Court denies certification of $2.5-billion Black civil servants class action lawsuit

2025/03/20 1 Comment

Successful in raising the profile and issue, but ultimately failed at court. And the plaintiffs assertion that “they deserve real change” discounts the overall improvement among Black public servants in terms of hirings, promotions and separations:

A Federal Court judge on Monday dismissed a motion to certify a proposed class action lawsuit that was launched by Black public servants in 2020 who alleged there was systemic racism within the public service.

In an “order and reasons” document, Justice Jocelyne Gagne said the case did not sufficiently meet the class action requirement that the claims raise common issues.

Gagne also said the scope of the plaintiffs’ claim “simply makes it unfit for a class procedure.”

Filed in 2020, the class action sought $2.5 billion in damages because of lost salaries and promotion.

The Black Class Action Secretariat, a group created as a result of the lawsuit, is seeking long-term solutions to address systemic racism and discrimination in the public service, including compensation and the appointment of a Black equity commission.

Gagne said the court acknowledges the “profoundly sad ongoing history of discrimination suffered by Black Canadians” and that plaintiffs have faced challenges in the public service.

However, she said the plaintiffs didn’t present an adequate litigation plan and that they failed to present a ground for the court to assert jurisdiction over the case.

The document also said there are several class actions against individual federal departments and agencies alleging racial discrimination, which “overlap significantly with the present action.”

Proposed class members, the judge said, “would therefore be included in the class definition of these other class proceedings.”

The Black Class Action Secretariat said in a news release Monday that the ruling was a “major disappointment, but it is not the end of our fight for justice.”

“For five years, this has been a David vs. Goliath battle, and while today’s outcome is frustrating, it only strengthens our resolve,” the organization said.

The news release said systemic anti-Black racism has long been recognized by the federal government and that the plaintiffs will meet with their legal team to “explore next steps.”

In 2023, a grievance ruling by the Treasury Board Secretariat found that the Canadian Human Rights Commission discriminated against its Black and racialized employees. In 2024, an internal report found that public servants working at the Privy Council Office were subject to racial stereotyping, microaggressions and verbal violence.

“For decades, Black public service workers have faced systemic discrimination, and today’s decision does nothing to change that reality,” Thompson said.

A Federal Court hearing took place last fall to help determine whether the class-action lawsuit could proceed.

At the time, the federal government filed a motion to strike, asking the judge to dismiss the case. The government argued that Black public servants could file grievances or human rights complaints.

The government also called to remove Canadian Armed Forces and RCMP members, as well as Department of National Defence and Correctional Service Canada employees as class members because of similar class action lawsuits against those departments.

Thompson says the government used procedural barriers to “avoid addressing the merits of this case, rather than standing on the side of fairness and accountability.” The government has spent around $10 million fighting the class action.

“Black workers deserve more than recognition of past harms — they deserve real change,” he said.

Source: Court denies certification of $2.5-billion Black civil servants class action lawsuit

Filed under DEI, Government, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Présence illégale au Canada: Record d’expulsions de ressortissants étrangers l’an dernier

2025/03/19 Leave a comment

Of interest:

Selon les statistiques publiées le 25 février dernier par l’Agence des services frontaliers du Canada (ASFC) compilant pour la première fois l’ensemble de l’année 2024, le Canada a effectué en un an 16 860 renvois de ressortissants étrangers. Et la tendance à la hausse se poursuivra dans les prochaines années, annonce par courriel un porte-parole de l’ASFC, puisque l’organisme fédéral souhaite atteindre les 20 000 renvois par année d’ici 2027.Plus de 80 % des ordres de renvoi ont visé des demandeurs d’asile. On reproche à ces 13 527 personnes de ne pas avoir, de façon plutôt vague, respecté la Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés.

Aucune précision n’est cependant apportée quant à la nature exacte de ces infractions. On sait toutefois qu’il ne s’agit pas de criminalité ou de fausses déclarations, des critères d’inadmissibilité qui font l’objet d’un décompte distinct et pour lesquels on rapporte respectivement 860 et 145 cas en 2024.

Avant Trump

Pour la première fois depuis 2019, c’est le Québec plutôt que l’Ontario qui a renvoyé le plus de personnes en 2024, soit 6832. Il s’agit encore ici d’un record alors qu’en 2023, lors du précédent sommet, on avait rapporté 6021 renvois.

