NYT editorial: Antisemitism Is an Urgent Problem. Too Many People Are Making Excuses.

Good editorial. Applies to Canada as well:

Americans should be able to recognize the nuanced nature of many political debates while also recognizing that antisemitism has become an urgent problem. It is a different problem — and in many ways, a narrower one — than racism. Antisemitism has not produced shocking gaps in income, wealth and life expectancy in today’s America. Yet the new antisemitism has left Jewish Americans at a greater risk of being victimized by a hate crime than any other group. Many Jews live with fears that they never expected to experience in this country.

No political arguments or ideological context can justify that bigotry. The choice is between denouncing it fully and encouraging an even broader explosion of hate.

Source: Antisemitism Is an Urgent Problem. Too Many People Are Making Excuses.

Public service shrinks by nearly 10,000, with tax, immigration hit the hardest

Interestingly, core public administration, the basis for employment equity reports, only shrank by some 3,000 (CRA not included in core public administration, meaning that IRCC had the vast majority of cuts). The 2023-24 EE report shows an increase, but as I go through hiring, promotion, and separation data, hiring has started to decrease. Real issues, as others have flagged, with cuts disproportionately affecting younger workers. More to come:

The federal public service shed almost 10,000 people last year, with the Canada Revenue Agency and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada losing the most employees.

The last time the public service contracted was in 2015, when the number of people employed dropped just slightly from 257,138 to 257,034.

The number of public servants employed by the federal government fell from 367,772 to 357,965 over the last year.

The CRA lost 6,656 employees between 2024 and 2025, dropping from 59,155 to 52,499. The size of the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada workforce fell from 13,092 to 11,148, a loss of 1,944 employees.

The Public Health Agency of Canada lost 879 employees, Shared Services Canada dropped 608 employees, Health Canada lost 559 and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency lost 453.

Some departments and agencies saw their workforces expand over the past year. The RCMP hired another 911 public servants, Elections Canada hired another 479, National Defence hired an extra 381 and Global Affairs Canada took on another 218.

The data does not include employees on leave without pay, locals employed outside of Canada, RCMP regular force and civilian members, Canadian Armed Forces members, employees of the National Capital Commission and those who work for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Most of those who lost their jobs were “term” employees — people hired for a limited period of time. Between 2024 and 2025, the public service lost almost 8,000 term employees.

The government also dropped almost 3,000 casual employees — people who can’t be employed by any one government department or agency for more than 90 days — and 1,750 students.

The number of permanent federal public service employees increased by about 2,700 last year.

More than three-quarters of the people who left the federal public service last year were under the age of 35.

Of those who lost their jobs, 4,413 were between the ages of 25 and 29, another 3,354 were between the ages of 20 and 24, 563 were aged 30 to 34 and 246 were under 20.

Lori Turnbull, a professor of political science at Dalhousie University, said it’s not surprising that most of the positions eliminated were term positions — short-term positions that don’t have to be renewed.

“These contract positions are often vehicles for entry into the public service,” Turnbull said.

David McLaughlin, executive editor of Canadian Government Executive Media and former president and CEO of the Institute on Governance, said term employees and younger staffers are the easiest people for governments to cut.

“If you’re paying people out, they don’t require big packages, so they are the easiest, cheapest employees to let go,” he said.

But by dropping younger employees whose careers are just beginning, he said, the government risks missing out on the kind of cultural change and innovation the public service badly needs.

“You run the longer-term risk by letting go younger people who may be dedicating their careers and to public service,” he said. “You are simply reinforcing the older sub-performers that may exist in the public service.

“I would not recommend this as an approach to resolving public service spending.”

The government spent $43.3 billion on public servants’ salaries in 2023-24, according to the parliamentary budget officer. It spent a $65.3 billion on all employee compensation, including pensions, overtime and bonuses.

PBO data also indicates that, in 2023, the average salary for a full-time public servant was $98,153.

The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat said it could not provide an average salary for public servants for 2024 or 2025.

Public service employees have been braced for layoffs since the previous Liberal government launched efforts to refocus federal spending in 2023.

In the 2024 budget, ­the previous government said it expected the public service population to decline by around 5,000 full-time positions over the subsequent four years.

It also said that, starting on April 1, 2025, departments and agencies would be required to cover a portion of increased operating costs with existing resources.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has vowed to cap, not cut, the federal public service, though his government has given little indication of what that might entail. The prime minister also has promised to launch a “comprehensive” review of government spending with the aim of increasing its productivity.

Hundreds of workers in the Canada Revenue Agency, Employment and Social Development Canada and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada have been laid off recently.

Those organizations also saw their numbers increase during the pandemic years.

Turnbull said that, with the pandemic over and immigration numbers being scaled down, the federal government sees this downsizing as “logical.”

McLaughlin, meanwhile, warned that downsizing only offers “episodic savings” and wondered whether service delivery can keep up with demand.

Source: Public service shrinks by nearly 10,000, with tax, immigration hit the hardest

McWhorter: Viewed From Any Angle, This Station Is a Wonder and an Inspiration

Money quote: “That feeling of hunger to see, to know, that sense of awe and joy — that is what education should foster.”

…Which is why it depresses me endlessly when these goals narrow in the way they so often do today. So many teachers or professors seem to think that during the short time we have students under our influence, our primary job is to instruct them in how to illuminate injustice.

The field of education, for example, is a rich subject — “How many miles to the heart of a child?” asked the lead character in Kurt Weill and Maxwell Anderson’s 1949 musical “Lost in the Stars.” But in “What’s College For?” the author Zachary Karabell describes something sadly familiar these days: a professor focused on telling students how America’s educational apparatus perpetuates class stratification.

The film critic David Denby, in “Great Books,” his volume about Columbia University’s core curriculum, described an instructor whose only apparent interest in Aristotle was in condemning his sexism and racism, rather than exploring the broader scope of his writings. I once sat in on a course about Black film in which the main theme class after class was how each movie exemplified negative stereotypes. The artistry, the richness, the reasons the films were meaningful to Black people were considered of lesser interest. Rachmaninoff’s piano concertos, every word of George Eliot’s “Middlemarch,” William Levi Dawson’s “Negro Symphony” from start to finish — all of these can be laboriously interpreted as demonstrations of the abuse of power. But doing so misses their true value.

I would hate to see anyone put that kind of teaching to use when entering Michigan Central Station — to internalize the idea that upon encountering that magnificence, one’s thoughts should be primarily about injustice. Certainly the Black porters there worked under less than ideal conditions; white passengers often saw them as barely human. (The convention back in the day was to call all Black porters “George,” because who cared what they called themselves?) It’s important to remember these facts. But even amid that bigotry, Black people had the same capacity as white people to see beauty. And they have the same capacity today.

On the way to Michigan Central, I was talking with a Black guy named Anton who had grown up nearby. As the building came into view, rising so majestically into the day’s overcast sky and set diagonally to the main road, I shouted, “Goddamn!” At the very same second, Anton exclaimed “Look at that! There it is, man!”

That feeling of hunger to see, to know, that sense of awe and joy — that is what education should foster.

Source: Viewed From Any Angle, This Station Is a Wonder and an Inspiration

Rioux: Une odeur de guerre civile

Mix of both side-ism and overly rigid perspective of “strong-borderism:”

….Certes, à 18 mois des élections de mi-mandat, l’envoi des gardes nationaux et des marines pour mater les émeutiers relève probablement d’un calcul politique. Mais le gouverneur de la Californie, Gavin Newsom, n’est pas non plus dénué d’ambition à un moment où les démocrates se cherchent un sauveur. Rappelons aussi que les rafles sauvages de la police de l’immigration (ICE) sont en partie dues au refus de la Ville de Los Angeles, une ville « refuge », de fournir, par exemple, les informations sur la sortie de prison d’illégaux condamnés par les tribunaux. C’est ce qu’a rappelé la journaliste du Wall Street Journal Allysia Finley, qui évalue leur nombre à quelques centaines de milliers sur tout le territoire américain.

On doit certes reprocher à Donald Trump et tout particulièrement à son chef adjoint de cabinet, Stephen Miller, leur acharnement sur ces illégaux qui travaillent et vivent pacifiquement depuis longtemps aux États-Unis. Mais certainement pas de combattre une immigration illégale devenue endémique, puisque le président a justement été élu pour ça. Et encore moins de renvoyer ceux qui ont été condamnés par la justice, comme ont souhaité le faire tous les ministres de l’Intérieur qui se sont succédé depuis dix ans en France. Dans ces combats — qu’il a d’ailleurs en partie déjà gagnés puisque les entrées à la frontière mexicaine ont chuté de manière spectaculaire —, Trump a le soutien d’une majorité d’Américains.

« L’indécence de l’époque ne provient pas d’un excès, mais d’un déficit de frontières », a écrit Régis Debray. Frontières que l’écrivain définissait comme « le bouclier des humbles ». Cette odeur de poudre, en France comme aux États-Unis, est le fruit de longues années qui ont vu triompher l’idéologie du sans-frontiérisme. Pas plus que les hommes ne peuvent vivre sans famille, les nations ne peuvent vivre sans frontières. Si celles du pays s’effondrent, des murs s’élèveront dans chaque région, des clôtures dans chaque quartier et autour de chaque maison. À terme, les citoyens décideront de se défendre eux-mêmes. C’est ainsi que l’on crée le terreau d’une guerre civile dont les symptômes avant-coureurs sont déjà sous nos yeux.

Source: Une odeur de guerre civile

…. Certainly, 18 months before the mid-term elections, the sending of national guards and the navies to control the rioters is probably a matter of a political calculation. But California Governor Gavin Newsom is also not without ambition at a time when Democrats are looking for a savior. Recall also that the savage round-ups of the immigration police (ICE) are partly due to the refusal of the City of Los Angeles, a “refuge” city, to provide, for example, information on the release from prison of illegals convicted by the courts. This is what Wall Street Journal journalist Allysia Finley, who estimates their number at a few hundred thousand throughout the American territory.

We must certainly blame Donald Trump and especially his deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, for their fierceness on these illegals who have been working and living peacefully in the United States for a long time. But certainly not to fight illegal immigration that has become endemic, since the president was precisely elected for that. And even less to dismiss those who have been convicted by justice, as all the interior ministers who have succeeded each other for ten years in France have wished to do. In these fights – which he has already partly won since entrances to the Mexican border have fallen dramatically – Trump has the support of a majority of Americans.

“The indecency of the time does not come from an excess, but from a deficit of borders,” wrote Régis Debray. Borders that the writer defined as “the shield of the humble”. This smell of powder, in France as in the United States, is the result of long years that have seen the ideology of borderlessism triumph. Just as men cannot live without a family, nations cannot live without borders. If those of the country collapse, walls will rise in each region, fences in each neighborhood and around each house. Eventually, citizens will decide to defend themselves. This is how we create the soil of a civil war whose harbingering symptoms are already before our eyes.

More Americans Are Giving Up U.S. Citizenship, New Report Finds

To date, more for economic reasons (avoiding need to file US taxes) than for political ones. We shall see how that changes as this data is four years old, dating from Trump 1:

Once considered a rare and symbolic act, renouncing U.S. citizenship has become increasingly common — and, for many Americans living abroad, a practical decision. A new Boundless report reveals that annual renunciations have surged from an average of just 200–400 cases before 2009 to a record high of 6,705 in 2020, with numbers remaining elevated ever since.

The primary drivers of rising U.S. citizenship renunciations are complex international tax laws and foreign banking restrictions, but other factors also play a role in the growing trend.

