Usher: Farewell Cakeism, Welcome Trade-offs, Effectiveness and Efficiencies

While focused on the education sector, applies more broadly as Carney’s Davos speech makes clear (with the hard trade-offs to come):

… But look, cakeism is everywhere. I mean, just look at the last federal election, where every party competed to cut taxes/increase spending in the midst of threats from the US that were going to slow economic growth and require increases in national security spending. Nary a trade-off in sight. Politicians in Canada and many other countries have come to the conclusion – perhaps erroneously, perhaps not – that voters simply dislike trade-offs so it’s better not to make any. Once upon a time – in the mid-late 1990s when we finally got our fiscal house in order – Canada was pretty good at thinking about trade-offs. But it’s basically all been downhill since the turn of the century.

Now, if you wanted to put the shoe on the other foot, you could say that all politics is a bit cakeist. After all, loads of people ask for government money to fund their favourite cause or institution and never think too hard about where the money is coming from. So is it cakeist to ask for more money for universities and student aid? Well, sort of. But one expects stakeholder groups to be cakeist/selfish – they are pushing their set of priorities, and it’s not really their job to think through trade-offs. It’s the job of governments. And increasingly over the past decade or two, governments just forgot how to do that and started saying yes to more and more people. 

But times are changing. Neither our federal nor our provincial governments are in particularly sound financial footing. Thanks to the Cheeto Chaos Agent in the White House, we are in for an extended period of economic dislocation and lowered growth prospects, not to mention a massive re-orientation of fiscal spending priorities to advantage national security. For the next half-decade at least, public resources are going to be much scarcer than they have been at any point before. We as a country, therefore, need to re-learn how to talk about trade-offs, and perhaps more importantly, how to talk in terms of efficiencies.

To take our own sector as an example: when asking the public for money, institutions are going to need to be a lot more explicit both about what immediate obvious benefits will accrue to the public or the government if the money arrives, as well as about immediate specific costs which will occur if the money does not arrive. That means “asks” are going to have to get a lot more specific: not “we would like $50 million please”, but “we would like $50 million please, which we will spend on X, Y and Z, and if we don’t get it we will need to cut A, B and C in order to fund these priorities, which means the community will lose L, M and N”. This may sound simple, but institutions going in this direction would be the biggest tonal shift in university government relations in my lifetime, because universities choke on the idea of doing less or being seen to do less. But this is what the language of trade-offs requires….

Source: Farewell Cakeism, Welcome Trade-offs, Effectiveness and Efficiencies

Robson: Canada’s prevention gap grows wider the more complacent we become

Thorny lines to draw and not easy to implement but needed given the nature of some of the protests and protestors:

…Diaspora dynamics, therefore, require institutional maturity. The challenge is not to cast suspicion on whole communities. It is to distinguish legitimate protest from intimidation, and political grievance from early-stage radicalization cues—especially when imported conflicts are weaponized inside Canadian information spaces.

Prevention doctrine has to be able to say, without flinching, that a small minority within some diaspora and newcomer populations—including naturalized Canadians—carry or adopt illiberal and extremist ideologies, and that those ideologies can express themselves as targeted hatred toward Jews. Treating that as an institutional design problem—triage rules, evidence standards, and earlier handoffs—avoids both naïveté and collective blame.

It also means using international tools without outsourcing Canadian standards. Many subjects who could fall within the scope of a promotion offence did not begin their political trajectory in Canada. Some may have prior histories of supporting extremist organizations, being investigated abroad, or coordinating across jurisdictions.

Canada already has mechanisms to seek corroborating information while preserving due process through the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. The aim is not to “import” foreign decisions. It is to avoid assessing a suspect’s online activity here as if it exists in isolation—especially when trusted partners can corroborate a pattern of propaganda production or cross-border coordination that should inform Canadian risk assessments for bail, peace bonds, and sentencing.

So what does “prevention” mean when radicalization cycles move faster than case-prioritization and reassessment? Canada has conceptual building blocks: the RCMP explicitly acknowledges the linkage between hate crime and violent extremism and stresses prevention alongside enforcement in its hate-crime overview. The gap is operationalization—multilingual capability, faster evidence capture, clearer handoff triggers, and disruption that treats a heightened hate environment as a security condition, not a communications problem.

Canada cannot prevent every attack. But it can choose whether to keep treating antisemitic extremism as a late-stage file—something we condemn after it becomes violence. If we continue to manage weak signals as “not urgent,” we will eventually face the question other democracies face after tragedy: What did we notice early, and why did we decide it was not urgent enough?

Daniel Robson is a Canadian independent journalist specializing in digital extremism, national security, and counterterrorism.

Source: Canada’s prevention gap grows wider the more complacent we become

Officials processing foreign nationals’ visas, permanent-residence applications will not face job cuts: minister

Of note and to watch whether processing times improve or not:

Federal employees processing applications from foreign nationals for temporary or permanent residence in Canada will be insulated from forthcoming public-service cuts, Immigration Minister Lena Diab says.

Government departments have begun rolling out plans to reduce staffing levels, honouring a pledge made in last year’s budget to cut the number of public servants by about 30,000 over five years. The federal public service numbered almost 358,000 employees last year.

Statistics Canada this month said it plans to cut more than 850 jobs. 

Natural Resources Canada told The Globe and Mail last week that approximately 700 employees received letters last month informing them that their position may be affected. The department said it plans to eliminate approximately 400 positions by 2028-29.

Other government departments are expected to announce job cuts shortly. 

In an interview, Ms. Diab, who oversees Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, said public servants working on applications for settlement, employment and study here will not be among those facing job cuts.

She said the agency’s staffing is tied to Ottawa’s annual immigration levels plan, which sets targets for the numbers of people admitted for entry to Canada.

“The way IRCC has been funded over the years, it’s funded based on the levels plan, and so therefore that will not change. The people that are processing those numbers, they’ll still be there. They will not be affected,” Ms. Diab said. 

IRCC has huge backlogs in processing of applications for permanent residence, with some wait times stretching to more than 10 years. 

Toronto immigration lawyer Stephen Green said many applicants were facing long delays in decisions about their immigration status because of the backlogs. But he said IRCC officers were creating more work by failing to call applicants who may have, for instance, made slight mistakes or forgotten to include a document with their application. He said rejections of applications for small errors were leading to a slew of Federal Court challenges. 

“They need better processing, and just picking up the phone to check things could increase efficiencies. If picking up the phone can resolve an issue quickly, officials should be encouraged to do that,” Mr. Green said. 

Source: Officials processing foreign nationals’ visas, permanent-residence applications will not face job cuts: minister

Supreme Court weighs road safety against racial profiling in ‘driving while Black’ case

To watch:

…Now, in a two-day hearing starting Monday, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear this landmark equality and police powers case – and revisit a long-ago precedent.

Quebec and several provinces, alongside lawyers for the federal government, will try to convince judges of the Supreme Court to overturn the rulings of the lower courts and reaffirm precedent. 

Governments insist it is a matter of essential road safety.

Mr. Luamba and an array of groups want the top court to strike down precedent and recognize that giving police such powers enables racism. They are calling on the Supreme Court to ban police from random stops of drivers throughout Canada.

“There isn’t anything random about these suspicion-less stops,” said Harini Sivalingam, director of the equality program of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which, with Mr. Luamba and the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, is a respondent at the Supreme Court.

“We’re not saying all police officers are biased,” said Ms. Sivalingam. “But there’s a systemic bias – and it’s well-documented.” 

In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled – in a 5-4 decision – that cops were allowed to randomly stop drivers, declaring “statistics relating to the carnage on the highways substantiate a pressing and substantial concern.”…

Source: Supreme Court weighs road safety against racial profiling in ‘driving while Black’ case

Canada can offer comfort to Ukrainians with a path to permanent residency

Not unexpected call:

…Canada should establish a targeted, time-limited pathway to permanent residence for eligible CUAET holders, a focused pilot program delivered federally, under existing ministerial authority, without the need for new regulations.

Such a program should be disciplined and defensible. Eligibility would be limited to Ukrainians who entered Canada under CUAET by March 31, 2024; maintained legal status; and can demonstrate at least six months of full-time work, or its equivalent. Modest language thresholds would apply. Applications would be accepted only within a fixed intake window, underscoring that this is an exceptional response to exceptional circumstances, not an open-ended program.

This initiative should be carried out federally, not by provincial nominee programs, which would add complexity, delay and political friction. Quebec’s distinct immigration jurisdiction would require consultation and co-ordination….

John Weston is a government relations and communications expert, former member of Parliament, and president of Pan Pacific Solutions Ltd.

Source: Canada can offer comfort to Ukrainians with a path to permanent residency

How Many People Has Trump Deported So Far?

Over the past year, President Trump’s administration has deported about 230,000 people who were arrested inside the country and another 270,000 at the border, a New York Times analysis of federal data shows.

The number of deportations from interior arrests since Mr. Trump took office is already higher than the total during the entire four years of the Biden administration. It offers the clearest measure of the impact of Mr. Trump’s immigration crackdown and expansive efforts to fulfill his campaign promise to deport millions of people.

At the same time, the number of people trying to cross the Southwest border has fallen to record lows. As a result, far fewer people were arrested and deported from the border than in the preceding few years.

Another roughly 40,000 people returned to their countries after signing up to “self-deport” and receive a stipend through a novel program and app provided by the administration.

That brings the total number of deportations since Mr. Trump took office to 540,000 — fewer than in the last two years of the Biden administration, when border crossings were at record highs. There were 590,000 total deportations in 2023 and 650,000 in 2024….

Source: How Many People Has Trump Deported So Far?

Financialized landlords disproportionately apply to evict in Black neighbourhoods, study finds

Good data-based study:

Tenants of financialized landlords in high-income, majority-Black Toronto neighbourhoods faced 33 eviction applications per 100 households from 2016 to 2019 — a rate five times higher than the city average for that landlords group of 5.6 per 100 households, a new study has found. 

“Financialized landlords” in the study refers to asset managers, real estate investment trusts, family conglomerates and “financialized property managers” focused on maximizing the value of portfolio assets for investors. 

The report conducted by researchers at Toronto Metropolitan University, funded in part by the Canadian government and published in the International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, draws from more than 100,000 formal eviction filings for purpose-built rental apartments in Toronto from 2016 through 2021.

It found renters in Black-majority neighbourhoods experience “disproportionately high rates of housing instability and eviction filings by financialized landlords” and argues “profit-driven motives systematically undermine Black lives and spaces.”

From 2016 to 2019, eviction rates in Black-majority areas, “regardless of income level, were significantly higher than in other racial/ethnocultural groups, with few exceptions.”

The eviction-application rate in high-income, majority-Black neighbourhoods was more than double the rate of 14 per cent in low-income, majority-Black neighbourhoods from 2016 to 2019, the report found.

The study categorized neighbourhoods as “low-income” or “high-income” depending on whether the areas had median renter household after-tax incomes above or below the Toronto renter median for the census year ($42,000 for 2016 and $57,600 for 2021).

Lead researcher Nemoy Lewis, an assistant professor at TMU’s School of Urban and Regional Planning, said this finding challenges common assumptions about evictions….

Source: Financialized landlords disproportionately apply to evict in Black neighbourhoods, study finds

ICYMI – Bouchard: Quand l’espoir vient des citoyens

Always worth reading:

« En haut, en haut ! C’est un grand concept sociologique sophistiqué, ça, en haut ! », s’exclame-t-il d’un ton faussement bourru. Me sentant désarçonné au bout du fil, il éclate d’un grand rire.

Le ton est donné : interviewer Gérard Bouchard sera tout sauf ennuyant. Ce monument de l’histoire et de la sociologie a codirigé la fameuse commission Bouchard-Taylor sur les accommodements raisonnables, a enseigné à Harvard, a écrit de nombreux ouvrages. Et à 81 ans, le sociologue chéri des Québécois est vif, drôle, versant autant dans l’autodérision que dans les critiques acerbes.

Des critiques qu’il dirige beaucoup vers le gouvernement du Québec actuellement. C’est là, « en haut », qu’il déplore les plus grandes dérives. Mon intention n’était pas nécessairement d’amener mon interlocuteur dans l’arène politique, mais il y a sauté lui-même à pieds joints.

Lorsque je lui demande ce qu’il souhaite collectivement aux Québécois pour 2026, sa réponse est immédiate.