Source: Présence illégale au Canada Record d’expulsions de ressortissants étrangers l’an dernier

Filed under Immigration Tagged with

HESA: The Future of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Canadian Higher Education

2025/03/19 Leave a comment

Interesting and likely realistic take:

…There are, furthermore, two big differences between Canada and the US with respect to EDI that are worth keeping in mind. The first is that EDI in Canada had very little to do with the composition of the student body; unlike the US, students from racialized backgrounds are substantially over-represented (as compared to the general population) in the student body up here. This is not to say that students from all racialized backgrounds are over-represented, but more are than are not (see back here for more on this). As a result, EDI in Canada tends to be much more about representation at the staff level, and specifically—given the politics of the institution—about academic staff. And to the extent that diversity in hiring, pay and promotion is at the heart of Canadian EDI efforts, current practice in academia is not all that far off the standard in the Canadian private sector, where diversity initiatives have been the norm for quite some time. This is why there aren’t that many Boards of Governors, even in Conservative places like Alberta, that have really blinked at EDI hiring initiatives.

The second is that the prominent presence of Indigenous peoples and the legacy of Truth and Reconciliation add a complicating layer to the whole issue. Indigenous peoples are generally not included in most EDI processes because it is recognized that, for historical and Treaty reasons, they absolutely should not be lumped in with other under-represented groups in terms of process, even if both are deserving of and would benefit from greater efforts at inclusion. Having two separate processes is complicated and can at a superficial level look a bit wasteful and politically complicated, but at the end of the day, that complication works in favour of EDI, institutionally speaking. No one—and I mean no one—is going to try and reverse Indigenization initiatives at Canadian universities. And because at least some of the aims of EDI & Indigenization are parallel (ish), going after one but not the other is hard to justify. 

So, given all of that, what is the future of EDI in Canada? Well, it depends a bit on which part of EDI we are talking about. I don’t think we are going to reverse course on equity in hiring. Cluster hires will probably continue for a little while yet for the simple reason that alternatives simply have not been very effective at moving the needle on racial equity (we’ve been doing that with female profs for about 40 years now, and while we are getting closer to parity, it has taken an unconscionable amount of time to get there). Neither do I think many institutions are going to change tack in terms of trying to create more welcoming environments: in an era of tight budgets, universities and colleges are going to do all they can to be seen as good employers on non-financial stuff.

Where I suspect we will see change will be in the tendency to add staff positions for the specific purpose of addressing issues of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion. This is a place where a larger set of suspicions both in government and the professoriate about “bureaucratization” and “administrative bloat” will be decisive. This won’t necessarily reduce the amount of work to be done, so it probably will mean that more of it is done off the side of someone’s desk. I also suspect that institutions will look less favourably on equity groups’ requests for separate university events (e.g. Lavender Graduation ceremonies). 

Will this result in a tamping down of the (muted) culture wars in Canadian higher education? No. Some people will remain opposed to things like land acknowledgements, and the aging white guy irritation with Canadian history departments being insufficiently “positive” about Canada (meaning, in practice, centering narratives on any groups other than white settlers) isn’t going to go away either. Culture wars never end. Friction will continue.

And so too, broadly, will EDI. Words and tactics might soften or change, and a variety of other institutional challenges (mainly but not exclusively financial) may mean that the issue will never again be quite as central to university policy as it was in 2020 and 2021. But we’re not headed in the same direction as the US.

Source: The Future of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Canadian Higher Education

Filed under DEI, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Christopher Dummitt: Canadians need a proud, not guilt-ridden Canada

2025/03/18 Leave a comment

Ongoing arguments for a needed correction:

…The second key element of any national cultural policy ought to be a more realistic approach to pluralism. Canadians live in a country of different ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups. We aren’t unified. But the fundamental error of the last decade was to do diversity wrong — to engage in a downward spiral of national subtraction. Out of a well-intentioned, but horribly mistaken desire to protect certain historically marginalized groups, we kept demoting our national heroes out of a belief that they “harmed” people in the present.

A pragmatic pluralism would recognize that one people’s hero will be another’s villain. This absolutely should not mean dishonouring anyone because one group says they are hurt.

Heritage harm is a choice. No one has to be offended when they walk into a school named after someone whom they don’t respect. Conservatives aren’t psychologically damaged when they fly out of Pearson airport. Nor do Liberals suffer when they tour the Diefenbunker. Francophones don’t need to avert their gaze as they drive through Durham region just because Lord Durham once advocated for their assimilation. And a Wendat/Huron Canadian doesn’t need to feel threatened when driving past Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory just because the Mohawk people once wiped out Huronia.

