Chris Selley: Imagine the chaos if Israeli soccer comes to Canada

Not an appealing thought experiment:

…It was a terribly grim landmark day for European Jews, and indeed for Europe in general. The World Jewish Congress estimates there are only about 30,000 Jews in the Netherlands: roughly one-eighth as many as in 1939, on the eve of the Holocaust. There might be even fewer than that in very short order, if Thursday’s madness becomes routine. Canadians, Jews especially, are right to wonder whether it could happen here.

The answer is, basically, sure it could. But it could also be prevented. And this should have been. It looks like a colossal failure of policing. It’s easy to say from a desk on the other side of the Atlantic, but this was entirely predictable.

Reports out of Amsterdam Wednesday night were alarmingly and obviously portentous of what occurred the next day. Some purported Maccabi-supporting hooligans had assaulted a taxi driver and ripped down Palestinian flags, while chanting anti-Palestinian slogans.

Even if it weren’t true, the fact those stories were out there in the wild should have been reason enough to expect retaliation — and then some.

Clearly what happened Thursday night isn’t primarily about soccer. It’s about primordial hatred. But alas, soccer incubates primordial hatred. That’s true within the Netherlands: Ajax supporters, few of whom are Jewish, have traditionally embraced the team’s Jewish roots (they often refer to themselves as “the Jews”) and their rivals — especially supporters of Rotterdam club Feyenoord — have often taunted Ajax with antisemitic chants like “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas, followed by a hissing noise. From a North American perspective, it’s almost beyond belief.

…It’s not inconceivable that Israel might qualify for the 2026 World Cup, and that it might play one or more games in Toronto or Vancouver. I shudder to imagine what that would look like. Police don’t just need to be prepared for serious Amsterdam-style violence; they, and their political overseers, need somehow to convince Canadian Jews and their friends that they’re actually safe. It’s a tough job, nowadays.

Source: Chris Selley: Imagine the chaos if Israeli soccer comes to Canada

Statelessness in Canada Webinar: My Analysis of Self-Reported and Operational Data

The Lanark & Renfrew LIP organized a webinar, Statelessness: A Global, a Canadian, and a Human Perspective, featuring Deny Dobobrov: Director of International Relations, World Roma Federation, Jamie Chai Yun Lew: Author, Professor, and Lawyer, University of Ottawa and myself.

My presentation is below:

Coyne: The U.S. election shows that sometimes the people get it wrong

One of his better columns. Many other examples, Brexit being perhaps one of the best among Western countries:

…But that is an entirely separate question from whether it is rational, in response, to vote for a candidate such as Mr. Trump. The Biden administration made its share of mistakes; Ms. Harris has her flaws; the American economy could be performing better (though quite honestly it’s hard to see how); identity politics has a lot to answer for. But the notion that any of these, or all of them, represent such a dire threat, such an emergency, as to justify a “remedy” such as Mr. Trump – there is no other word for this but irrational.

It is not polite to say this. The notion that “the people are always right” is a staple of democratic discourse. And there is much truth in this. Indeed, I have often been forced to acknowledge it myself – the issue in which I had been so heavily invested, the factors that I had felt sure really ought to decide this or that election, proved, in the fullness of time, not to be of such overwhelming importance as all that, at least when set beside all the many other issues and considerations that combine, by some extraordinary alchemy, to produce a vote.

The average voter, busy as they are with the regular distractions of life, may take a broader and I dare say better view of things than the full-time pundit, too caught up in the day-to-day minutiae of politics. But it is not necessarily true, always and everywhere. Indeed, it can’t be true for all voters – in any election, the abiding wisdom of the majority must be set against what is presumably the abject folly of the minority.

Who’s to say we must necessarily pay homage to the former, just because they slightly outnumber the latter? Sometimes the people – some of the people at any rate – get it wrong. Especially the people who say the reason they voted for Donald Trump is that he is a “man of God,” or will “get tough with Russia,” or “cares about people like me.”

It is expected of politicians, especially losing politicians, that they must nevertheless grit their teeth and mouth the words, “The people are always right.” But such pieties are not required of columnists.

Source: The U.S. election shows that sometimes the people get it wrong

Khrushcheva: Enablers, profit-mongers and blind believers sent Trump back to the White House

One of the more mordant commentaries:

…Mr. Trump had plenty of help in converting voters to his debauched religion. Fox News, Rupert Murdoch’s highly profitable propaganda machine, distorted discourse and stoked outrage. Tech billionaires supported Mr. Trump’s rise more directly – Elon Musk was Mr. Trump’s second-largestfinancial backer – in the hopes of benefiting from a deregulation spree. (Tesla shares have already surged.) Such tech titans – together with the silent powerbrokers of Wall Street, like Jamie Dimon – are the modern American equivalents of the German business leaders who thought they could control Adolf Hitler. Mr. Trump’s fellow Republicans are under no such illusions, which helps to explain why even those who once attempted to challenge him have rolled over.

