That’s a signal.
He expects the public service to change how it works: less process, more results. Less caution, more action. Fewer barriers, more execution.
The bill also creates a Major Projects Office — a single federal point of contact to help priority projects through assessment and permitting.
It’s a tall order: a major cultural shift from administration to execution. From gatekeepers to doers. Public servants managed to do it during the pandemic, when rules loosened and they were galvanized by the mission to protect the health of Canadians.
But this time around it won’t be easy. As one long-time deputy minister put it, this is about a “client-focused approach to delivery” for a system built on managing risk and compliance.
“This legislation is a test for us to prove we can deliver. People are excited, but we’ll have to work really hard to do it,” said a senior bureaucrat not authorized to speak publicly.
“How do we streamline our processes to be more efficient? How do we actually think about the national interests of the country while recognizing environmental and Indigenous rights? That culture shift is a different way of thinking and focuses on execution.”….
Ready or not, Carney demands answers Word has spread fast that Carney doesn’t suffer weak briefings. He’s known to cut them short when officials can’t answer his questions — and to call people out when they’re unprepared.
The stories get retold, maybe reshaped — it is Ottawa, after all — but the message has landed: come ready or don’t come at all.
Everyone’s heard a version: Carney meets with a senior bureaucrat who can’t answer a question. He stops the briefing cold and in so many words tells them to come back when they know their file. Ouch.
The risk in that kind of exchange? Officials might start pulling their punches — and stop speaking truth to power.
Carney brings a “toughness,” as one senior bureaucrat told me. He expects the clerk and deputy ministers to know their files cold. No vague answers. No promises to follow up. He wants clear answers in the room. “He digs and digs,” said one official. “People will just have to adjust and be ready for that.”
Good question, force only or with other migration management measures that started under the Biden administration:
Migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border have fallen to lows not seen since the 1960s. In April, the U.S. Border Patrol reported intercepting fewer than 8,400 irregular crossers—a stark contrast from the record high of nearly 250,000 encounters witnessed in December 2023. And data picked up elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere suggest unauthorized migration headed northward is slowing across the region: Reporting from the Darien Gap, the treacherous jungle that divides Panama and Colombia, shows there were just 200 crossings in March, compared to more than 37,000 the same month a year earlier.
With these near-historic lows, the Trump administration can rightfully claim that it has secured the border at this time, building on declines that began in early 2024 and accelerated in the second half of the year. The longer-term test, however, is whether this success can be sustained through the administration’s new show of force alone, without the less visible migration management ingredients that led to the quieting border the administration inherited.
A Year-Long Story of Reduced Migrant Flows
The current lows build on a pattern of reduced irregular arrivals that started with changes in Biden administration policies in early 2024. Amid the record level of Southwest border arrivals witnessed in December 2023, which came on the heels of two years of record border encounters during the Biden administration, the U.S. and Mexican governments negotiated increased Mexican enforcement at Mexico’s northern border and throughout the country, including checkpoints throughout well-traveled interior routes.
With this ongoing additional enforcement from Mexico, irregular arrivals at the U.S.-Mexico border decreased by 53 percent between December 2023 and May 2024 (see Figure 1). The impact of Mexican enforcement cannot be overstated: Mexican authorities recorded more encounters than did the U.S. Border Patrol every single month between May 2024 and March 2025 (the most recent month for which Mexican enforcement data are available).
Figure 1. Irregular Migrant Encounters by U.S. Border Patrol at U.S.-Mexico Border, 2023–25
Note: The data here reflect encounters recorded by the U.S. Border Patrol of migrants crossing the border without authorization; U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Office of Field Operations encounters of migrants arriving at a U.S. port of entry without prior authorization to enter are not included here. Source: CBP, “CBP Nationwide Encounters,” accessed May 29, 2025.
Following implementation of the Biden administration’s June 2024 Secure the Border rule, irregular encounters continued to drop, with the ongoing aid offered by increased Mexican enforcement. This rule sought to disincentivize illegal entries and incentivize arrivals at a port of entry by further limiting access to asylum for those who crossed between ports of entry and permitting an appointment, through use of the CBP One app, to be screened at an official port of entry. Those who entered through the CBP One app could later go on to apply for asylum.
Irregular crossings dropped from 84,000 that June to 47,000 in December, a 43 percent decrease. Notably, encounters in December 2024 were 81 percent lower than the same month a year earlier. Proof that the carrot-and-stick approach was beginning to turn the tide was seen in November 2024, when for the first time more migrants arrived at ports of entry than between (see Figure 2). Though by a small margin, this shift established a pattern of more migrants seeking to enter lawfully via CBP One rather than risk entering irregularly.