Here are the key findings:

  • Trends: While still relatively rare overall, the consistent rise in citizenship renunciations since 2009 indicates a long-term shift rather than a short-term anomaly.
  • Motivations: The trend is primarily driven by a mix of legal, financial, and logistical challenges related to the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) — enacted in 2010 but fully implemented beginning in 2014. Growing disillusionment with U.S. policy and politics also plays a role in recent renunciation trends.
  • Demographic Insights: Most individuals giving up their citizenship are long-term expats living abroad, middle-income earners, and dual nationals who already possess citizenship in another country. A notable and expanding group includes “accidental Americans,” people unaware of their U.S. citizenship until flagged by overseas financial institutions
  • Global Context: Among other developed countries, the U.S. ranks sixth in renunciation rates relative to population and second in total renunciations. Unlike other countries — where military service or lack of emotional ties to the country drive renunciations — U.S. renunciations are largely driven by complex tax and banking rules applied to U.S. citizens living abroad.
  • Broader Implications: The ongoing rise in citizenship renunciations highlights major policy concerns, especially in areas like tax enforcement, foreign banking compliance, and the changing value proposition of American citizenship in a globalized world.
  • Renunciation Data Delays: Official U.S. renunciation statistics are typically published 12 to 18 months after the fact due to administrative processing and agency cross-referencing. This means data released in 2025 will mostly reflect renunciations from 2023 or early 2024. As a result, any shift in renunciation numbers during Trump’s first year back in office likely won’t be visible in the public record until 2026.

For many Americans living abroad, renouncing U.S. citizenship is less about politics and more about avoiding burdensome tax and banking rules. As more people live and work across borders, the U.S. may need to reevaluate whether its policies support or hinder the lives of its citizens overseas.

Source: More Americans Are Giving Up U.S. Citizenship, New Report Finds

Visible minorities in the GTA increasingly supporting Conservatives: U of T study

Interesting and relevant study. Think the shift largely reflects economic concerns and affordability, particularly among younger voters, whether visible minorities or not, and the effectiveness of Conservative outreach and engagement:

Federal and provincial Conservatives are winning over more visible minority voters in the GTA, a new study has found.

According to researchers at the University of Toronto’s School of Cities, visible minorities in the GTA, who make up more than half of the population, are increasingly backing Conservative candidates in federal and provincial elections. The study, out Wednesday, considers anyone, besides Indigenous people, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour as a visible minority, as defined by Statistics Canada.

The findings are based on federal and Ontario election results over the past two decades, including the two most recent national and provincial elections earlier this year.

“What used to be a weak spot for the right is now a growing base,” Prof. Emine Fidan Elcioglu and research assistant Aniket Kali wrote in the study, noting the Conservatives have historically been seen as the party of the white and wealthy, at least until recent years.

“The more diverse the riding, the stronger the Conservative numbers.”

The researchers point to the federal election in April as an example.

Ridings where visible minorities make up the majority shifted rightward by 10 to over 20 percentage points compared to the 2021 federal election — higher than the Conservatives national gain of 7.6 percentage points in the vote count. Most of these ridings are located in the 905 belt around Toronto, which the Star previously reported denied Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberals a majority government thanks to a blue wave.

While the researchers had a sense that some visible minorities have shifted to the right when it comes to voting, the findings still had some surprises. 

“It was quite stark to see just how consistent the polls were over time,” Kali said in an interview.

There are multiple reasons for this shift in voting behaviour, according to the researchers.

First is a decades-long, concentrated attempt by the Conservative party to reach racialized communities through efforts such as multilingual ads and attending religious festivals. Conservatives have also recruited a lot of visible minority candidates — including more than the Liberals and NDP in the April federal election, according to a separate study.

All this, Elcioglu and Kali said, came as the Liberal party was increasingly being seen as “a party of broken promises” around affordability, housing and other issues.

“The Liberal arty and the sort of disenchantment with (Justin) Trudeau is certainly part of the puzzle,” Elcioglu said, “but it doesn’t explain everything.”