Cowardly Republican politicians have helped Mr. Trump to shake the political radioactivity that should have engulfed him after he incited his supporters to march on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The next day, figures like Senators Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham finally seemed prepared to wash their hands of Mr. Trump. But days later, they refused to vote for his impeachment. And when Mr. Trump launched his campaign for the party’s nomination again, they quickly fell into line. Nobody wants to be on a dictator’s bad side. And, given the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling granting the president virtual immunity from criminal prosecution, Mr. Trump will be nothing if not a dictator.

How did it come to this? A majority of white Americans have lost faith in their country. Members of the profit-hungry business elite have gained an unfettered ability to use their pocketbooks to shape politics. And Republican politicians have sacrificed their own integrity – and American democracy – at the altar of power.

Source: Enablers, profit-mongers and blind believers sent Trump back to the White House

Layoffs on the table for permanent government employees as part of spending review

These will be mild compared to what is likely coming under a likely Conservative government:

The federal government has been looking for ways to tighten its budget and curb the size of the public service, which has swelled in recent years. While the Liberal government has said it would do so through attrition and hiring freezes, cutting the jobs of permanent government employees wasn’t on the table.

But Canada’s biggest public sector union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), says that no longer seems to be the case.

During a meeting on Thursday between Treasury Board officials and PSAC, the union said it was told the government will be  “widening the net” to reduce its spending, looking to cut term and casual employees and “opening the door for departments to slash permanent employees” through layoffs.

The union said the Liberal government has assigned budget reduction targets “in salary line items” to federal departments. But it has not released those targets, claiming they were protected under Cabinet privilege and would only be made public in June 2025.

“It’s just really disappointing that, once again, there’s this doublespeak from the federal government,” said PSAC’s national executive vice-president Alex Silas, who noted that the government said the meeting was not a consultation.

Silas said the idea of cutting casual and term positions “is bad enough,” but the idea of cutting permanent positions is “shameful.” He said there was a lack of detail in the government’s presentation about the potential cuts, but that departments and agencies were coming up with their own plans and were “encouraged” to consult with unions.

In April, the federal government announced it would seek to cut the size of the public service by 5,000 full-time positions primarily through natural attrition over the course of four years, as part of an effort to save $15.8 billion over five years and reallocate it elsewhere.

According to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, the size of the public service in 2024 is 367,772—up from 300,450 in 2020….

Source: Layoffs on the table for permanent government employees as part of spending review

Keller: What will be the economic consequences of Donald Trump?

Good series of questions:

..The challenge for Canada is that if the Trump administration decides on an aggressive policy of alien removal, or if non-citizens in the U.S. fear that such a policy is coming, many of them may choose to simply walk across the border into Canada. It could be a repeat of Roxham Road, on a potentially far larger scale.

Since 2023, Canada has an expanded Safe Third Country Agreement with the U.S., under which a foreigner in the U.S. who comes to Canada to make an asylum claim is supposed to be quickly returned to the U.S. But if hundreds of thousands of people that the Trump administration wants to deport decide to self-deport themselves to Canada, will the Trump administration follow the letter of the agreement and take them back?

The MAGA movement gets a lot of mileage out of “owning the Libs,” and Mr. Trump could make great sport out this situation. He could say that, while the Biden administration was marked by scenes of migrants flooding across the southern border on the nightly news, the Trump administration is delivering the opposite, namely scenes of illegal immigrants flooding out of the U.S. and across the northern border. Could a border crisis for Canada be played as a deportation triumph for Mr. Trump?

It might be a variation on Republican border-state governors busing migrants to Democratic strongholds such as New York – a move that not only owned the libs but upended U.S. politics, spurring some blue state voters to become more conservative and helping elect Mr. Trump.

Canada’s refugee-claims system is already massively overloaded and backlogged, as is the system for removing failed claimants. Anyone making a refugee claim can expect to live in Canada for many years pending a decision, and possibly many more years, even indefinitely, after that.

To avoid an influx of people from the U.S., Canada is counting on a couple of conditions that may not hold for much longer. First, that if someone comes from the U.S. to make a refugee claim, we can send them back. And second, that there aren’t very many people in the U.S. who would want to bypass the refugee process, sneak into Canada and become an illegal immigrant – even though it’s relatively easy to walk into Canada at thousands of quiet spots from coast to coast.

