PEN America Is Right to Stay Out of Gaza War Activism

Agree:

In January 2015, Islamic terrorists murdered 12 people at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo for depicting the Prophet Muhammad. When PEN Americahonored the magazine with its Freedom of Expression Courage Award that same year, the organization received backlash from prominent members.

Then-PEN president Andrew Solomon stood by the decision, saying that the controversy was a reminder that the “defense of people murdered for their exercise of free speech is at the heart of what PEN stands for, so is the unfettered articulation of opposing viewpoints.”

Standing up for free speech principles against religious extremism, it turns out, was the right call since it remains a real threat to authors and speakers around the world. At a book talk in August 2022, novelist and former PEN America president Salman Rushdie was stabbed 15 times by an assailant who admired Iran’s theocratic regime that issued a fatwa against Rushdie back in 1989 for the supposed blasphemy of his novel The Satanic Verses.

But now PEN America finds itself embroiled in another controversy about first principles.

The organization felt compelled to cancel its 2024 World Voices Festival after around 30 writers withdrew from the event backing protesters who claimed PEN America’s approach to the war between Israel and Hamas was “tepid.” In other words, PEN America stood by its explicit mission to promote free expression and remain neutral on sharply contested matters of geopolitics and armed conflict.

An open letter from writers and translators nominated for the PEN America Literary Award argued that they “cannot, in good faith, align with an organization that has shown such blatant disregard of our collective values… We refuse to be honored by an organization that acts as a cultural front from American imperialism.”

Never mind that PEN America has provided financial assistance to Palestinian writers, issued many statements condemning the suppression of pro-Palestinian speech on college campuses, spoken out against postponing awards for Palestinian authors, and criticized the cancellation of film screenings for documentaries critical of Israel. The now-canceled World Voices Festival would have also featured several Palestinian writers.

Regardless, the authors of the open letter contend that PEN America’s leadership should be replaced with staff that will make a bold declaration that would firmly align with one side. But this would be a grave mistake.

PEN America’s very purpose is “to protect free expression in the United States and worldwide” and to “champion the freedom to write… unite writers and their allies to celebrate creative expression and defend the liberties that make it possible.” PEN America’s mission is not to advance the political or ideological goals of a specific portion of the diverse range of writers around the globe. To succumb to external and internal pressures to take positions on contentious policy issues threatens to undermine its very purpose and its efforts on other issues.

PEN America has been leading the charge against attempts by red states to ban books and restrict discussions of “divisive concepts,” which frequently means speech treating issues like race and LGBT+ themes in a manner that triggers conservatives. It has also played a crucial role in trying to persuade progressives that the values of free speech and equality are mutually reinforcing—not mutually exclusive—and that abandoning free speech is likely to hurt rather than protect minorities and vulnerable groups.

But if PEN America bends to pressure to take explicit positions on progressive or social justice causes, it will only become more vulnerable to criticism. After all, why should skeptical lawmakers or the general public pay attention to an organization whose advocacy dovetails with progressive politics rather than First Amendment principles?

To understand the danger of an unprincipled defense to free speech—where ideological agendas mean abandoning commitments to free expression when it’s inconvenient—one needn’t look further than Republicans who decry “cancel culture” and censorship.

“If PEN America becomes an explicit progressive social justice organization and abandons its commitment to ideological neutrality and the unbiased application of free speech principles, it will have no leg to stand on when taking on the free speech opportunists of the world.”

In March 2023, House Republicans on the Higher Education Committee held a hearing on the state of free speech on college campuses. Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT), chair of the House Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee, said, “If those with certain views are allowed to shut down competing views, the battle to sustain freedoms upon which our county was founded—free speech, free thought, and free expression—will be lost.”

This week, that devotion to free speech apparently waned, as Owens joined his fellow Republicans in co-sponsoring and passing the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. If the bill becomes law, it will deem certain viewpoints—including criticism of Israel—as antisemitic based on the broad definition promulgated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). If colleges fail to adopt this definition, they could lose federal funding.