« Je souhaiterais que tout le débat sur l’identitaire perde enfin de l’actualité. L’identitaire est un sac vide. Cette affaire-là ne va nulle part. C’est un débat qui divise, mais qui n’ouvre pas sur grand-chose. »

— Gérard Bouchard

Il enchaîne en dénonçant la désinvolture avec laquelle, selon lui, le gouvernement Legault écarte les droits fondamentaux pour imposer sa vision de la laïcité.

« Ça relève d’un sentiment antireligieux, je ne vois pas autre chose, dit-il. L’idée qu’une société, pour être laïque, doit repousser le religieux dans ses derniers retranchements pour qu’il ne soit finalement plus visible du tout… Ce n’est pas un idéal pour une société, ça ! Ou alors, si c’est un idéal, ça en est un qui repose essentiellement sur la violation d’un droit fondamental. »

« On vit encore sur cette espèce de revanche que l’on prend contre les abus du clergé que notre société a subis jusqu’au milieu du XXsiècle, analyse-t-il. On avait de sacrées bonnes raisons de le faire, on a beaucoup souffert. Mais là, il faudrait en finir avec ça. On ne va quand même pas vivre sur ce ressentiment de génération en génération ! »

Je lui fais remarquer que bien des Québécois sont d’accord avec un renforcement de la laïcité au nom de l’égalité entre les hommes et les femmes.

« On en est venu à percevoir que les deux sont incompatibles, déplore-t-il. Que pour défendre les droits des femmes, il faut faire reculer le religieux ! »

Le sociologue estime que la loi 21 sur l’interdiction du port de signes religieux par les enseignants ainsi que les projets de loi visant à élargir cette loi aux éducatrices de garderie, notamment, sont dangereux pour notre vivre-ensemble.

« Le dommage que ce gouvernement va causer chez les musulmans, chez les jeunes musulmanes… Ces gens-là ne sont quand même pas des monstres ! Ce sont simplement des croyants. »

S’il dénonce les dérives « en haut », Gérard Bouchard reprend espoir en regardant « en bas », c’est-à-dire du côté des citoyens. C’est là qu’il observe des exemples du modèle d’intégration qu’il prône depuis longtemps : l’interculturalisme.

Brève parenthèse théorique. Là où l’assimilation cherche à effacer les différences et où le multiculturalisme laisse se développer des cultures séparées et souvent isolées, l’interculturalisme prône l’intégration à une culture et une langue communes, mais avec un respect de la différence et des droits de chacun. Un modèle qui implique aussi des échanges et une curiosité envers l’autre.

« Il y a un paquet d’institutions qui l’ont appliqué à leur niveau, que ce soit dans les écoles primaires ou secondaires », observe Gérard Bouchard. …

Source: Quand l’espoir vient des citoyens

Thompson: Year one of Donald Trump’s second term has been catastrophic for American democracy

Comprehensive, accurate and depressing read:

…There’s no sugar-coating it: A year of Donald Trump has been more catastrophic for American democracy than we could have predicted. I don’t know how much more often I can say this, but the cruelty is the point. President Trump’s strongman tactics and callous attitude toward the suffering of vulnerable parts of American society are celebrated by some even as life for ordinary Americans becomes harder. 

But those same Americans, who have much to lose in protecting their neighbours, are still doing so. Amid the unravelling of American democracy, there are networks of mutual aid, acts of refusal and sustained resistance. Democracy does not disappear all at once; it is hollowed out gradually, and therefore can be defended in the same way: Through ordinary people insisting again and again that empathy is not weakness, care and solidarity are among the most powerful weapons, and democracy worth fighting for.

Source: Year one of Donald Trump’s second term has been catastrophic for American democracy

Lederman: The fallout from the Gaza War continues to be felt in the literary world

Sad that this needs to be said:

…A plea – and I make this as someone whose own appearance at a book festival last year attracted letters of protest: We must ensure literary spaces are inclusive and encourage intellectual debate and diverse voices. We must not seek to censor well-meaning, serious artists, but to invite them in and respectfully challenge opinions that rankle (although there should be no place for actual hate). To allow discussion about their books and beliefs. That is the value of a literary festival, a literary prize, and books themselves.

Source: The fallout from the Gaza War continues to be felt in the literary world