What does Mr. Trump have in store for us? We are about to find out.

Source: What will be the economic consequences of Donald Trump?

Internal report describes a ‘cesspool of racism’ in the federal public service

Similar to an earlier report by Zellars on all PCO employees (Privy Council Office workers face culture of ‘racial stereotyping’: internal report). Given the same methodology and consultant, my earlier comments still broadly apply..

Took a look at the Public Service Employee Survey results for PCO. In most cases, broadly comparable to the public service as a whole, with some exceptions. But interestingly, some slippage between the 2020 and 2022 surveys results in harassment and discrimination, perhaps reflecting a mix of greater awareness following the Clerk’s Call to Action and the broader social context.

19.2 percent of PCO are visible minorities, 3.0 percent Indigenous peoples, broadly comparable to other departments [for executives, the numbers are 15.2 percent, 5.2 percent respectively]. Unfortunately, don’t have desegregated data by visible minority and indigenous group.

As to the Zellars report, based on interviews, we see a similar pattern in that the surveys indicate that there are issues, a consultant with experience in diversity issues is engaged, has discussions with a number of employees, many who feel aggrieved by remarks and/or treatment. But the nature of such consultants, given their career, is to have an implicit bias of highlighting discrimination and prejudice rather than a more neutral approach. Doesn’t mean of course findings are not valid but need to be assessed accordingly.

And of course the usual groups of organizations and activists use the survey to further their political aims:

An internal report on workplace racism and harassment at the highest levels of the federal public service shows that not even the federal government’s top executives are immune to the problem.

The government-funded report on the experiences of Black public servants in the senior ranks of government — obtained by CBC News — includes first-hand accounts of racist remarks, harassment, intimidation and threats that have harmed the mental health of public servants, especially Black women.

“Crucially, Black women detailed workplace conflicts so severe that they led to chronic depression, the use of antidepressant medications, and suicide attempts,” the report says.

The report also documents instances of Black public servants being called the N-word at work, sexual harassment and even threats of physical violence. It also raises concerns about internal complaint processes being weaponized against Black executives.

The report was initiated by the Black Executives Network, a support group for Black executives in the federal public service. The network is funded by multiple government departments.

CBC obtained a copy of the report and an email from the country’s top public servant — Clerk of the Privy Council John Hannaford — addressing the report’s findings and providing a preliminary response plan.

“What is relayed in the report is deeply concerning and we are distressed to think that some members of the Black executive community have reported that they have lived or are living through these kinds of experiences,” Hannaford said in the email.

Hannaford and several other senior public servants sent the email to all deputy ministers and the Black Executives Network….

Source: Internal report describes a ‘cesspool of racism’ in the federal public service

Ministers urged to explain how they will prevent a surge in asylum seekers from U.S. after Trump election

Suggests major increase in funding for the IRB along with some process re-engineering will be needed. Nothing reduces public support more than the perception that immigration is not being well managed as we have seen over the past two years:

Federal ministers came under pressure from MPs Thursday to explain how they plan to prevent an influx of asylum seekers from the United States after the election of Donald Trump, as a senior official at the Immigration and Refugee Board disclosed it now takes almost four years for asylum claims to be processed.

Roula Eatrides, deputy chairperson of IRB’s refugee protection division, told the Commons immigration committee Thursday that it now takes 44 months for a refugee claim to be dealt with after being referred to the board. She said the IRB has a record backlog of about 250,000 cases.

On Wednesday, immigration lawyer Richard Kurland told The Globe and Mail that because asylum claims take so long to process, undocumented migrants facing deportation from the U.S. may try to find a safe haven and “buy time” in Canada, though he said few are likely to have their claims approved.

During his campaign, Mr. Trump promised to conduct the largest deportation in American history of people living there illegally. On Thursday, Mr. Trump said he will move forward with that pledge. “Really, we have no choice,” he told NBC News. There are an estimated 11 million undocumented migrants in the U.S.

The RCMP’s national headquarters confirmed Thursday it has a plan to deal with a predicted influx of migrants, informed by its experience of a surge during the first Trump presidency…

Source: Ministers urged to explain how they will prevent a surge in asylum seekers from U.S. after Trump election

Clark: Sprinkle a little notwithstanding on every governing headache [medical schools and mobility rights]

Clever critique:

…That implies its use should be judicious, and not an easy shortcut to a policy goal. Yet there has been a growing willingness to use it to brush aside Charter inconveniences – sometimes to replace the need to file a court appeal or draft new legislation that meets a policy objective without unreasonably infringing on Charter rights.