Any Canadian party that wants to be seriously considered as a defender of the nation should promise a pragmatic pluralism which builds up and doesn’t tear down our country. Each group of Canadians should be allowed to keep their historical heroes. Instead of tearing down John A. Macdonald statues, a new federal government should promise to raise statues of figures like Tecumseh or Big Bear. Canada is a diverse country. We can have a diverse set of historical heroes. No one gets a veto. Individual Canadians can choose to be harmed by a name if they want — but our national government needs to be bigger than this — stronger and more resilient.

What’s more, a third key promise ought to be the adoption of a culturally mature notion of diversity. Canada hasn’t always looked the way it does today. People in the past didn’t think the same or act the same. A responsible national government would take pride and celebrate this diversity.

Canada’s prehistory was dominated by Indigenous peoples who have fascinating histories that long-predate the origins of Canada itself. We ought to celebrate these histories. And this shouldn’t mean just pretending that pre-contact Indigenous peoples were benign environmental-loving hippies. We should tell the more accurate and much more fascinating stories of conflict and war and struggle.

From the time of New France up to the 1960s, most Canadians could trace their ancestors back to two places — France and the British Isles. This is just a fact of history and demography. We don’t need to apologize for it. We were an overwhelming white western European colony. We shouldn’t expect our historical figures for much of our history to represent the diversity of multicultural Canada in 2025. They didn’t, and they don’t.

We could instead celebrate the amazing fact of Canadian governments in the 1960s — first under Diefenbaker and then under Lester Pearson — to remove racism from our immigration system. This was an astounding decision. Most groups, for almost all of human history, have wanted homogeneity — to insist on sameness. It’s not odd that Canada was similar before the 1960s, but it is quite amazing that Canada changed its tune. A build-it-up national cultural policy would celebrate this fact, and the Canadians who came before. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. Our heritage should be about building up and adding on, not deleting.

Finally, a more mature approach to diversity would acknowledge that Canadians are sophisticated and not bigoted. They don’t have to share the same identity characteristics of our heroes to appreciate Canadian history. That kind of racial in-group thinking is a barrier to true national belonging. You don’t have to be Black to admire Viola Desmond. You certainly don’t need to be white or German-Canadian to be proud of Diefenbaker’s “One Canada vision” and his championing of a Bill of Rights.

Who will offer this proud Canadian vision? Which party will turn its back on the subtraction-heritage distraction of the last decade?

The way ahead ought to be clear: a vision of the country where pride and dignity comes first; a proud pluralism that allows every Canadian group to have its heroes and its stories; and a mature approach to diversity that assumes a resilient Canadian population, one that sees and celebrates our differences over time, and assumes that any Canadian, regardless of their background or when their ancestors arrived here, can share in the story.

Source: Christopher Dummitt: Canadians need a proud, not guilt-ridden Canada

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , ,

Surge of new judges on top courts cut vacancies to lowest level after years of alarm

2025/03/18 Leave a comment

Of note. The most recent stats on diversity can be found at: https://www.fja.gc.ca/appointments-nominations/StatisticsCandidate-StatistiquesCandidat-2024-eng.html. My summary, comparing the Harper government baseline and subsequent appointments is below:

The federal Liberals have cut judicial vacancies on top courts across the country to their lowest level on record, new data show, after allowing the problem to get out of control for several years.

A flurry of 31 appointments in recent weeks leaves only 13 vacancies, as of mid-March, among the 1,000 full-time positions for judges on federally appointed benches, according to government data.

The previous low in vacancies was 14 in mid-2015, based on a review of data going back to 2003.

The latest appointments, made as a federal election is expected soon, further address unusually sharp and public criticism in recent years about unfilled positions on federally appointed benches. Those include the Supreme Court of Canada, provincial appeal and superior courts, and the Federal and Tax courts….

Source: Surge of new judges on top courts cut vacancies to lowest level after years of alarm

Filed under DEI, Multiculturalism Tagged with

HESA: Nobody is Coming to Save Us, But

2025/03/18 Leave a comment

Sensible and ambitious, with potential medium and long-term benefits:

…Now, there just happens to be one kind of change that is suddenly going very cheap, and that is the ability to add top-class academic talent. The carnage down south, with the National Institutes of Health NIH being at least partially dismantled and entire universities being threatened with loss of hundreds of millions of dollars unless they submit to an unspecified number of random administrative fiats from the trump administration, is about to start hemorrhaging talent. It’s not just foreign scholars who are going to leave; top American talent is suddenly footloose, too, because it has become apparent that the damage being done to American science is unlikely to be fully reversible. And even if it could be reversed, you’d never be more than 4 years away from another group of anti-Enlightenment jackals coming and taking another wrecking ball to the whole system. The age of American Science is over, and it’s not coming back any time soon. The opportunity exists, therefore, for ambitious universities to scoop up a fair bit of top new talent.

But wait a minute, you say. Talent requires salaries, and salaries are under pressure, and Big Philanthropy doesn’t cover that. Well, actually, it can, but only if you package it and structure it correctly.

It would indeed be hard for a university to get a philanthropist to pick up the tab in order to grab a new talent across a range of disciplines. There’s nothing “new” about hiring additional profs to plug holes or provide upgrades to an institution’s existing staff. But some philanthropists probably could be persuaded to cover the costs if a university presented a structured package of targeted hires. That is, a set of hires that built on a set of existing strengths and moved the institution closer to world-class status in a specific discipline (e.g., Hegelian Philosophy, Dentistry) or cluster of related disciplines (Human and Animal Health/Vaccines, Water protection, etc.). 

Basically what you would want to do is create a package that encompassed: i) a half-dozen or so fully-funded named chairs, some of which could go to existing staff, others to new star hires, which would mean no net charges to the operating budget ii) money for whatever new space, laboratory or otherwise, was required to house these new scholars and their work, iii) funding for a reasonable number of graduate students, iv) at least some funds for ongoing innovative activities and v) some kind of collective identity. Wrap the whole thing in a bow, name it the [Philanthropist name here] Centre for [Discipline/Grand Challenge name here], hire ambitiously from across the United States to create a cluster of excellence on a level that can really make a mark on a global scale. Normally, this kind of thing would not be possible. But with chaos south of the border, I think right now, it is. And it could be game-changing for a few universities if they could pull it off….

Source: Nobody is Coming to Save Us, But

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , ,

May: Transition How-Tos [Zussman]

2025/03/17 Leave a comment

Good list, drawing from Zussman. Rings true from my experience under the Harper government (Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism):

Here are a few do’s and don’ts from seasoned bureaucrats who’ve weathered many a transition:

This is a test of impartiality and neutrality. Many public servants have only worked for a Trudeau government and this will be their first transition. A new government, especially under a new party, may want to undo, change or scrap policies, programs and your pet projects. Don’t be attached to the programs you worked on — it’s not your role.

Zussman argues deputy ministers must ensure employees are prepared for these shifts and get “past the mindset that they have formed over the last decade and to think in different terms.”

Time for the PS to shine. Be well-prepared, do your homework, know the platform, and show you’re a committed, non-partisan public service that can be relied upon. That builds trust. Have some “early wins” ready for them. Don’t say things can’t be done.

Keep it professional. Don’t greet a new government like an overeager puppy. Don’t try to be their best friend or badmouth the outgoing one. Your role is simple: work with them, understand and implement their agenda, and recognize the legitimacy of their agenda. (They are elected. Public servants aren’t.) If you can’t live with that, it’s time to move on and leave.

Let them lead. Some incoming governments have been watching, planning, and know the system better than public servants assume. Treating them like rookies can backfire — especially if they’ve seen the bureaucracy in committee, dodging questions. “Let them lead the dance,” said one bureaucrat. They know what they want, and the public service’s job isn’t to teach them “government 101” but to deliver.

Expect skepticism. New coach, new game. One former deputy minister likened a newly elected government to a new coach who comes in because the previous leadership was seen as not delivering. So, expect the new government to be skeptical that the public service is up to the job and can execute its agenda. This skepticism is justified. Acknowledge and adapt to it. Demonstrate you can work under the new leadership and deliver its priorities.

Don’t assume you know what the new government’s relationship with stakeholders will be.

Don’t recycle the last government’s or minister’s contact list of stakeholders to call. That could backfire.

Be cautious.

Let the incoming team define its own relationships without speaking for the stakeholders.

Source: May: Transition How-Tos [Zussman]

Filed under Government Tagged with , , , , , , ,

How Trump’s Targeting of Immigrants With Legal Status Departs From the Norm

2025/03/17 Leave a comment

Of note (as does virtually everything the Trump administration does):

…Mahmoud Khalil, a 30-year-old green card holder who was detained last week and transferred from New York to a facility in Louisiana, is one of the most high-profile immigration detainees in custody. President Trump said in social media this week that Khalil’s detention is related to his involvement in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University, where he earned a master’s degree last year.