PEN America rightly opposed this bill, arguing that it could “harm academic freedom, free speech, and legitimate political speech.”

In 2019, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law to promote free speech on college campuses and tweeted about how “protecting the right to free speech is critical to the future of our country.” But his belief that censorship is “un-American” hasn’t stopped the governor from banning drag performances, banning books, and issuing an executive order for Texas colleges to enforce the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism.

If PEN America becomes an explicit progressive social justice organization and abandons its commitment to ideological neutrality and the unbiased application of free speech principles, it will have no leg to stand on when taking on the free speech opportunists of the world.

It will instead become the distorted mirror image of the very unprincipled forces it is fighting against.

Source: PEN America Is Right to Stay Out of Gaza War Activism

Le Devoir Éditorial | Une fierté nationale mal placée

More of the proposed Quebec National Museum of History:

On ne peut pas reprocher à François Legault de manquer de persistance en culture. En dépit des quelques revers qu’il a essuyés en ces matières fortes en symbole, son engagement exalte un attachement inusable. Certains diront un attachement téflon tant il n’en fait qu’à sa tête. On en a eu une nouvelle preuve avec l’annonce en grande pompe de la création d’un nouveau musée national — une rareté qui aurait normalement dû lui valoir des hourras.

L’idée de se doter d’un Musée national de l’histoire du Québec n’est pas mauvaise, au contraire. La nation québécoise — irréductible mais fragile fleur francophone posée au creux d’un massif de vivaces anglophones envahissantes — vaut bien cet hommage que nombre de sociétés se sont offert avant nous. Notre fierté nationale pourrait même gagner gros à étendre ses bourgeons sur un tuteur aussi structurant.

Se doter d’un musée national est en effet une excellente façon d’honorer un legs compliqué, à la fois sombre et lumineux, qu’on a fâcheusement tendance à négliger au Québec. Pour cela, le regard que l’on pose sur notre histoire commune doit être capable d’accueil comme d’autocritique, en plus d’être scientifiquement irréprochable, a mis en garde un contingent de spécialistes déconcertés par ce lapin sorti sans consultation du chapeau de M. Legault.

C’est d’abord là que le bât blesse. Le gouvernement a eu beau s’adjoindre les conseils de l’historien Éric Bédard, cela ne l’a pas empêché de multiplier les bourdes en s’improvisant expert dirigiste là où on l’attendait plutôt en pollinisateur inspirant. Invité à préciser sa vision, le premier ministre a commencé par montrer l’étendue de ses oeillères. Notre histoire nationale, a-t-il expliqué, a commencé, rêvé et prospéré par et pour les Canadiens français. Et les autres ? Tous relégués au rôle ingrat de figurants.

Sa façon spécialement cavalière de minimiser l’apport des nations autochtones à la société québécoise est indigne d’une nation qui prétend parler d’égal à égal avec ces peuples. Quiconque replonge dans l’épopée de Champlain — point zéro du récit national caquiste, on le rappelle — sait pourtant qu’il ne pourra le faire sans s’enfarger dans tout ce que ces nations ont pu apporter aux premiers colons, puis plus largement à la société québécoise au fil du temps. Et pas qu’en adversité, mais aussi bien en émulation qu’en imagination.

Son silence radio sur l’apport des autres communautés — on pense aux vagues migratoires, mais aussi aux Anglos — a fait le reste, nourrissant une déferlante de malaises autant chez les spécialistes que chez nombre de Québécois qui ne se sont pas reconnus dans sa vision rétrécie de la nation. Il est vrai que, jusqu’ici, le discours politique n’a pas été à la hauteur des promesses qui viennent avec l’érection d’un musée national moderne, décomplexé et rassembleur.