It’s true that Quebec’s political culture is different. For a period after the 1982 repatriation of the Constitution, the Parti Québécois government invoked the clause on every bill as a protest. There was never as much of a taboo on the use of the notwithstanding clause.

But Mr. Legault has in the past used it to override the enshrined rights in Quebec’s own Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, too. It has become an easy reflex.

Source: Sprinkle a little notwithstanding on every governing headache

Le Devoir: Éditorial | Tout est dans la manière

More commentary on international students.

Comparable comments apply to the federal government that only slammed on the breaks after ignoring the impacts on housing, healthcare etc., along with “puppy mill” international student populations:

Engagé dans une course folle pour diminuer le nombre d’immigrants temporaires qu’abrite le Québec, le gouvernement de François Legault irrite plus qu’il ne rassure, car son plan de match manque de cohérence. Derniers d’une longue série de protagonistes à avoir été vexés, les universités et les cégeps implorent Québec de ne pas leur imposer un plafond d’étudiants étrangers, car cela viendrait bouleverser tout leur écosystème — de même que leur compte en banque.

Cégeps et universités ont défilé cette semaine devant la Commission des relations avec les citoyens pour se vider le coeur à propos du projet de loi 74. Cette future « Loi visant principalement à améliorer l’encadrement relatif aux étudiants étrangers » viendrait littéralement couper l’herbe sous le pied des établissements d’enseignement supérieur. Autonomes depuis belle lurette pour ce qui concerne le recrutement des étudiants venus de l’étranger, ces établissements se verront dépossédés de ce pouvoir, entièrement remis au gouvernement, qui prendrait « les décisions relatives à la gestion des demandes présentées à titre d’étudiant étranger ». Cette cassure est majeure.

Le ministre de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration, Jean-François Roberge, espère que cette loi pourra freiner l’augmentation trop importante de ce groupe d’étudiants, qui a crû de 140 % de 2014 à 2023. Québec pourrait ainsi par décret fixer une limite au nombre d’étudiants étrangers admissibles. Il manque encore une donnée cruciale dans le baluchon du ministre : on ne sait pas à quelle cible il pense quand il annonce son intention de fixer un plafond. Sur les 124 000 étudiants internationaux que compte le Québec désormais, la majorité occupe les bancs des universités, puis des cégeps, mais ce nombre comprend aussi des étudiants en formation professionnelle et des élèves du niveau secondaire.

On ne pourra pas reprocher au gouvernement Legault de tenter des efforts pour juguler des entrées qu’il juge désormais excessives. Il n’a pas cessé de pointer l’indolence d’Ottawa dans le dossier migratoire, l’accusant d’être en partie responsable d’un nombre de migrants trop important au Québec en regard de sa population. Il était donc dans l’ordre des choses qu’il s’ausculte lui-même pour amoindrir le problème. Le problème principal réside dans deux pans : d’abord, le brusque changement de cap de Québec, qui le pousse à des actions brutales ; ensuite, le manque de cohérence et de vision transpirant des décisions intempestives.

Les établissements d’enseignement supérieur font totalement les frais de ce virage à 180 degrés. Peut-on vraiment blâmer les universités et les cégeps de s’insurger contre un plafond alors qu’hier encore on les encourageait à faire entrer à pleines vannes ces étudiants étrangers censés revigorer et notre économie et notre tissu social ? Il n’y a pas à aller bien loin pour trouver une magnifique trace d’incohérence. Dans le Plan stratégique 2023-2027 du ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur du Québec, dirigé par la ministre Pascale Déry, on lit bel et bien qu’« attirer davantage d’étudiants internationaux dans les collèges et les universités francophones de la province est une priorité gouvernementale. […] Ce nombre a connu une augmentation de 148 % au cours de la dernière décennie (2010-2011 à 2020-2021), dans un contexte caractérisé par une course planétaire aux talents. […] La rétention des étudiants internationaux, une fois diplômés, est une priorité gouvernementale. Elle constitue une opportunité mutuellement bénéfique à toutes les parties. D’une part, ces étudiants pourront contribuer au développement et à la croissance du Québec, et d’autre part, ils auront la possibilité de s’épanouir personnellement et professionnellement dans une société prospère et équitable ».

Bien sûr, on opposera à cet apparent manque de vision le fait que le contexte a changé et que le Québec n’a plus d’infrastructures et de services suffisamment solides pour bien intégrer un nombre aussi important de migrants. Si, en effet, « les temps changent », cela ne doit pas pour autant rendre plus acceptables des actions draconiennes qui pourraient menacer l’équilibre financier de certains établissements d’enseignement, sans compter la viabilité de quelques programmes d’études, au cégep principalement. Si l’afflux massif d’étudiants étrangers, surtout indiens, venus gonfler les rangs de certains collèges privés non subventionnés pendant la pandémie méritait une mesure comme celle imposée par Québec (couper l’accès au permis de travail postdiplôme), on ne peut pas en dire autant des groupes d’étudiants internationaux devenus une part importante et essentielle des contingents en enseignement supérieur. Ils ont leur raison d’être, et le Québec a tout fait depuis au moins le début des années 2000 pour favoriser ce rayonnement international.

Il y a le fond — une volonté de mieux contrôler les entrées migratoires — et il y a la manière. Il semble qu’avec un projet de loi aussi intrusif dans les affaires universitaires et collégiales, le Québec a négligé la manière en agissant de façon draconienne. Les universités et les cégeps sont en droit de protester.

Source: Éditorial | Tout est dans la manière

Engaged in a crazy race to reduce the number of temporary immigrants in Quebec, François Legault’s government irritates more than it reassures, because its match plan lacks coherence. The last of a long series of protagonists to have been offended, universities and CEGEPs are imploring Quebec not to impose a ceiling on foreign students, because it would upset their entire ecosystem – as well as their bank account.

CEGEPs and universities marched this week before the Citizens’ Relations Commission to empty their hearts about Bill 74. This future “Law aimed mainly at improving the supervision of foreign students” would literally cut the grass under the feet of higher education institutions. Autonomous for a long time with regard to the recruitment of students from abroad, these institutions will be dispossessed of this power, entirely given to the government, which would make “decisions relating to the management of applications submitted as foreign students”. This break is major.

The Minister of Immigration, Francisation and Integration, Jean-François Roberge, hopes that this law will be able to curb the excessive increase in this group of students, which grew by 140% from 2014 to 2023. Quebec could thus by decree set a limit on the number of eligible foreign students. A crucial fact is still missing in the minister’s baluchon: we do not know what target he is thinking of when he announces his intention to set a ceiling. Of the 124,000 international students that Quebec now has, the majority occupy the benches of universities, then CEGEPs, but this number also includes students in vocational training and high school students.

The Legault government cannot be blamed for trying efforts to curb entries that it now considers excessive. He did not stop pointing out Ottawa’s indolence in the migration file, accusing it of being partly responsible for too many migrants in Quebec compared to its population. He was therefore in the order of things that he auscultates himself to reduce the problem. The main problem lies in two sections: first, the abrupt change of course in Quebec City, which pushes it to brutal actions; second, the lack of coherence and vision transpiring from untimely decisions.

Higher education institutions are fully paying the price for this 180-degree turn. Can we really blame universities and CEGEPs for rebelling against a ceiling when only yesterday they were encouraged to bring these foreign students supposed to reinvigorate and our economy and our social fabric into full valves? You don’t have to go far to find a magnificent trace of incoherence. In the 2023-2027 Strategic Plan of the Quebec Ministry of Higher Education, led by Minister Pascale Déry, we read that “attracting more international students to French-speaking colleges and universities in the province is a government priority. […] This number has increased by 148% over the last decade (2010-2011 to 2020-2021), in a context characterized by a global race for talent. […] The retention of international students, once they graduate, is a government priority. It is a mutually beneficial opportunity for all parties. On the one hand, these students will be able to contribute to the development and growth of Quebec, and on the other hand, they will have the opportunity to flourish personally and professionally in a prosperous and equitable society.”

Of course, this apparent lack of vision will be opposed to the fact that the context has changed and that Quebec no longer has sufficiently strong infrastructure and services to properly integrate such a large number of migrants. If, indeed, “times change”, this should not make more acceptable draconian actions that could threaten the financial balance of some educational institutions, not to mention the viability of some study programs, mainly at CEGEP. If the massive influx of foreign students, especially Indians, who came to inflate the ranks of some non-subsidized private colleges during the pandemic deserved a measure like the one imposed by Quebec (cutting off access to the post-graduate work permit), the same cannot be said of the groups of international students who have become an important and essential part of the quotas in higher education. They have their raison d’être, and Quebec has done everything since at least the early 2000s to promote this international influence.

There is the substance — a desire to better control migratory inflows — and there is the way. It seems that with a bill so intrusive in university and collegiate affairs, Quebec has neglected the manner by acting in a draconian way. Universities and CEGEPs have the right to protest.