Figure 2. Migrant Encounters At and Between Ports of Entry at U.S.-Mexico Border, 2024
Note: Office of Field Operations (OFO) encounters occur at ports of entry; U.S. Border Patrol encounters occur between ports of entry. Source: CBP, “CBP Nationwide Encounters.”
Inheriting an Increasingly Quiet Border
Thus, the current lows seen under the Trump administration represent a continuation of trends established during the prior administration—and momentum the Biden team put in place by increasing migration management cooperation with Mexico and other countries in the Western Hemisphere as well as further narrowing access to asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. However, upon taking office, the Trump administration shuttered many of the programs that had become the basis for dramatic reductions in irregular arrivals.
During his first days in office, President Donald Trump declared a national emergency at the border and a migrant “invasion.” By cancelling use of the CBP One app while leaving the Secure the Border rule restrictions in place, the Trump administration made asylum inaccessible at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Most notably, the administration terminated access to Biden-era humanitarian pathways that had helped reduce chaotic arrivals at the Southwest border. The Trump administration swiftly ended admissions under the Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan (CHNV) parole program, which reduced irregular encounters of those nationalities at the border by 92 percent between October 2022 and December 2024. Nearly 532,000 individuals were admitted through the CHNV program, allowing them access to work permits and temporary relief from deportation. The administration also closed the Safe Mobility Offices (SMOs) that had been set up in Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Guatemala to consider migrants for refugee resettlement or other lawful pathways before they reached the U.S. border. More than 40,000 people were approved for U.S. refugee status through the SMOs.
An Italian referendum on granting faster citizenship to certain immigrants and seeking to strengthen labor rights failed because of low turnout, after Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and leading right-wing political parties urged Italians to boycott the democratic process.
In conceding defeat, Maurizio Landini, the secretary-general of the powerful CGIL trade union federation that helped bring about the referendum, said it still was a “starting point” on important issues that remain “on the table” for Italy. This includes heated debates over how many immigrants should be welcomed to Italy, as the country suffers a demographic crisis with an aging population and one of the lowest birthrates in the world.
As well as asking Italians to vote to liberalize the labor market, the referendum sought to reduce the time it takes to become a naturalized citizen from 10 years to five years. Campaigners for the change said this would help second-generation Italians born in the country to non-European Union citizens. They can spend years, often long into adulthood, battling to get full citizenship rights from the only country they know to be their home.
Italian economists have said the change could also be a useful measure to address the problems resulting from Italy’s aging society and low birthrate — just 12% of the population is younger than 14.
On Sunday and Monday, the two days of referendum voting, turnout was low and thus the referendum was declared void. Partial data from Italy’s Interior Ministry published Sunday showed national turnout of just 22.7%, far below the 50% participation by eligible voters that is required for referendums in Italy to be valid. After polls closed on Monday, the YouTrend polling agency estimated voter participation to have been around 30% of eligible voters. In his concession speech, Landini said it was clear from the results that “there is an obvious crisis of democracy.”
The Court found that Malta’s program established a “transactional procedure” whereby nationality was “essentially granted in exchange for predetermined payments or investments.” This approach was deemed fundamentally incompatible with the concept of citizenship as representing a “special relationship of solidarity and good faith between a Member State and its nationals”.
B. Lack of Genuine Link
The Court emphasized that the scheme lacked provisions for establishing a genuine connection between applicants and Malta. The minimal residency requirements and the ability to expedite naturalization through additional payments undermined any serious claim of a real connection.
C. Violation of EU Principles
By operating such a scheme, Malta was found to have violated the principles of sincere cooperation and mutual trust among EU Member States. The Court stated that the scheme jeopardized the mutual trust necessary for the proper functioning of the EU, particularly concerning the recognition of national decisions on citizenship.
Comparative Perspective: Cyprus’s Experience
Cyprus faced similar scrutiny over its investor citizenship program. In response to EU concerns, Cyprus terminated its scheme in November 2020 and subsequently revoked the citizenships of 39 individuals. This proactive approach allowed Cyprus to align with EU expectations and avoid legal proceedings.
Commentary from AGPLAW
The CJEU’s decision underlines the importance of aligning national citizenship laws with EU principles. Cyprus’ experience demonstrates that while the termination of such programs may have short-term economic implications, it also opens avenues for developing alternative investment strategies that comply with EU law. For instance, Cyprus has since focused on enhancing its residency programs and attracting foreign investment through transparent and lawful means.
Malta now faces a critical juncture. By studying the Cypriot model, Malta can explore compliant avenues to attract foreign investment without compromising the integrity of EU citizenship.
Conclusion
The CJEU’s ruling marks a significant development in EU citizenship law, emphasizing that citizenship cannot be commodified. Member States are reminded of their obligations to uphold the principles of sincere cooperation and mutual trust. As the EU continues to explore the complexities of citizenship and investment, this judgment serves as a precedent for ensuring that the acquisition of citizenship remains a process grounded in genuine connection and adherence to EU values.
Not surprising as applicants are generally pretty savvy at understanding systems and ways to improve their chances:
Ottawa is cracking down on skilled immigration applicants who manipulate the point system to boost their ranking scores for a spot in the increasingly competitive permanent resident draws.
Since 2015, the Immigration Department has used the current system to score and rank skilled immigration candidates based on their age, education, language proficiency, work experience and adaptability. Periodic draws are conducted and candidates with the highest scores in the pool are invited to apply.
There are two scoring grids: for candidates who are single, and for those who have spouses and get points for the partner’s qualifying attributes. To balance out this potential advantage for married candidates, singles can earn more points for the same attributes (education, language proficiency, etc.). The potential maximum is 600 points, whether married or single.
However, married candidates have the option to exclude their spouses in the application and be assessed as if they were single, and benefit from the additional points as an individual applicant. It could bump up their score by up to 40 points and make a difference in the current immigration landscape.
Due to the influx of study and work permit holders after the pandemic ended in 2022, the pool of candidates in the system has grown, and new priorities arose for applicants in occupations experiencing skill shortages to bypass the score ranking system.
That has resulted in higher passing scores and more competition for those who aren’t in a prioritized occupation in areas such as health care, education, STEM and skilled trades.
To outscore others, married applicants have increasingly excluded their spouses in applications and opted to sponsor them later, after they themselves secure permanent residence….
The survey, conducted by the Environics Institute for Survey Research, also found the vast majority of respondents were strongly opposed to Canada becoming the 51st state.
“It’s really the worst collective opinions of the U.S. that we have recorded” in the more than 40 years the institute has been keeping track, said Keith Neuman, a senior associate at the Environics Institute for Survey Research. “By more than a two-to-one margin, Canadians’ opinions are negative rather than positive.”
It’s the result of what some experts call a “visceral reaction” toward Trump’s tariffs and annexation threats.
“The unfavourable feelings are much stronger this time, and much more intense,” said Adam Chapnick, a Canadian foreign policy analyst and professor of defence studies at the Royal Military College of Canada.
“It’s being reflected in Canadians not travelling to the United States, not purchasing products that are made in the United States and becoming more serious about making hard decisions domestically to improve our productivity and competitiveness in the world.”
Canadian public perception of the U.S. hits new low
That’s a dramatic shift from last fall, when public sentiment toward the U.S. was divided roughly 50-50.
The closest Canadians have come to a similar unfavourability rating was in 2020, during the tail end of Trump’s first administration. At the time, 63 per cent of Canadians felt unfavourable to the U.S.
“In Trump’s first term, it took several years for Canadian public opinion to deteriorate to the same point,” Neuman noted. “The impact on Canadian public opinion has been much quicker this time … there’s not only the history, but he’s been much more aggressive and assertive with policies much quicker this time around.”
A majority of Conservative voters — 57 per cent — still viewed the U.S. favourably, down six points from last fall. In contrast, more than 80 per cent of Liberal, Bloc Quebecois and NDP voters had an unfavourable opinion of the States.
Overall, 78 per cent of Canadians disapproved of Trump’s handling of the U.S. presidency, a figure that matched 2018. Trump was most popular among Conservative voters, 30 per cent of whom approved of his performance.
Canadians can still recover their positive relationship with the States “if we can turn things around in a reasonable period of time,” Chapnick said, referencing Trump’s tariffs and threats against Canadian sovereignty.
“I think that the long-term positive relationship is quite resilient,” he said. “Geography makes us more resilient. Family ties add to that. I think that, should things get back to some sort of new normal, there should be an ability for us to bounce back to a reasonable degree.”
Large majority of Canadians strongly against becoming the 51st state
Canadians have taken an “elbows up” response to Trump’s threats against Canadian sovereignty, Neuman said.
Eighty-three per cent of respondents said they “strongly disagree” that Canada and the U.S. should unite into one country, while just seven per cent said a merger should happen.
That’s a stronger sentiment than when the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA) — the precursor to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) — was negotiated in 1986, stoking fears of an economic and cultural merger between the two nations. Back then, just 63 per cent of Canadians were strongly against Canada and the U.S. uniting.
Shortly after the CUSFTA was implemented in the late-1980s, an Environics poll found 30 per cent of Canadians felt it was “very likely” that Canada will remain independent from the U.S. over the next decade. Today, that figure has jumped to 70 per cent.
“That, in some ways, is maybe the most surprising or notable finding,” Neuman said. “It’s not evident that we should be seeing that strong a level of confidence right now, given the uncertainty with tariffs and the uncertainty about Trump … We have not been threatened as a country like this since before we became a country.”
But Chapnick wasn’t surprised, noting that Canadians grew more confident in their nation’s sovereignty after worries of annexation during CUSFTA negotiations didn’t come to pass….
…Dana Wagner, co-founder of TalentLift, a non-profit international recruitment company that matches displaced people with employers, said that with no direction from the federal government both employees and refugees are in limbo. Letting the program just expire would be ”counterproductive and cruel,” she said.
“You can’t turn economic visas on and off like a tap without harming Canadian workplaces. Employers put time and resources into international hiring, and that investment is lost if a visa pathway suddenly ends,” she said.
“People in really tough refugee situations around the world are also investing in their job search with Canadian teams. There’s a number of people waiting on the results of an interview, or working hard to get one, who’d be facing yet another major lost opportunity if Canada ends this program.” …
…In its ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the Sixth Circuit’s test. It held that all plaintiffs approach the law equally, regardless of their group identity, and all plaintiffs have to meet the same legal burdens to win their case. There can be no extra hurdle for members of majority groups.
I wasn’t surprised by the outcome, but I was at least mildly surprised that it was unanimous. And I was definitely surprised by the author of the majority opinion — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court’s most liberal members.
Jackson’s words were clear. Nondiscrimination law is focused on protecting individuals. Quoting previous Supreme Court cases, Jackson wrote, “Discriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed.” As a consequence, “Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.”
Crucially, the court didn’t rule that Ames had been discriminated against. Instead, it sent the case back down to the lower court to be decided under the proper, equal standard.
Standing alone, the Ames case is relatively narrow in scope. It only holds that all employment discrimination plaintiffs have to meet the same test. Taken together with the court’s other recent cases, including most notably 2023’s Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which prohibits race preferences in university admissions, the lesson is plain: Any discrimination rooted in immutable characteristics, such as race, sex or sexual orientation, will automatically be legally suspect, regardless of whether the motivation for discrimination was malign or benign…
Valid call for separate bill with proposed cheeky title:
…It’s a package clearly meant to appease Mr. Trump. But Canada’s immigration problems are not a border security issue the way they are at the U.S. frontier with Mexico.
Other than the anomaly of the Roxham Road crossing, which has been fixed by a renegotiation of the STCA, Canada’s problem has not been a porous border but, rather, the mismanagement of its immigration and refugee system by Mr. Carney’s predecessor.
Lumping in these needed reforms with criminal matters glosses over the Liberals’ failings while doing a disservice to people legitimately fleeing persecution or looking for a new life in Canada.
The government should put the immigration reforms in their own bill. A suggested name would be, “Belatedly Undoing the Incompetence of the Trudeau Government Act.”
Immigration section. Correct assessment regarding stakeholders who will oppose any further restrictions or limits. Fails to acknowledge provincial government complicity however:
…And then there is the other side of the housing crisis: demand. More specifically, immigration. It is now widely accepted that our astronomically high levels of immigration, which ramped up under Trudeau, have played a major role in doubling housing costs in the last 10 years. But even though Carney has signalled that he wants to lower immigration levels to something more sustainable, his promise seems shallow.
Immigration targets outlined in the Liberal platform largely represent a continuation of Trudeau-era levels of immigration. And even if Carney is genuinely dedicated to reducing immigration levels, doing so will require regaining control of a completely broken immigration system, not just commitments on the numbers. There has been recent reporting that the government doesn’t even know how many people are in the country right now.
More significantly, fixing immigration will require taking on powerful stakeholders who benefit from the broken status quo they helped build. Many of our major businesses and the service sector have become addicted to cheap, temporary foreign labour. 1
Canada’s post-secondary institutions, colleges being some of the worst offenders, exploit international students as cash cows who have also become another source of cheap labour. And of course, high immigration levels keep the demand for housing high to maintain our real estate pyramid scheme. Similar to housing, fixing this system requires not only serious structural reforms but also the willingness to take on powerful stakeholders with a lot to lose from any reform….
Multicultural Meanderings 