Bien sûr, l’histoire n’est jamais neutre. Mais un musée digne de ce nom, même national, ne saurait se résumer à une vitrine politique, encore moins à la vitrine d’une seule vision politique. Les Québécois n’ont pas besoin d’un musée de pureté idéologique. Ce qui n’empêche pas le fait qu’il y a du bon dans le projet du gouvernement Legault. Les Espaces bleus n’avaient pas d’avenir : trop chers et sans vision commune. Le Musée national de l’histoire du Québec, érigé à même leurs cendres malheureuses, ne part pas grevé de la sorte.

D’abord, il plantera ses racines dans un écrin magnifique, le pavillon Camille-Roy du Séminaire de Québec, rénové au coût de 92 millions. Ensuite, il arrive sur un terrain encore fertile, celui des musées d’État. S’il est bien fait, son ajout au noyau formé du Musée d’art contemporain de Montréal, du Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec et du Musée de la civilisation (MCQ) permettra de repenser ce qui lie nos musées nationaux entre eux afin d’en faire un réseau exemplaire dont la solidité, si elle s’avère, percolera jusqu’aux musées régionaux.

Le rêve esquissé par François Legault se frottera bientôt à un réel qu’il a, en vérité, mieux balisé que son annonce mal ficelée. Le MCQ, qui aura la tâche de concevoir les contenus et d’aménager les espaces d’exposition de ce nouveau musée national, a en effet les ressources et le savoir nécessaires pour y arriver. Il pourra au surplus compter sur les lumières d’un comité scientifique, de même que sur celle d’un duo d’éclaireurs formé d’Éric Bédard et de Jenny Thibault, qui veilleront sur les destinées historiques et numériques du nouveau musée.

Espérons seulement que le gouvernement Legault aura l’humilité de s’appuyer sur leur vision commune pour la suite du projet. Car le bon récit national, celui qui a le pouvoir d’élever et de rassembler un peuple derrière lui, peut, oui, devenir un formidable legs, pour peu qu’il ne se conjugue pas qu’au « je ». Conjugué aussi au « nous », son engagement en faveur de notre fierté nationale pourrait même constituer un vigoureux — et redoutable ! — cultivar. S’il est planté dans un sol adéquat, bien sûr.

Source: Éditorial | Une fierté nationale mal placée

Some illegal border crossers receive $224 in food and accommodation per day while awaiting processing

Silly comparison between pension income, for those who largely have a home and are settled, and asylum claimants who are not. Legitimate to question the government’s handling of asylum claimants and immigration in general as many do but need to do so intelligently rather than just to stoke outrage. And of course, these are irregular arrivals in legal parlance, not illegal ones:

As the number of Canada’s refugee claimants hits new highs, a Conservative MP has revealed that Ottawa budgets about $224 per day to feed and house some foreigners who claim asylum after illegally entering the country.

Last week, Conservative MP Lianne Rood uploaded documents to social media showing the government’s answer to her question about what “goods and services” are provided to foreigners who have claimed asylum in Canada — but have not yet had their applications reviewed by immigration authorities.

The average accommodation cost is “$140 per night per room,” and the average cost for meals is “$84 per day per claimant” — for a total of $224 per claimant, per day.

And the per diem cost may go even higher once factoring in the other “essential items” provided for free to claimants, including “toiletries, medicines, diapers.”

“Claimants in IRCC operated hotels, regardless of how they entered Canada, are provided with accommodations and meals once they are relocated,” read the official answer to Rood, signed by Paul Chiang, parliamentary secretary to the minister of diversity and inclusion.

“The NDP-Liberal government is giving TEN TIMES the benefits to illegal border jumpers than it is giving to help Canadian seniors! DISGRACEFUL!” wrote Rood in an accompanying caption to a May 7 post on X uploading the document.

As of the most recent figures by the IRCC, there are 156,032 pending asylum claims before the agency — although not all of them are in Canada and living within an IRCC hotel….

Source: Some illegal border crossers receive $224 in food and accommodation per day while awaiting processing

Canadians outraged over Parks Canada’s free admission to “newcomers” policy 

Typical overstating without appreciation of the policy and practical rationale to do so to strengthen integration and sense of belonging. And of course, no numbers on how many:

Many Canadians expressed their discontent with a newly announced Parks Canada policy allowing “newcomers to Canada and new Canadian citizens” free admission to all national parks, historic sites and marine conservation areas as part of a new policy.

According to the Parks Canada website, for the next year “admission to all national parks, national historic sites, and national marine conservation areas operated by Parks Canada.”

“Using the Institute for Canadian Citizenship’s Canoo mobile app, enjoy free admission to all places administered by Parks Canada across the country for one full year,” it reads. 

However, the free admission policy is limited solely to newcomers and new Canadian citizens, if you’re already a tax paying citizen, you’ll be paying full price. 

“Get back to nature and unwind amidst the spectacular scenery in Canada’s national parks and marine conservation areas,” reads the website. “Celebrate your arrival in Canada or your citizenship with great Canadian experiences,” it continued.

“Check out some of the most awesome places in Canada. We look forward to welcoming you!”

The 1998 Parks Canada Agency Act established Parks Canada as a separate Government of Canada Agency, which currently reports to Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault.

While daily admission and service fees and single-location passes are variable depending on the location, camping fees for a family pass begin at $151.25.

The announcement was met with strong disapproval on X, with the overwhelming majority of comments frustrated with the new policy. 

Source: Canadians outraged over Parks Canada’s free admission to “newcomers” policy

Immigration minister says protesting government the right thing to do, targeting individuals isn’t

As pro-Palestinian protestors outside accused him of having blood on his hands, Immigration Minister Marc Miller told attendees of the Canadian Bar Association’s immigration conference in Montreal over the weekend that they had every right to be there.

“The people outside have a right to protest,” he said, noting many come from countries that deny that right.

“That’s not the country that Canada is. Protesting me and the government is the right thing to do.”

He noted that suppressing the right to protest leads to frustration and anger taken out in other ways.

That said, there’s a wrong way to go about it, whether it’s encouraging terrorism or targeting Jewish institutions and Jews.

Calling the situation in Gaza “disastrous” and “a humanitarian catastrophe,” the minister said there are charged emotions on both sides of the conflict. But people are feeling targeted and threatened.

“The right to protest comes with a responsibility, and I think it needs to be properly exercised. Don’t do it by targeting individuals and making them feel insecure,” he told those gathered.

“If people confuse the legitimate right to criticize the Netanyahu government with picking on Jews in this country, I don’t want your vote.”

In January, three months into the conflict, the federal government launched a reunification program offering temporary refuge to family members of Canadian citizens and permanent residents — parents, siblings, grandparents, and grandkids — who are in Gaza.

Miller said it was a “rapidly put together and probably singular in the world attempt” to get people’s families out.

It came with a lot of uncertainty, coupled with the additional challenge of an ongoing war and no pre-determined commitment from Israel or Egypt, which control the exit, mainly through Rafah, that it would succeed.

“I wanted to make sure when we announced this program that we didn’t simply issue visas, give false hope and strand people. But we absolutely owed it to Palestinian Canadians to try and get their families out in the face of this desperate situation,” the minister said.

“In government, there are things that you manage and things that you control. This was something we managed, and we took a risk.”

By March, just 14 people had made it through the application process and been approved, prompting Miller to call the program “a failure.”

While the government got Canadians and permanent residents out of Gaza, doing the same for their families proved more difficult.

Two months later, with some slow progress made, the minister said it’s still “very limited in its success.” More than 200 visas have been issued, but frustration and challenges persist.

Despite the recent developments in Rafah, Miller said he has some hope that Canada will be able to get more people out on a humanitarian basis. He’s agreed to expand the program and is committed to growing the numbers, drawing on diplomatic efforts.

However, when even the US can’t influence the situation, he said it’s a sign of the ability of Canada, with even less capacity, to influence it.

Miller is undeterred.

“I won’t be happy until those people are out and safe. This is about saving lives, and we owe it to ourselves to try harder. We could have sat on our hands and done nothing. But we chose to take a risk.”

Asked whether other countries are having more success on this front, Miller said everyone is running up against the same challenges. Still, several have tried to reproduce the program Canada has put in place, including the US, which reached out to ask “how we got this in place so quickly.”

The conversation also turned to the current tension in Canada around housing affordability and immigration in the face of an aging population and labour shortage.

Miller said when it comes to immigration, the reality is this country has no choice given its relatively older workforce.

“We can either increase the number of babies in this country or bring in new migrants. Frankly, we could have a baby boom right now, but we would still need to bridge 20 years through immigration.”

There were seven workers for one retiree when he was young. Today, in Canada, it’s closer to three to one.

“So if we want to maintain all the social programs that have defined the fabric of this country, we have no choice but to welcome qualified workers to help with that,” Miller said.

“Immigration isn’t the only solution, but it is part of solving the bigger problem.”

It comes with a conundrum, however.

The cost of shelter across the country has increased in recent years. And while Miller said that immigrants can’t be blamed for the increase in interest rates, the volume of temporary residents is undeniable.

Historically, temporary residents have made up about two per cent of Canada’s population. In 2023, they accounted for 6.2 per cent.

The government has announced plans to curb the country’s population growth by reining that in to five per cent over the next three years.

In November, after several recent increases, the government also said it would keep the number of new permanent residents steady at 500,000 in 2026. In January, it announced plans to scale back the number of international students by putting a two-year cap on new admissions.

After meeting with his provincial counterparts last week and emerging with an “exceedingly rare” unanimous communique, Miller suggested that one way to decrease temporary residents is to make them permanent.

“(That consensus) reflects the fact that we need to get things right,” he said.

“We can do it as a country, but it isn’t by reproducing the rhetoric that we’re seeing to the south of us or in different countries across the world.”

Source: Immigration mihttp://www.nationalmagazine.ca/en-ca/articles/law/hot-topics-in-law/2024/immigration-minister-says-protesting-government-the-right-thing-to-do,-targeting-individuals-isn-tnister says protesting government the right thing to do, targeting individuals isn’t

Algorithms help people see and correct their biases, study shows

Of interest:

Algorithms are a staple of modern life. People rely on algorithmic recommendations to wade through deep catalogs and find the best movies, routes, information, products, people and investments. Because people train algorithms on their decisions – for example, algorithms that make recommendations on e-commerce and social media sites – algorithms learn and codify human biases.

Algorithmic recommendations exhibit bias toward popular choices and information that evokes outrage, such as partisan news. At a societal level, algorithmic biases perpetuate and amplify structural racial bias in the judicial system, gender bias in the people companies hire, and wealth inequality in urban development.

Algorithmic bias can also be used to reduce human bias. Algorithms can reveal hidden structural biases in organizations. In a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, my colleagues and I found that algorithmic bias can help people better recognize and correct biases in themselves.

The bias in the mirror

In nine experiments, Begum CelikitutanRomain Cadario and Ihad research participants rate Uber drivers or Airbnb listings on their driving skill, trustworthiness or the likelihood that they would rent the listing. We gave participants relevant details, like the number of trips they’d driven, a description of the property, or a star rating. We also included an irrelevant biasing piece of information: a photograph revealed the age, gender and attractiveness of drivers, or a name that implied that listing hosts were white or Black.

After participants made their ratings, we showed them one of two ratings summaries: one showing their own ratings, or one showing the ratings of an algorithm that was trained on their ratings. We told participants about the biasing feature that might have influenced these ratings; for example, that Airbnb guests are less likely to rent from hosts with distinctly African American names. We then asked them to judge how much influence the bias had on the ratings in the summaries.The author describes how algorithms can be useful as a mirror of people’s biases.

Whether participants assessed the biasing influence of race, age, gender or attractiveness, they saw more bias in ratings made by algorithms than themselves. This algorithmic mirror effect held whether participants judged the ratings of real algorithms or we showed participants their own ratings and deceptively told them that an algorithm made those ratings. 

Participants saw more bias in the decisions of algorithms than in their own decisions, even when we gave participants a cash bonus if their bias judgments matched the judgments made by a different participant who saw the same decisions. The algorithmic mirror effect held even if participants were in the marginalized category – for example, by identifying as a woman or as Black.

Research participants were as able to see biases in algorithms trained on their own decisions as they were able to see biases in the decisions of other people. Also, participants were more likely to see the influence of racial bias in the decisions of algorithms than in their own decisions, but they were equally likely to see the influence of defensible features, like star ratings, on the decisions of algorithms and on their own decisions.

Bias blind spot

People see more of their biases in algorithms because the algorithms remove people’s bias blind spots. It is easier to see biases in others’ decisions than in your own because you use different evidence to evaluate them.

When examining your decisions for bias, you search for evidence of conscious bias – whether you thought about race, gender, age, status or other unwarranted features when deciding. You overlook and excuse bias in your decisions because you lack access to the associative machinery that drives your intuitive judgments, where bias often plays out. You might think, “I didn’t think of their race or gender when I hired them. I hired them on merit alone.”The bias blind spot explained.

When examining others’ decisions for bias, you lack access to the processes they used to make the decisions. So you examine their decisions for bias, where bias is evident and harder to excuse. You might see, for example, that they only hired white men.

Algorithms remove the bias blind spot because you see algorithms more like you see other people than yourself. The decision-making processes of algorithms are a black box, similar to how other people’s thoughts are inaccessible to you. 

Participants in our study who were most likely to demonstrate the bias blind spot were most likely to see more bias in the decisions of algorithms than in their own decisions. 

People also externalize bias in algorithms. Seeing bias in algorithms is less threatening than seeing bias in yourself, even when algorithms are trained on your choices. People put the blame on algorithms. Algorithms are trained on human decisions, yet people call the reflected bias “algorithmic bias.”

Corrective lens

Our experiments show that people are also more likely to correct their biases when they are reflected in algorithms. In a final experiment, we gave participants a chance to correct the ratings they evaluated. We showed each participant their own ratings, which we attributed either to the participant or to an algorithm trained on their decisions.

Participants were more likely to correct the ratings when they were attributed to an algorithm because they believed the ratings were more biased. As a result, the final corrected ratings were less biased when they were attributed to an algorithm.

Algorithmic biases that have pernicious effects have been well documented. Our findings show that algorithmic bias can be leveraged for good. The first step to correct bias is to recognize its influence and direction. As mirrors revealing our biases, algorithms may improve our decision-making.

Source: Algorithms help people see and correct their biases, study shows

Ottawa prepares bill to reinstate citizenship rights of ‘lost Canadians’

Hard to see that bill will make it through both houses by the June 19 deadline, likely meaning no restrictions pending the Bill becoming law:

Ottawa is preparing a bill to reinstate rights for “lost Canadians” after an Ontario court ruled it is unconstitutional to deny citizenship to children born overseas to Canadians also born outside the country.

The bill is expected to require a Canadian parent born abroad to demonstrate substantial ties to Canada before they can pass on citizenship to a child born outside Canada.

The bill would reverse a change by Stephen Harper’s government in 2009 which stripped children of a Canadian parent born outside Canada of their automatic right to citizenship.

The 2009 change was designed to crack down on what Conservatives called “Canadians of convenience.” It followed an outcry after Canada spent more than $80-million to evacuate 15,000 Canadian citizens from Lebanon in 2006 during the Israel-Hezbollah war….

Source: Ottawa prepares bill to reinstate citizenship rights of ‘lost Canadians’

Saunders: Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda scheme is a global lesson in policy stupidity

Valid critique, and not helping the Conservatives much in the polls:

…Mr. Sunak’s scheme is faring even worse. Without having managed to deport a single migrant, his government has already paid $412-million to the government of Rwandan president Paul Kagame, who has an appalling human-rights record. Britain’s National Audit Office recently estimated that it will cost more than $900-million to deport the first 300 people – more than $3-million per migrant – though it seems unlikely that as many as 300 will ever be deported.

This vast cost, extraordinary inefficiency, policy pointlessness, unnecessary cruelty and general stupidity could all have been avoided if Mr. Sunak just paid attention to the very rational decision-making processes that guide those migrants. As experts have repeatedly pointed out, Channel crossings would all but disappear if it were easily possible to apply for British humanitarian and labour visas and family-reunification admissions en route, in Europe and elsewhere, creating safe legal paths for applicants.

That would increase his country’s refugee intake by a small, manageable margin (and would require some old-style deportations of those rejected), but it would all but end deadly illegal migration and its political consequences, at far lower cost. This would allow a politician to say “I ended this terrible problem” – something no number of flights to the middle of Africa will accomplish.

Source: Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda scheme is a global lesson in policy stupidity

May: Office Blues (government back to office)

Unlikely to garner much sympathy (public servants rarely do!) but out of step with overall trend of office workers returning to the office. Not sure how many will actually “demote out” of being an executive. But appreciate the adjustment challenge:

The more than 9,000 executives who normally keep their heads down publicly are raising alarms.

APEX is getting lots of reaction from its members. Executives are now required back in the office four days a week. Some accept the shift as part of the job, but most are disappointed and surprised at the lack of consultation.

Some say they are thinking of leaving executive roles and “demoting out.” There is also a concern that the four-day requirement will discourage people from applying for promotions.

Many feel they don’t have the tools and support to smoothly manage the transition – like they don’t have the space, desks or the office configurations for their teams to be productive.

They also question this decision when the government is committed to reducing half of its office space portfolio over the decade.

Executives feel they have faced many challenges managing teams at a distance while scrambling to deliver programs during the pandemic. This is seen as another one piled onto an already taxing workload. The “straw that broke the camel’s back,” said one.

APEX says stress is high among executives, mental-health claims are rising, and this decision won’t help.

“These issues are real and concerning,” said APEX CEO Carl Trottier. “APEX has started consulting the executive community to better understand their concerns and will advocate tirelessly on their behalf to support them as they are faced with implementation.”

Source: May: Office Blues (government back to office)

One way to decrease temporary residents is to make them permanent, ministers suggest

Still boils down to the overall numbers, both temporary and permanent:

…Several ministers warned the new policy would create added demand for their provincial immigration programs as temporary residents apply to stay in the country. They pitched expanding their provincial programs as a win-win solution to keep people in Canada permanently.

“The fact people are already here, their impact on affordability has already been baked in, so it’s smart,” Miller said.

“But it doesn’t mean by extension that everyone’s entitled to stay here or be here in Canada.”

Ottawa can also do more to seek people who are already in Canada when it comes to federal permanent residency programs, he said….

Source: One way to decrease temporary residents is to make them permanent, ministers suggest

Also:

Talks about reducing the number of temporary foreign residents in Canada have kicked off between the federal government and provinces, with the Immigration Minister Marc Miller acknowledging that there needs to be better co-ordination to shrink numbers across Canada.

The Forum of Ministers Responsible for Immigration (FMRI) met in Montreal on Friday, where Mr. Miller asked his provincial and territorial counterparts to provide figures to show where there is a need to bring in more foreign workers, as he took the first step to reducing numbers.

There are now about 2.5 million temporary residents, a number that includes asylum seekers, international students and people here on work permits. The government plans to reduce the proportion of temporary residents in the population from 6.2 per cent to 5 per cent over the next three years. That would decrease the temporary resident population by about 19 per cent….

Source: Ottawa holds first talks with provinces about reducing temporary foreign resident numbers