Another reason for the shift to the right is changing attitudes among second-generation Canadians.

In interviews with 50 second-generation Canadians around the GTA — most of whom were either South Asian or Chinese — Elcioglu said she heard that people thought voting Conservative meant becoming more “Canadian.”

“It’s a way to say, ‘I made it. I belong. I’m not voting like my Liberal party immigrant parents,’” Elcioglu said of the responses she heard in the interviews.

Although the study shows growing support among visible minority voters for the Conservatives, the researchers stressed that this group of people is not a monolith.

“Immigrants and minorities are a serious political constituency in the GTA.  They have serious issues and the party that organizes them on those issues and speaks to those issues is going to win some loyalty.”

Elcioglu said this understanding will be important for the Liberals and NDP if they want to win seats in future elections.

“Progressive parties shouldn’t assume that they have the support of racialized voters,” she said. “They need to do more listening and speak to the real issues.

“They need to go out into the suburbs.”

Source: Visible minorities in the GTA increasingly supporting Conservatives: U of T study

Senator Dasko pitches elections law reforms to address enduring issue of candidate diversity

Repeat of previous bill that died: Highly unlikely that this bill, should it make it to the Commons, will pass given that political parties oppose being shackled by similar provisions as the public service and federally-regulated sectors, as in the case of privacy:

…Experts offered mixed reviews of Bill S-213, describing it as a ‘baby step’ forward, or as a watered-down attempt to address an already well-known problem….

But one area where Tolley said she wishes the bill went further is in terms of broader—not gender specific—diversity.

“There has been a tendency when we have these conversations about diversification to focus on

gender, and assume that if we figure out the gender piece, all of the other diversities will follow.

The research suggests that’s not really the case,” she said. “When we focus on diversity in this sort of aggregate or generic way, the primary beneficiaries tend to be white women, often to the exclusion of other groups.”

Still, recognizing the “balancing act” in play in regulating political parties, Tolley said she sees the bill as a “baby step” forward….

Andrea Lawlor, an associate political science professor at McMaster University, described S-213 as a “very limited way of introducing some requirements around political parties,” but said the voluntary nature of both aspects of the act—of having policies and programs to disclose, and responding to a demographic questionnaire—undermines its effectiveness.

“It takes a kernel of a really good idea, which is enhanced transparency, but I feel it waters itself down,” said Lawlor, who nonetheless lauded S-213 as a good-faith effort.”

Due to its voluntary nature, the survey could produce an “incomplete picture,” and the bill gives parties “that are weaker on these measures” an out in terms of even having policies, programs, or rules to encourage candidate diversity, said Lawlor.

“A party can kind of say, you know, ‘mind your own business, our internal party processes are our own.”…

Source: Senator Dasko pitches elections law reforms to address enduring issue of candidate diversity

French: Justice Jackson Just Helped Reset the D.E.I. Debate

Of interest:

…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…

Source: Justice Jackson Just Helped Reset the D.E.I. Debate

More visible minority candidates ran — and won — in Canada’s federal election. The Conservatives boosted the numbers

Coverage of our study:

More visible minorities ran and were elected in the spring federal election compared to the previous election, an increase that a new report found was driven by representation in parties on the right.

There were 315 visible minorities representing the six major parties, according to the report published by the Institute for Research on Public Policy. The candidates accounted for 20.1 per cent of the 1,568 candidates in the April 28 election. This was an increase from 18.2 per cent in 2021, 16.8 per cent in 2019 and 13.4 per cent in 2015.

While the Liberals, New Democrats and Greens all reported a drop in their visible minority representation from the 2021 race — by 0.9, 3.2 and 1.3 percentage points respectively — Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives and Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada saw their numbers up by 5.9 percentage points and seven points, with the Bloc Québécois up 1.3 points. (The People’s Party failed to win a seat.)

The report refers to “visible minorities” as persons, other than Indigenous people, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour, as defined by Statistics Canada. 

“The Liberals almost seemed to have dropped the ball in terms of candidate recruitment compared to the Conservatives, who obviously were making a fairly concerted effort to recruit a larger number of visible minority candidates,” said Andrew Griffith, who co-authored the report with retired McGill University political science professor Jerome Black.

“They were still building off the Jason Kenney legacy that visible minorities are our natural conservatives,” added Griffith, referring to the former Conservative immigration minister tasked with building bridges with minority communities under the Harper government.

And the deliberate recruitment efforts seemed to yield results, with the proportion of elected visible minority MPs up by 2.4 percentage points, accounting for 17.8 per cent or 61 of the 343 MPs in the new Parliament.

While the number of Liberal MPs who are visible minorities fell by 2.2 percentage points, the Conservatives boosted their visible minority MPs in the House of Commons by 7.5 percentage points. 

The MP breakdown, by ethnicity, was South Asian, 29 seats, Black, 11 seats; Chinese and Arab/West Asian, both seven; Latin American, two; Filipino and Southeast Asian, each with one; and three listed under “other/multiple” backgrounds.

University of Toronto professor Emine Fidan Elcioglu said she was not surprised by the shift as the Conservatives rebranded the party under prime minister Stephen Harper to cultivate support from ethnic communities.

“They wanted to seem like the new party of diversity, so they were very intentional in their ethnic outreach,” said the sociologist, who studies migration politics.

“They were (previously) pushing forward policies that alienated immigrant visible minority communities. They were also reframing themselves as pro-good immigrant, anti-bad immigrant.”

Over the years, she said, visible minority groups have also started to embrace that thinking as shown in recent public debates about the impacts of immigration on the housing and affordability crisis.

Poilievre is “very much looking at these groups as a potential part of his base,” Elcioglu noted. “But I think we need to be really careful to not assume that just because there is more visible minority candidates in the party, that is necessarily going to be fundamental in voter motivation.”

Having more racialized candidates doesn’t necessarily translate to more inclusion, she said, and it could just be a cover for more stringent immigration policies, more austerity measures and more gutting of the social security safety net that affect the society’s most marginalized and vulnerable.

“So, great, you recruit people who are not white men, but what are you doing with that?” asked Elcioglu. 

The report also found the number of women running in the April election down from the 2021 election by 2.4 per cent to 553, and Indigenous candidates by 0.9 per cent to 48. In total, 104 women and 12 Indigenous people were elected.

“It seems like there’s almost a glass ceiling of about 30 per cent for women,” said Griffith. “For Indigenous MPs, it’s a bit different just because of how the population is distributed across the country, but that also has stalled.” 

Candidate profiles and assessments in the analysis are based upon candidate photos, names and biographies, general web searches, and ethnic and other media that focused on particular groups.

Source: More visible minority candidates ran — and won — in Canada’s federal election. The Conservatives boosted the numbers

Carney government introduces bill to beef up border security

Predictable criticism from refugee and immigration advocates who invariably either cannot ackowledge abuses of the system or come up with possible measures to deal with the same, beyond calling for more resources.

One nugget that should improve processing and service for citizenship is:

“Make it easier for IRCC to share client information between different IRCC programs (e.g. using permanent residence application data to process citizenship applications).”

My sense is that the immigration and asylum provisions will likely be supported by the Conservative opposition but there will likely be tensions within the Liberal caucus:

…The bill was immediately met with concerns about privacy, refugee rights and its omnibus aspect.

NDP MP Jenny Kwan said the bill should be “alarming” to Canadians and risks breaching their civil liberties, particularly for its changes on immigration.

“They are trying to create this illusion that Canada’s border is more secure in some way, but however, a lot of the components within the bill targets Canada’s own immigration policies and processes that has nothing to do with the United States,” she said, questioning why there were no measures specifically targeting illegal guns coming from the U.S., for example.

“There are lots of pieces that I think should be concerning to Canadians.”

Anandasangaree, a former human rights lawyer, defended seeking those new powers Tuesday.

“I worked my entire life in the protection of human rights and civil liberties. That’s a marquee part of the work that I’ve done before politics, in politics,” he told reporters.

“In order for me to bring forward legislation, it needed to have the safeguards in place, it needed to be in line with the values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I fundamentally believe that we have striked the balance that, while expanding powers in certain instances, does have the safeguards and the protections in place to protect individual freedoms and rights.”

Those safeguards include not allowing information on immigration to be shared with other countries unless permitted by the minister, as well as judicial oversight that would require a warrant except in “exigent” circumstances. 

The proposed legislation, which will require the support of another party to pass in the minority Parliament, is meant to address the surge of asylum-seekers and the ballooning backlogs in refugee applications. Anyone who first arrived Canada after June 24, 2020 would not be allowed to make a refugee claim after one year, regardless of whether they left the country and returned; irregular migrants who enter Canada from the U.S. between land ports of entry would also be denied the rights to asylum.

“They’re coming up with all of these various ways to basically turn the tap off, to actually make it a more restrictive process,” said Queen’s University immigration and refugee law professor Sharry Aiken.

“That will harm vulnerable people and deny some groups of claimants their right to accessing a fair hearing” by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board, Aiken said.

Canada has seen the number of asylum-seekers triple in less than a decade, from 50,365 in 2017 to 171,845 last year. As of April, the refugee tribunal has 284,715 claims awaiting a decision.

More international students, visitors and foreign workers are seeking asylum to prolong their stays in Canada after Ottawa clamped down on the runaway growth of temporary residents and reduced permanent resident admissions amid concerns of the housing and affordability crisis.

The Canadian Council for Refugees said the proposed asylum changes mirror the American approach, where borders are militarized and securitized as refugees and migrants are viewed as a security threat.

“Under international law, there is no time frame on the right to seek protection. Where we do find this precedent is in the U.S.,” said Gauri Sreenivasan, the council’s co-executive director.

Anandasangaree said those who are affected by proposed ineligibility rules for asylum could ask for an assessment by immigration officials to ensure they would not face harm if sent back to their country.

However, critics said that process is less robust than a full hearing by the refugee board, and this would simply pass the administrative burden to the already strained Immigration Department and the Federal Court.

“It could force many people who have no choice because they are under threat in their country or in the U.S. to live underground without status,” Sreenivasan warned.

Source: Carney government introduces bill to beef up border security

And Althia Raj questions who pressed for these changes (likely under development for some time by IRCC officials given the numbers and abuses):

….Those who work with refugees are also alarmed.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s first piece of legislation pulls away the welcome mat for asylum seekers. It makes it nearly impossible for those who have been in Canada for more than a year, either as students, permanent residents, or temporary workers, and those who’ve snuck into Canada between land border crossings and have been here for more than two weeks, from having their asylum cases heard.

“A lot of people are going to get rejected because they’re not going to have an opportunity to explain for themselves why they would be in danger when they go back (home),” said Adam Sadinsky, an immigration and refugee lawyer with Silcoff Shacter in Toronto.

On Parliament Hill, the NDP’s Jenny Kwan described the law as “violating people’s due process and taking away people’s basic rights,” and also noted that it will drive people underground.

A problem that could be fixed by beefing up the immigration system — staffing and resources — will instead encourage those who are in Canada, and fear being deported to their home country, to stay here illegally. It will make it much more difficult for federal, provincial and municipal authorities to know who is living here, where they are, and what services they need. And it may simply move staffing and resource pressures away from the Immigration and Refugee Board toward the federal court, who will now hear more requests for stays to remain in Canada and for judicial review of unfavourable decisions.

On CBC, Anandasangaree said his “comprehensive bill” was directly linked with what is happening at the Canada-U.S. border, but it also “responds to … the mandate (Canadians) gave us on April the 28th.”

Does it? Are these the values that Canadians voted to uphold?…

Source: Opinion | Border bill primed to give Mark Carney’s government sweeping new powers. Who asked for this?