Khalil’s legal team has described his arrest — as a permanent legal resident — as unprecedented, while some legal bloggers and journalists have placed it in a larger context of what they describe as politically-motivated enforcement targeting pro-Palestinian activists. Immigration researcher and Syracuse University professor Austin Kocher explained this week that both understandings are, in fact, correct.

On the one hand, “green card holders and even U.S. citizens are arrested and detained by immigration authorities more often than most people are aware,” and a number of those arrests have involved Palestinian activists. On the other hand, Kocher writes, use of “the specific law that might allow the U.S. to deport Mahmoud is extraordinarily rare in recent history.”

The law that Kocher is referring to is an element of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which was last used in 1995, according to The New York Times. The Trump administration has argued the provision allows the Secretary of State to deport permanent legal residents if they represent a threat to national security. Secretary of State Marco Rubio shared a Department of Homeland Security statement claiming that Khalil satisfied that criteria by having “led activities aligned to Hamas,” during the protests. The White House cited unreleased “intelligence” to defend the claim, the New York Post reported.

Some legal scholars have argued this law was struck down as unconstitutional in 1996 by a federal district court after the Clinton administration targeted a Mexican national for deportation. That decision was later reversed by an appeals court on procedural grounds, without weighing in on the merits of the case.

In a twist of irony, the judge behind that district court decision was Maryanne Trump Barry — the president’s late older sister.

“The issue,” Barry wrote, “is whether an alien who is in this country legally can, merely because he is here, have his liberty restrained and be forcibly removed to a specific country in the unfettered discretion of the Secretary of State and without any meaningful opportunity to be heard. The answer is a ringing ‘no.’”

Source: How Trump’s Targeting of Immigrants With Legal Status Departs From the Norm

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

How a Columbia Student Fled to Canada After ICE Came Looking for Her

2025/03/17 1 Comment

Another example of over-reach and where legal system will be tested (Canadian woman who was detained in U.S. immigration jails returns to Vancouver provides another example of over-reach and stupid or incompetent administration):

…Unlike Mr. Khalil, Ms. Srinivasan said she was not an activist or a member of any group that organized demonstrations on campus.

Ms. Srinivasan said she was an architect who came to the United States from India as part of the Fulbright program in 2016 and that she enrolled at Columbia in 2020. She said she was in the fifth year of an urban planning doctoral program at the Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, and was supposed to graduate in May.

She said that her activity on social media had been mostly limited to liking or sharing posts that highlighted “human rights violations” in the war in Gaza. And she said that she had signed several open letters related to the war, including one by architecture scholars that called for “Palestinian liberation.”

“I’m just surprised that I’m a person of interest,” she said. “I’m kind of a rando, like, absolute rando,” she said, using slang for random.

It was March 5 when she received an email from the U.S. Consulate in Chennai, India, indicating that her visa had been revoked. The notice did not provide a reason, saying only that “information has come to light” that may make her ineligible for a visa….

Source: How a Columbia Student Fled to Canada After ICE Came Looking for Her

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

They came to Canada to chase a dream. Now they’re being forced to leave and feel betrayed

2025/03/17 Leave a comment

They were, by both levels of governments, by education institutions (particularly private and public colleges), recruiters and others, which created and encouraged these expectations before reality intruded:

…For some migrants invited to Canada for a shot at permanent residence, it’s a feeling of betrayal. For others, a missed opportunity. Still others harbour hopes of returning.

Amid a year of seismic immigration changes that have turned Canada into a less welcoming and open country, many migrants have seen their journeys upended and dreams shattered.

The Liberal government has set aggressive targets to rein in the number of temporary residents in the wake of public outcry over the runaway population growth amid a national housing crisis and rising costs of living. It also cut the annual intake of permanent residents by 20 per cent to 395,000 in 2025, 380,000 in 2026 and 365,000 in 2027.

The measures are meant to tighten the rules and restore confidence in what some critics call an “out-of-control” immigration system. As a result, many study and work permit holders are at the end of their rope — unable to renew status or obtain permanent residence — and must go home. 

The Star spoke to some former international students and foreign workers who have recently left or are leaving about the repercussions of Canada’s unfulfilled promise, as well as their new life and future. 

Some are struggling. Others have found opportunities they couldn’t get here. All are still chasing that elusive better life….

Source: They came to Canada to chase a dream. Now they’re being forced to leave and feel betrayed

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →