‘Elbows up’: Canadian public opinion of the U.S. hits a new low after Donald Trump’s election

2025/06/10 Leave a comment

Not a surprise:

Canadian public sentiment towards the United States has plummeted to new depths, a new report suggests, revealing how decades of Canadian goodwill toward its southern neighbour have reversed mere months after President Donald Trump took office.

The survey, conducted by the Environics Institute for Survey Research, also found the vast majority of respondents were strongly opposed to Canada becoming the 51st state.

“It’s really the worst collective opinions of the U.S. that we have recorded” in the more than 40 years the institute has been keeping track, said Keith Neuman, a senior associate at the Environics Institute for Survey Research. “By more than a two-to-one margin, Canadians’ opinions are negative rather than positive.”

It’s the result of what some experts call a “visceral reaction” toward Trump’s tariffs and annexation threats.

“The unfavourable feelings are much stronger this time, and much more intense,” said Adam Chapnick, a Canadian foreign policy analyst and professor of defence studies at the Royal Military College of Canada.

“It’s being reflected in Canadians not travelling to the United States, not purchasing products that are made in the United States and becoming more serious about making hard decisions domestically to improve our productivity and competitiveness in the world.”

Canadian public perception of the U.S. hits new low 

The survey, conducted in mid-May, found 65 per cent of respondents held an “unfavourable” opinion of the U.S., while just  29 per cent had a “favourable” opinion.

That’s a dramatic shift from last fall, when public sentiment toward the U.S. was divided roughly 50-50.

The closest Canadians have come to a similar unfavourability rating was in 2020, during the tail end of Trump’s first administration. At the time, 63 per cent of Canadians felt unfavourable to the U.S.

“In Trump’s first term, it took several years for Canadian public opinion to deteriorate to the same point,” Neuman noted. “The impact on Canadian public opinion has been much quicker this time … there’s not only the history, but he’s been much more aggressive and assertive with policies much quicker this time around.”

A majority of Conservative voters — 57 per cent — still viewed the U.S. favourably, down six points from last fall. In contrast, more than 80 per cent of Liberal, Bloc Quebecois and NDP voters had an unfavourable opinion of the States.

Overall, 78 per cent of Canadians disapproved of Trump’s handling of the U.S. presidency, a figure that matched 2018. Trump was most popular among Conservative voters, 30 per cent of whom approved of his performance.

Canadians can still recover their positive relationship with the States “if we can turn things around in a reasonable period of time,” Chapnick said, referencing Trump’s tariffs and threats against Canadian sovereignty.

“I think that the long-term positive relationship is quite resilient,” he said. “Geography makes us more resilient. Family ties add to that. I think that, should things get back to some sort of new normal, there should be an ability for us to bounce back to a reasonable degree.”

Large majority of Canadians strongly against becoming the 51st state

Canadians have taken an “elbows up” response to Trump’s threats against Canadian sovereignty, Neuman said.

Eighty-three per cent of respondents said they “strongly disagree” that Canada and the U.S. should unite into one country, while just seven per cent said a merger should happen.

That’s a stronger sentiment than when the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA) — the precursor to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) — was negotiated in 1986, stoking fears of an economic and cultural merger between the two nations. Back then, just 63 per cent of Canadians were strongly against Canada and the U.S. uniting.

Shortly after the CUSFTA was implemented in the late-1980s, an Environics poll found 30 per cent of Canadians felt it was “very likely” that Canada will remain independent from the U.S. over the next decade. Today, that figure has jumped to 70 per cent.

“That, in some ways, is maybe the most surprising or notable finding,” Neuman said. “It’s not evident that we should be seeing that strong a level of confidence right now, given the uncertainty with tariffs and the uncertainty about Trump … We have not been threatened as a country like this since before we became a country.”

But Chapnick wasn’t surprised, noting that Canadians grew more confident in their nation’s sovereignty after worries of annexation during CUSFTA negotiations didn’t come to pass….

Source: ‘Elbows up’: Canadian public opinion of the U.S. hits a new low after Donald Trump’s election

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

Refugees in limbo as Ottawa silent on immigration jobs program due to expire within days

2025/06/10 Leave a comment

Of note:

…Dana Wagner, co-founder of TalentLift, a non-profit international recruitment company that matches displaced people with employers, said that with no direction from the federal government both employees and refugees are in limbo. Letting the program just expire would be ”counterproductive and cruel,” she said.

“You can’t turn economic visas on and off like a tap without harming Canadian workplaces. Employers put time and resources into international hiring, and that investment is lost if a visa pathway suddenly ends,” she said. 

“People in really tough refugee situations around the world are also investing in their job search with Canadian teams. There’s a number of people waiting on the results of an interview, or working hard to get one, who’d be facing yet another major lost opportunity if Canada ends this program.” …

Source: Refugees in limbo as Ottawa silent on immigration jobs program due to expire within days

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with ,

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

2025/06/09 Leave a comment

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

Filed under DEI, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Globe editorial: The Liberals get around to fixing the thing they broke

2025/06/09 Leave a comment

Valid call for separate bill with proposed cheeky title:

…It’s a package clearly meant to appease Mr. Trump. But Canada’s immigration problems are not a border security issue the way they are at the U.S. frontier with Mexico.

Other than the anomaly of the Roxham Road crossing, which has been fixed by a renegotiation of the STCA, Canada’s problem has not been a porous border but, rather, the mismanagement of its immigration and refugee system by Mr. Carney’s predecessor.

Lumping in these needed reforms with criminal matters glosses over the Liberals’ failings while doing a disservice to people legitimately fleeing persecution or looking for a new life in Canada.

The government should put the immigration reforms in their own bill. A suggested name would be, “Belatedly Undoing the Incompetence of the Trudeau Government Act.”

Source: The Liberals get around to fixing the thing they broke

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Ben Woodfinden: Canada needs a change agent in charge. The same Liberal playbook won’t fix anything 

2025/06/09 Leave a comment

Immigration section. Correct assessment regarding stakeholders who will oppose any further restrictions or limits. Fails to acknowledge provincial government complicity however:

…And then there is the other side of the housing crisis: demand. More specifically, immigration. It is now widely accepted that our astronomically high levels of immigration, which ramped up under Trudeau, have played a major role in doubling housing costs in the last 10 years. But even though Carney has signalled that he wants to lower immigration levels to something more sustainable, his promise seems shallow.

Immigration targets outlined in the Liberal platform largely represent a continuation of Trudeau-era levels of immigration. And even if Carney is genuinely dedicated to reducing immigration levels, doing so will require regaining control of a completely broken immigration system, not just commitments on the numbers. There has been recent reporting that the government doesn’t even know how many people are in the country right now.

More significantly, fixing immigration will require taking on powerful stakeholders who benefit from the broken status quo they helped build. Many of our major businesses and the service sector have become addicted to cheap, temporary foreign labour. 1

Canada’s post-secondary institutions, colleges being some of the worst offenders, exploit international students as cash cows who have also become another source of cheap labour. And of course, high immigration levels keep the demand for housing high to maintain our real estate pyramid scheme. Similar to housing, fixing this system requires not only serious structural reforms but also the willingness to take on powerful stakeholders with a lot to lose from any reform….

Source: Ben Woodfinden: Canada needs a change agent in charge. The same Liberal playbook won’t fix anything

Filed under Immigration Tagged with

Saunders: Immigration bans worsen the problem they’re meant to solve

2025/06/09 1 Comment

Manage, not ban:

…A complete ban of a country’s people, or a closure of legal border crossings to significant populations, does the opposite. It inverts the risk equation by reducing the odds of a legal, controlled application succeeding to zero. And therefore the comparative benefit of sneaking in or simply showing up or overstaying rises infinitely. In other words: bans strongly incentivize illegal immigration.

That should be well known to American leaders by this point. Despite the walling-off of the southern border and closure of most forms of legal entry and asylum at its crossings under Mr. Trump in his first term and continuing under Joe Biden, the proportion of irregular entries and dangerous smuggled crossings rose. They were reduced to negligible levels in 2024, mainly through judicious use of limited legal pathways. 

The Safe Third Country Agreement has the same effect in Canada: By completely banning entire categories of people from any regular-entry application, however unlikely its success, it creates a powerful incentive structure to make dangerous irregular walks across the border. Therefore, when people seek to flee Mr. Trump’s policies, as they did in his first term, they seek to come through fields, forests and lakes, at great risk.

A restricted, controlled immigration system is good for everyone, including immigrants. But restriction becomes a perverse incentive to illegality, as Mr. Trump keeps failing to learn, if you reduce the target to zero.

Source: Immigration bans worsen the problem they’re meant to solve

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Québec impose finalement une connaissance du français aux travailleurs temporaires

2025/06/09 Leave a comment

A noter:

Un an et demi après l’avoir annoncé, le gouvernement de François Legault a finalement déposé jeudi un règlement pour exiger une connaissance minimale du français chez les travailleurs temporaires — ce qui pourrait « avoir un impact indirect sur la compétitivité des entreprises au Québec », convient-il.

Le 1er novembre 2023, la ministre caquiste Christine Fréchette, alors à l’Immigration, avait soutenu en conférence de presse qu’elle demanderait aux immigrants participant au Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires (PTET) de démontrer au renouvellement de leur permis de travail une maîtrise du français de niveau 4 à l’oral.

À l’époque, la ministre, qui est aujourd’hui responsable du portefeuille de l’Économie, avait décrit ce niveau de connaissance du français comme la capacité à « discuter avec [son] entourage » de « sujets familiers ». Selon les documents officiels du gouvernement, les immigrants qui maîtrisent le niveau 4 à l’oral comprennent « le sens général de conversations brèves liées à des activités ou à des situations courantes ».

Jeudi matin, environ 19 mois plus tard, le projet de règlement du gouvernement Legault a finalement été publié dans la Gazette officielle du Québec. Il impose comme prévu la connaissance du niveau 4 pour les participants au PTET, le programme de travailleurs temporaires géré par Québec.

Une exception est toutefois accordée aux employés du secteur de l’« agriculture primaire ».

Une mesure appliquée à compter de 2028

Même si le règlement doit entrer en vigueur cet automne, l’exigence ne sera toutefois imposée qu’à partir de 2028. Le projet de règlement prévoit des mesures transitoires qui feront en sorte de reporter de trois ans les premières évaluations de la compétence en français. L’actuel ministre de l’Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, s’est inspiré de la durée maximale d’un permis de travail, qui est de 36 mois, pour offrir ce coussin aux travailleurs.

Dans son projet de règlement, le ministre de la Coalition avenir Québec convient que ces « modifications […] pourraient avoir un impact indirect sur la compétitivité des entreprises au Québec ». « Comme les autres provinces canadiennes n’imposent pas d’exigence linguistique aux travailleurs étrangers temporaires, ceux qui voudront, après un séjour de trois ans, occuper des emplois dans les entreprises québécoises auront une exigence de plus à satisfaire », a-t-il indiqué.

« En revanche, une meilleure connaissance du français favoriserait l’intégration en milieu de travail et de vie des travailleurs, contribuant ainsi à pourvoir durablement les postes vacants tout en soutenant l’activité économique au Québec », a ajouté l’élu.

Le gouvernement québécois exige déjà une certaine connaissance du français de la part des immigrants économiques permanents….

Source: Québec impose finalement une connaissance du français aux travailleurs temporaires

A year and a half after announcing it, François Legault’s government finally filed a regulation on Thursday to require a minimum knowledge of French among temporary workers – which could “have an indirect impact on the competitiveness of companies in Quebec,” he agrees.

On November 1, 2023, the Caquist Minister Christine Fréchette, then at Immigration, argued at a press conference that she would ask immigrants participating in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (PTET) to demonstrate a mastery of oral level 4 French at the renewal of their work permit.

At the time, the minister, who is now responsible for the Economy portfolio, described this level of knowledge of French as the ability to “discuss with [her] entourage” “familiar subjects”. According to official government documents, immigrants who master level 4 orally understand “the general meaning of brief conversations related to routine activities or situations”.

Thursday morning, about 19 months later, the Legault government’s draft regulation was finally published in the Official Gazette of Quebec. As expected, it requires knowledge of level 4 for participants in the PTET, the temporary worker program managed by Québec.

However, an exception is granted to employees in the “primary agriculture” sector.

A measure applied from 2028

Even if the by-law is due to come into force this fall, the requirement will not be imposed until 2028. The draft regulation provides for transitional measures that will ensure that the first assessments of French proficiency are postponed by three years. The current Minister of Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, was inspired by the maximum duration of a work permit, which is 36 months, to offer this cushion to workers.

In his draft by-law, the Minister of the Coalition avenir Québec agrees that these “changes […] could have an indirect impact on the competitiveness of companies in Quebec”. “As other Canadian provinces do not impose a language requirement on temporary foreign workers, those who want, after a three-year stay, to occupy jobs in Quebec companies will have one more requirement to meet,” he said.

“On the other hand, a better knowledge of French would promote the integration of workers in the workplace and life, thus helping to permanently fill vacancies while supporting economic activity in Quebec,” added the elected official.

The Quebec government already requires some knowledge of French from permanent economic immigrants….

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Canada Introduces New Citizenship Reform With Bill C-3, Opening Doors For Global Travel And Family Connections

2025/06/07 Leave a comment

The reality check on Bill C-3, how the unlimited time period to claim Canadian citizenship by the second generation and beyond without the same five-year period as Permanent Residents is being perceived by organizations and potential beneficiaries:

Canada has introduced Bill C-3, a groundbreaking piece of legislation that seeks to overhaul the country’s citizenship laws, making it easier for global families to claim Canadian citizenship and access travel benefits. This new law expands citizenship by descent beyond the first generation, allowing individuals born abroad to Canadian citizens to inherit citizenship, provided their Canadian parent has maintained a strong connection to the country. The reform comes in response to the outdated 2009 rule that limited citizenship for second-generation Canadians born outside Canada, ensuring a more inclusive approach for families with Canadian roots worldwide. By offering a broader definition of Canadian identity, Bill C-3 aims to enhance both the nation’s diversity and global connectivity, providing more opportunities for travel and connection with Canada.

Canada is set to make a profound change to its citizenship laws through the introduction of Bill C-3, a new piece of legislation designed to significantly expand citizenship by descent. This bill aims to extend Canadian citizenship eligibility to individuals born abroad, beyond the first generation, allowing more people with Canadian heritage to reclaim their citizenship.

A New Path to Reconnect with Canadian Roots

Are you looking to reconnect with your Canadian heritage? Thanks to recent legislative advancements, Bill C-3 offers a golden opportunity for families across the globe to reconnect with their Canadian roots. This bill holds the potential to redefine what it means to be Canadian, making citizenship more accessible for individuals worldwide, especially those born to Canadian parents outside the country.

A Major Shift in Citizenship Rules

Bill C-3 marks a monumental shift in Canadian citizenship policy. The federal government’s new legislation aims to overhaul the existing rules, which have long been criticized for limiting citizenship by descent to only the first generation born abroad. Introduced in 2009, the previous policy prevented many Canadians who were born overseas from passing their citizenship to their children if those children were also born outside of Canada. This limited approach excluded many individuals with strong Canadian ties, an issue that the new bill seeks to address by broadening the scope of who can claim Canadian citizenship.

The Need for Change: Why Now?

For years, Canada has maintained strict limitations on citizenship by descent. Under the 2009 legislation, children born abroad to Canadian citizens were only eligible for citizenship if their parent was born in Canada or if the parent was a first-generation Canadian citizen. This limitation meant that second-generation Canadians born outside the country were excluded from claiming Canadian citizenship, even though they had deep familial ties to the nation.

The outdated policy was seen as unjust, leaving many individuals—who identify strongly with Canada and its values—unable to claim citizenship. Acknowledging the flaws of this system, the Canadian government has decided to make citizenship by descent more inclusive and accessible, opening the door to a new generation of Canadians.

What is Citizenship by Descent?

Citizenship by descent refers to the practice of granting nationality to children born outside the country if one of their parents is a citizen. In Canada, this system has traditionally been limited to the first generation born abroad. The law excluded second-generation Canadians unless they were born or adopted within Canada’s borders. As a result, many children of Canadian citizens born overseas found themselves without Canadian citizenship, despite their parent’s national ties.

The Key Changes Introduced by Bill C-3

If passed, Bill C-3 would fundamentally alter the citizenship landscape by expanding eligibility. The key provisions of the bill include:

  1. Restoration of Citizenship: Individuals who would have been Canadian citizens had it not been for the first-generation limit will automatically regain their citizenship under the new rules.
  2. Expanded Citizenship by Descent: The new legislation would permit the children of Canadian parents—born abroad to be eligible for citizenship, as long as their Canadian parent has lived in Canada for at least 1,095 cumulative days (approximately three years) prior to the child’s birth or adoption. This change reflects the importance of maintaining a strong connection to Canada while also acknowledging the global nature of Canadian families.

These changes offer an inclusive and practical approach to citizenship, ensuring that the bond between Canadians and their descendants is not lost due to arbitrary geographic boundaries.

Who Will Benefit from Bill C-3?

The passage of Bill C-3 is expected to benefit a large group of individuals, particularly those who:

  • Were born abroad to Canadian citizens who themselves were born outside of Canada.
  • Were adopted outside of Canada by Canadian parents.
  • Were affected by previous provisions of the Citizenship Act, such as section 8, which stripped citizenship from some individuals once they reached the age of 28.
  • Are part of the “Lost Canadians,” individuals who were denied citizenship due to outdated legal frameworks.

Since the 2009 and 2015 reforms, approximately 20,000 individuals have regained or gained Canadian citizenship. Bill C-3 seeks to build on this progress by restoring citizenship to those affected by the previous law, extending a helping hand to even more people with Canadian roots.

A Court Ruling Accelerates the Reform Process

The call for change was given a significant boost following a ruling by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in December 2023. The court determined that the first-generation rule was unconstitutional, as it unfairly discriminated against children born abroad to Canadian citizens. The ruling underscored the need for legislative reform, and instead of appealing the decision, the Canadian government acknowledged its flaws and pledged to address them through the introduction of Bill C-3.

This ruling confirmed the government’s commitment to upholding fairness and ensuring that Canadian citizenship is available to those who are entitled to it, regardless of where they were born.

What Happens Next?

Bill C-3 must now undergo the legislative process before it becomes law. The bill must be passed by both Houses of Parliament and receive Royal Assent before it can be enacted. If the bill is approved, the Canadian government has pledged to swiftly implement the changes and provide clear guidelines on eligibility through the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) website.

This means that eligible individuals could soon be able to reconnect with their Canadian identity, allowing them to enjoy the rights, privileges, and opportunities that come with Canadian citizenship.

Final Thoughts: A More Inclusive Canada

Bill C-3 represents an important step forward in making Canadian citizenship more accessible and inclusive. By extending citizenship by descent to second-generation Canadians born abroad, Canada is acknowledging the increasingly global nature of families and communities. It emphasizes that Canadian identity is not confined to geography, but is shaped by shared values of diversity, inclusivity, and belonging.

Canada introduces Bill C-3 to extend citizenship by descent beyond the first generation, enabling more global families to claim Canadian nationality. This reform reflects Canada’s commitment to inclusivity and recognizes the growing international ties of Canadian families.

As this legislation progresses through Parliament, it holds the potential to strengthen the connection between Canada and its global diaspora, ensuring that more individuals with Canadian heritage are able to claim their rightful place in the country’s future. Whether for personal or professional reasons, this legislation could be a game-changer for many seeking to establish or reconnect with their Canadian roots.

Source: Canada Introduces New Citizenship Reform With Bill C-3, Opening Doors For Global Travel And Family Connections

Also, Canada’s new bill to grant citizenship to thousands of people 

A proposed bill in Canada could open the path to citizenship for thousands, potentially impacting Indian-origin residents and skilled workers. Immigration Minister Lena Diab tabled legislation Thursday to restore citizenship to the “lost Canadians” after a court found the existing law unconstitutional.

The term refers to people who were born outside of the country to Canadian parents who were also born in another country. In 2009, the federal Conservative government of the day changed the law so that Canadians who were born abroad could not pass down their citizenship if their child was born outside of Canada.

That law was deemed unconstitutional by the Ontario Superior Court in December 2023 and the Liberal government did not challenge the ruling. The government received its fourth deadline extension to pass legislation to address the issue in April.

It applied for a one-year extension, but Justice Jasmine Akbarali set a Nov. 20 deadline, saying that should be enough time for the government to implement “remedial legislation” if it makes it a “priority.”

Akbarali has criticized the government’s handling of the legislation in her decisions to grant extensions, citing the harm that could follow if the Stephen Harper-era law were to be declared invalid without replacement legislation.

Children born in Canada automatically receive Canadian citizenship at birth, regardless of the nationality of their parents, subject to some exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats. 

Children of second-generation Canadian citizens who meet the substantial connection to Canada test need not wait for the legislation to pass; they can already apply for discretionary grants of Canadian citizenship under the existing interim measures.

Filed under C-3, Citizenship Tagged with

Immigration minister defends sweeping new powers in border bill

2025/06/07 Leave a comment

Early tests for Minister Diab:

Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab is defending controversial new measures in the Strong Borders Act, such as giving her office the power to cancel immigration documents en masse and placing time limits for asylum seekers to make their applications.

“There’s a lot of applications in the system. We need to act fairly, and treat people appropriately who really do need to claim asylum and who really do need to be protected to stay in Canada,” Diab told CBC News.

“We need to be more efficient in doing that. At the same time, Canadians demand that we have a system that works for everyone.”

Introduced in the House of Commons on Tuesday, Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, is meant to protect Canadian sovereignty, strengthen the border and keep Canadians safe, according to the federal government.

The bill would make dozens of amendments to existing laws. Its proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would force asylum seekers entering the country, including students and temporary residents, to make claims within a year.

The new law would also require irregular border crossers, people who enter Canada between official ports of entry, to make an asylum claim within 14 days of arriving in Canada.

And it would speed up voluntary departures by making removal orders effective the same day an asylum claim is withdrawn.

Groups such as the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers are raising concerns about these measures. 

“There are a few categories of people who may end up making a claim after they’ve been in Canada for more than one year for fully legitimate reasons,” said Adam Sadinsky, the group’s advocacy co-chair. 

He cited examples such as changes in government in someone’s country of origin, the breakout of conflict or their human rights advocacy in Canada placing a target on them. 

“They may now be in danger returning back home in a way that they weren’t when they first arrived,” he said. 

Federal government data shows some 39,445 asylum claimants processed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency between January and April.

Sadinsky said if the government’s motivations are about clearing backlogs, it may be creating another problem. 

Asylum seekers who find their application rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada can file appeals to the Refugee Appeal Division. However, shutting them out of the asylum route after a year could make them turn to the Federal Court of Canada for recourse instead, a body that has been public about its own courtrooms facing severe delays with immigration cases.

“It’s a lot more work for the court,” Sadinsky said, “when people start getting removal dates from Canada and they have to ask the court for motions for stays of removal from Canada.” 

Sadinsky suggested the government could have reduced backlogs by issuing blanket approvals for would-be asylum seekers from countries where Canada recognizes there is an imminent danger to sending them back, such as Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree said Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, will ‘keep our borders secure, combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl and crack down on money laundering,’ as well as ‘enhance the integrity and fairness of our immigration system.’ 

Speaking to journalists on Wednesday, Justice Minister Sean Fraser said the government needed to act, though he recognized courts are facing efficiency problems.

“We need to be able to do two things at once,” he said about changing the asylum system and reducing court backlogs.

Reached for comment, the office of the chief justice of the Federal Court said in a statement it would “simply hope that any potential impact on the court’s workload would be taken into account,” citing a previous amendment to immigration law under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in 2010 that included four new court positions.

Mass cancellation powers

The Migrant Rights Network, an advocacy group, said it is alarmed about the government giving itself the ability to cancel previously issued immigration documents in large groups. 

“What this is, is setting up of a mass deportation machine,” said its spokesperson Syed Hussan. “Just go out and say we’re walking away from the Geneva Convention.” 

Diab said any mass cancellation decisions would be taken by the whole cabinet, not just her office, and they would not be done lightly.

“These are in exceptional circumstances, when you’re talking about mass cancellation or suspension,” she said. 

“For example, when COVID happened, we literally had applications coming in, and the system had no authority to suspend or cancel those applications … we could have health risks again. We could have security risks.” 

Bill C-2 is now moving through Parliament. The legislation would normally be studied by parliamentary committee next, though neither Diab nor Gary Anandasangaree, the public safety minister, could say which committee would pick it up.

Committees have not been named yet for this sitting and it is unclear if they will before Parliament wraps up for the summer at the end of June.

The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers said it intends to write a letter outlining its concerns to the federal government, and would hope to present at committee when the moment arrives.

Source: Immigration minister defends sweeping new powers in border bill

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , , , ,

Critic calls out border bill’s proposed new cabinet powers on immigration

2025/06/07 1 Comment

As expected. Suspect that the over-reach of the Bill with respect to civil liberties will over shadow concerns of immigration and refugee advocates:

An NDP critic says a provision in the federal government’s border security bill that would give cabinet the power to cancel immigration documents looks like an attempt to “mimic” measures deployed by the Trump administration in the U.S.

“It seems to me … this piece of legislation is Canada’s attempt to mimic some of those measures that the United States is adopting. I actually never thought that this day would come where Canada would go down that road,” B.C. NDP MP Jenny Kwan told The Canadian Press.

“However, it is here, and meanwhile the government is saying, ‘Don’t worry, trust us.’”

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree said that the immigration minister would only be able to exercise the power to cancel, suspend or alter immigration documents in an “emergency” and after being granted the authority through an order-in-council.

“The tools are in place to ensure the minister of immigration has additional tools to ensure that in a modern era, for example, whether it’s a pandemic or issues around cybersecurity, she will have the tools to make those decisions,” Anandasangaree said during debate on the bill Thursday.

Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel Garner said the legislation contains several “poison pills” that threaten people’s civil liberties. 

This includes the ability for Canadian Security Intelligence Service and police to access customer information from online service providers in certain circumstances.

“The government has not shown Canadians any specific situation, any specific evidence or circumstance in granular detail about why we should be giving up our civil liberties to a government that unlawfully used the Emergencies Act,” Rempel Garner said during Thursday’s debate.

This is in reference to to a 2024 Federal Court ruling that found the government’s use of the Emergencies Act was unreasonable to breakup the 2022 “Freedom Convoy” protests against COVID-19 public health measures.

The government has appealed this ruling. 

Bloc Québécois MP Claude DeBellefeuille said that her party plans to support the bill at second reading so it can be studied by the public safety committee.

Speaking in French, she said the bill needs to be examined closely because it looks to give new powers to government ministers, law enforcement and even Canada Post.

Immigration Minister Lena Diab said Wednesday the legislation is designed to address “one-off” situations like a pandemic or some other “exceptional circumstance.”

“I think people, Canadians should feel safe that we are putting in all these safeguards, but again, as I said, it’s all part of protecting our country and protecting our system that we value and protecting people that come here because we want to ensure that they are successful as well,” Diab said.

Bill C-2 also proposes giving the immigration minister the power to pause the acceptance of new immigration applications and cancel or pause processing of the current inventory of applications in the event of an emergency.

Julia Sande, a human rights lawyer with Amnesty International Canada, said immigration applicants could lose a lot of money because the legislation doesn’t oblige the government to refund affected people.

“People give up their entire lives, in some cases, their life savings or their family’s life savings. People go into debt just to be able to come here,” she said. “And so to have the government be able to pull the rug out from under wide groups of people is concerning.”

Kwan said the proposed new powers are problematic because cabinet decisions are made in secret and there’s no firm definition of an “emergency” in the legislation.

“I don’t accept that the Liberals say, ‘Don’t worry, we’re the good guys, so trust us.’ I’m sorry, that is just not acceptable,” she said, adding there’s no way to know what a future government might do with this power.

The text of the legislation says that if the minister “is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so,” they may trigger the power to cancel, suspend or alter immigration documents through a cabinet order.

“They’re saying in an emergency, but that’s not what’s written. They said if they’re in the opinion that it’s in the public interest … that could really be anything,” Sande said.

“In the fall, we saw migrants and refugees being scapegoated for the housing crisis. And so, you know, what’s in the public interest?”

Last year, then-immigration minister Marc Miller said plans to reduce the number of permanent and temporary visas issued would help stabilize the housing market.

U.S. President Donald Trump has used national security as justification for a host of immigration measures that involve detaining and deporting people, including university students who have condemned the war in Gaza.

Sande said the proposed bill “attacks” the right to seek asylum by making it harder for migrants to make a claim if they are entering Canada from the U.S., or have been in the country for more than a year.

“They’re talking about fentanyl, they’re talking about guns and then all of a sudden they’re attacking the right to asylum,” Sande said.

“They are completely different things and it’s difficult for civil society, for experts to respond when there’s so many things going on.”

Source: Critic calls out border bill’s proposed new cabinet powers on immigration

Filed under C-3, Citizenship Tagged with , , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →