VIA Rail Canada’s new baggage policy and reservation system introduces sweeping changes that are catching passengers and workers off-guard as rail travel gears up for the holiday season.

“Instead of making train travel more accessible VIA Rail’s new policy only complicates it,” said Lana Payne, Unifor National President. “It’s unfortunate to see passenger rail become more cumbersome at a time when ease and affordability in green public transportation is more important than ever.”

VIA Rail’s new baggage and reservation policies launched on November 18, 2023 and are already having a negative impact on passengers’ wallets and travel experience. Travelers will now encounter seat selection and baggage fees similar to budget airlines, directly leading to higher travel costs. Particularly affected are students and economy class passengers, with students losing their previously entitled second free bag and economy travelers facing stricter luggage size limits. Additionally, Sleeper and Prestige class passengers will face revised cabin baggage allowances and checked baggage limits.

“These changes hit hard when people are already stretched thin and we’ve moved so far away from VIA Rail’s original mandate of providing an affordable service to Canadians,” Jennifer Murray, Atlantic Regional Director. “Our members are on the front lines, witnessing first-hand how such policies inconvenience travelers and complicate our working conditions.”

Unifor’s Get Canada Back on Track campaign advocates for an expansion of publicly-owned passenger rail in Canada. The campaign stresses the need for a public transport system that caters to environmental sustainability, safety, and the well-being of Canadian travelers and workers.

Unifor is Canada’s largest union in the private sector, representing 315,000 workers in every major area of the economy. The union advocates for all working people and their rights, fights for equality and social justice in Canada and abroad, and strives to create progressive change for a better future.

Source : CISION

The post Via Rail’s New Baggage Policy: a Burden on Passengers and Workers Alike appeared first on Policy Print.

A recent indictment from the United States Department of Justice has alleged an Indian security official was involved in attempting to assassinate a U.S. and Canadian citizen in New York. The alleged target, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, is a leader in the Sikh separatist movement and has been involved in organizing referendums for the establishment of Khalistan, a proposed independent Sikh state in northern India.

The indictment also states that there is a link between the foiled attempt to kill Pannun and the murder of Canadian Khalistani leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Surrey, B.C. earlier this year.

The Indian government said it was investigating the allegations, and had established a committee to “address the security concerns highlighted by the US government.”

This announcement by the U.S. could have potential ramifications for Indian politics, both at home and abroad. However, it is unlikely to have any significant impact on next year’s general elections, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be seeking his third term in office.

Bolstering Modi’s strongman image

Canadian allegations against India had handed Modi an excellent political platform for the next general elections.

It sent a clear message that India’s government would, under no circumstances, tolerate any threats to the country.

India’s foreign policy has become more muscular under Modi; and that’s a strategy that resonates with his supporters.

His landslide victory in 2019 had a lot to do with support for India’s “surgical strikes” in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir in 2016 in response to an attack that killed 19 Indian soldiers.

Following Canada’s allegations of Indian involvement in Nijjar’s killing, the Modi government was once again able to successfully generate a narrative against Canada in general and the Liberal party in particular.

India’s narrative consists of four parts:

• Canada is a safe haven for terrorists, extremism and organized crime, and there is a nexus between Indo-Canadian gangsters and Sikh separatists working with Pakistan’s intelligence agency.
• The Canadian government has consistently ignored repeated requests from India to take actions against Khalistani “terrorists” operating on Canadian soil.
• Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government is pandering to the large Sikh diaspora in Canada.
• The Liberal minority government is dependent on support from the New Democratic Party leader, Jagmeet Singh, a Sikh supposedly sympathetic to the Khalistani cause.

Indian news media and politicians have repeated the official discourse constantly for weeks.

While India was quick to dismiss Canadian allegations, it has adopted a much more cautious approach to the U.S. indictment. India has much to lose by alienating the Biden administration as both countries have invested a great deal in enhancing Indo-U.S. relations and making India a central ally in America’s Indo-Pacific strategy.

Meanwhile, Indo-Canadian relations have been chilly since 2015, largely due to Khalistan activity in Canada. Moreover, annual trade between India and Canada is worth about $12 billion while trade with the U.S. is worth $192 billion. In short, India has much more to lose by alienating the U.S than it does by taking a hard line with Canada.

Furthering authoritarianism

On the surface it might appear that news of the U.S. indictment could fracture India’s muscular foreign policy. However, this episode is unlikely to have much impact on India’s domestic politics. Modi remains popular with an approval rating of 78 per cent.

He is credited, among other things, with India’s emergence as a global power, with his effective handling of border issues with China, for taking on Pakistan and with the success of the country’s space program.

The 26-party opposition coalition, Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA), is unlikely to challenge Modi on this particular issue. The national defense narrative is a strong one, and India’s territorial integrity is a sacrosanct issue for all political parties.

However, among some minority communities, Muslims and Sikhs, both at home and abroad, revelations of assassination plots could raise serious concerns. The Modi government’s aggressive pursuit of a Hindu nationalist agenda, its repression of minorities and control over dissent have become more entrenched.

India’s parliament is in the process of amending its sedition laws. If the changes are passed, endangering the unity and integrity of the country could result in life-term imprisonment. These proposed changes to the already harsh and draconian penal code will only further criminalize dissent. The Modi government is ensuring that dissenting voices, particularly those of minority communities, completely disappear from Indian democracy.

Amplifying the Khalistan movement

India’s campaign of global repression of Sikh separatists could have the effect of unifying the Sikh diaspora. It was in 2018 that Pannun came up with the idea of holding a non-binding referendums to mobilize the global Sikh community.

That year, Sikh activists announced their campaign for holding referendums starting in 2021 across multiple cities. The first referendum took place in London on Oct. 31, 2021, followed by eight more referendums during 2022 and 2023 in the cities of Leeds and Luton (United Kingdom), Geneva (Switzerland), Brampton, Mississauga and Surrey (Canada), Melbourne (Australia), and Brescia (Italy).

Pannun announced plans for referendums in Punjab and the U.S, and for another round of voting in Canadian cities. In October, following Trudeau’s announcement of credible allegations against the Indian government, thousands of voters turned out to participate in a referendum in Surrey, B.C., some coming from as far as the cities of Edmonton and Calgary.

While only a small minority of the Sikh diaspora is thought to support creating a separate Sikh state, the majority were likely registering their disapproval of India and its repression of minorities. Memory of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in the wake of Indira Gandhi’s assassination which left thousands dead remains very much alive within the entire Sikh community to this day.

But Khalistani referendum politics relies heavily on images depicting so-called “martyrs” (separatists killed by India) and Indian diplomats as the assassins of Sikh activists. The desecration of Hindu temples also has the potential to create division within the Indian Hindu and Sikh diasporas. Canadian Liberal MP Chandra Arya has accused Khalistan supporters of targetting Hindu temples.

As more information comes out, the Canadian government will need to carefully manage its relations with India and the relationship between diasporic communities here.

Source : The Conversation

The post Alleged Assassination Plots in the U.S. And Canada Signal a More Assertive Indian Foreign Policy appeared first on Policy Print.

Montreal, Canada – More than a month into its bombardment of Gaza, the Israeli military issued a warning: Ground troops had surrounded the largest hospital in the Palestinian enclave, al-Shifa. A raid would be launched “in minutes”.

The impending siege of the Gaza City health complex sparked panic among the thousands of injured patients, medical staff and displaced Palestinians sheltering there.

But amid urgent international pleas to protect Gaza’s hospitals, much of the focus in Canada was on the tougher tone of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

“I have been clear: The price of justice cannot be the continued suffering of all Palestinian civilians. Even wars have rules,” Trudeau said in a news conference on November 14, around the time the al-Shifa raid began.

“I urge the government of Israel to exercise maximum restraint,” he continued, offering his toughest comments since the war began. For weeks, Trudeau had been ignoring calls – and some of Canada’s largest protests in recent memory – demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

“The world is watching. On TV, on social media, we’re hearing the testimonies of doctors, family members, survivors, kids who’ve lost their parents. The world is witnessing this. The killing of women and children – of babies; this has to stop.”

The response from Tel Aviv was swift. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted publicly to Trudeau’s speech, arguing on social media that the Palestinian group Hamas, not Israel, was responsible for any civilian casualties. Netanyahu pointed to Hamas’s attacks in southern Israel on October 7, one of the events that precipitated the war.

Pro-Israel lobby groups in Canada echoed that argument, saying “the blood of dead babies – Israeli and Palestinian – is on Hamas” and accusing Trudeau of fuelling anti-Semitism.

In the days that followed, Canadian ministers sought to temper Trudeau’s comments.

“The prime minister, quite understandably, is concerned about innocent lives on both sides of that border,” Defence Minister Bill Blair told the Canadian network CTV. “We’ve also been crystal clear: Israel has the right to defend itself.”

The episode is one of many examples in recent weeks of what observers have described as Canada’s “schizophrenic” foreign policy when it comes to Israel and Palestine.

“Whenever [Trudeau] does show any mettle with respect to this, he invariably then steps back from what he said after any sort of criticism coming from either the Israel lobby in Canada or Israeli leaders,” Michael Lynk, a former United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, told Al Jazeera.

Unlike its powerful neighbour and Israel’s foremost backer, the United States, Canada says it aims to tread the middle ground in its policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It supports a two-state solution, opposes illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and says international law must be respected by all parties.

But experts say Canada has two policies when it comes to the conflict: one on paper and one in practice.

They note that Canada has cast UN votes against its own stated positions and opposed Palestinian efforts to seek redress at the International Criminal Court, and argue that it has backed hardline, Israeli policies and failed to hold the country accountable for rights abuses.

“This government, as well as previous Canadian governments, have unfortunately had a blind spot with respect to Israel,” said Farida Deif, Canada director at Human Rights Watch.

She added that Canada’s stance has not changed despite the nearly two-month-long military campaign in Gaza, where bombs have struck hospitals, refugee camps and schools serving as shelters. More than 15,200 Palestinians have been killed.

“What we’ve seen with respect to Canada’s policy on Israel-Palestine is really a lack of coherence, confusion, and essentially not really engaging with the reality on the ground,” she told Al Jazeera. “And the reality on the ground that we’ve seen – that Palestinian organisations, Israeli organisations, international organisations have documented – is the reality of apartheid and persecution.”

So what drives Canada’s position?

Al Jazeera spoke to nearly a dozen human rights advocates, politicians, former officials and other experts about how foreign and domestic calculations influence Ottawa’s stance – and whether public outrage could shift its strategy.

Canada has had close ties to Israel for years. It recognised the country shortly after it was founded in 1948 and established an embassy there not long after.

The two countries have had a free-trade agreement in place since 1997, with two-way trade totalling 1.8 billion Canadian dollars ($1.3bn) in 2021. Last year, Canada also exported 21.3m Canadian dollars ($15.7m) worth of weapons to Israel.

Some observers argue that the countries enjoy a natural affinity because of the similar ways in which they were created. Like Israel, Canada was built on the dispossession and forced removal of Indigenous peoples from their lands.

But relations truly flourished during the almost decade-long tenure of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. “Canada and Israel are the greatest of friends and the most natural of allies,” Harper said in a speech to the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, in 2014.

A year later, the Conservatives would lose to Trudeau’s Liberal Party in the federal elections, ending Harper’s tenure.

Yet, while Harper’s support for Israel was largely motivated by right-wing, Christian ideology, Trudeau and his more centrist government appear driven by political pragmatism.

Part of that pragmatism stems from Canada’s need to maintain good relations with the US, the country’s largest trading partner and most important ally, according to Peter Larson, chair of the nonprofit Ottawa Forum on Israel/Palestine.

“Canadian policymakers make a political calculation that coming out strongly or critical of Israel or supportive of the Palestinians is likely to get the Americans angry with us,” Larson said.

The government’s perspective, he said, was that Canada has “no control” over what happens in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. “We have no purchase there, we have no trade there, we have no military there. So why in the world would we get the Americans mad at us when we can’t really do anything anyway?”

Michael Bueckert, vice president of the advocacy group Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME), agreed. “Every time we see an indication of a policy position [from Canada], it’s closely following whatever the US says,” he told Al Jazeera.

He pointed out that Canada has continued to mirror US positions during the war in Gaza.

“It just seems like everything that Canada does is triangulated based on what the US and Israel are saying,” Bueckert said. “That’s more important to them than being aligned with all other members of the UN, for example, or every humanitarian agency, or a majority of Canadian public opinion.”

Yet sources with knowledge of the government’s inner workings say that domestic politics is the primary driver behind Canada’s position. One of the most important factors, they maintain, is the pro-Israel lobby.

Corey Balsam, national coordinator of Independent Jewish Voices Canada, an advocacy organisation, said the lobby groups have an “unmatched” ability “to be in the room” with political decision-makers.

“The lobby writ large is very well-resourced and influential and well-placed,” he said.

That has forced the Liberal government to weigh whether their decisions will spark a backlash among pro-Israel lobby groups, which could lose them votes, notably to their Conservative rivals, Balsam said.

“I don’t know exactly the calculations that they’re making, but these are the things that they pay attention to – votes in certain ridings [electoral districts], for instance. Also funds and fundraising for the party, I think this is a big factor for them.”

Lynk, the former UN special rapporteur and Canadian law professor, also said Ottawa’s position on the conflict relates in large part to “who has access to the corridors of power”.

The Trudeau government attacked Lynk’s UN appointment at the outset in 2016, as did pro-Israel lobby groups, which put out statements arguing that he had an anti-Israel bias. Green Party leader Elizabeth May and Lynk’s colleagues at Western University in Ontario came to his defence, but the damage was done.

“I tried to engage with as high a level of political and diplomatic decision-makers as I could. I didn’t get very far [in Canada],” he told Al Jazeera.

“What I was trying to do is say, ‘I’m showing you what international law says. I’m showing you what, in fact, your own foreign policy ends up saying … Why is your foreign policy so schizophrenic when it comes to Israel and Palestine?’ Doors weren’t open for me.”

Several people Al Jazeera spoke to for this story described a pervasive fear of being accused of anti-Semitism for speaking out on Israeli rights abuses.

“There’s a certain weight [to anti-Semitism accusations] that is instrumentalised,” said Balsam.

“I think racism influences whose complaints are taken more seriously and whose pain is taken more seriously more broadly,” he added. “Complaints that invoke anti-Semitism – whether or not it is actually anti-Semitism – are taken seriously, whereas on the other hand, with Muslim and Arab groups or Palestinian groups and individuals, they can be much more easily brushed off.”

During the Gaza war, nowhere has Canada’s position been more clearly on display than at the United Nations. After the UN Security Council failed to pass any resolution to address the situation, the focus shifted in late October to the General Assembly, where a non-binding motion was put forward to urge a humanitarian truce.

The measure passed with overwhelming support, but Canada abstained. It also put forward an amendment to the resolution to condemn Hamas.

“Unfortunately, Canada cannot support the text as it is currently proposed. We cannot act as the UN General Assembly without recognising the horrible events of October 7 and without condemning the terrorists behind them,” Canada’s UN ambassador, Bob Rae, said as he presented the amendment on October 27. It failed.

Peggy Mason, president of the Rideau Institute, an Ottawa-based nonprofit, said whereas Canada previously was seen as a bridge-building country, the amendment was a “bridge-weakening exercise”.

“And it was unconscionable, in my view, in the context of efforts to curtail an unfolding humanitarian crisis of horrific dimensions,” she told Al Jazeera.

Canada came under even closer scrutiny when its UN mission voted against a draft resolution on November 9 condemning Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories as illegal – even though the government’s stated position is that the settlements violate international law.

In a statement explaining the vote, Canada said it was concerned by the number of resolutions that “unfairly single out Israel” at the General Assembly every year.

“Canada reiterates the importance of a fair-minded approach at the United Nations and will continue to vote ‘no’ on resolutions that do not address the complexities of the issues,” the statement read.

According to Bueckert of CJPME, no one is buying that excuse. “They’ve created this rationale for it, but good luck convincing Canadians of this, that these actions make any sense. That it makes sense to vote against things that you say you support,” he told Al Jazeera.

The resolution to condemn the Israeli settlements is among a number of Palestinian-related motions that come up for a vote at the UN General Assembly every year.

And the way Canada votes on these resolutions is dictated by the prime minister’s office, according to a source familiar with the matter, who spoke to Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity in order to speak freely.

“It’s unusual that the [prime minister] would directly intervene on an issue before the United Nations,” the source said. Usually, foreign policy files are handled by Canada’s foreign affairs department, known as Global Affairs Canada.

Lynk, the former UN expert, also told Al Jazeera that most foreign policy issues “are decided at Global Affairs and rarely ever make it to the prime minister’s office for yea or nay”. But matters related to Israel and Palestine are different. They are “determined and directed out of the prime minister’s office”, Lynk said.

Meanwhile, the anonymous source said Canada’s UN mission has faced direct pressure from pro-Israel lobbyists. That person described a meeting years ago in which a top lobbyist urged Canada to change its votes. The mission told the lobbyist no, but 24 hours after their meeting, the prime minister’s office directed the mission to vote the way the lobbyist had wanted.

“I thought it was outrageous, and I was angry and offended,” the source said. “It’s not the way to run a country. It’s not the way to run a foreign policy.”

Trudeau’s office redirected Al Jazeera’s question on whether it handles Canada’s UN votes to Global Affairs Canada. Global Affairs Canada did not answer the question when pressed by Al Jazeera.

“When it comes to votes at the UN, Canada reiterates the importance of a fair-minded approach,” the department said in an emailed statement.

“We will continue to vote no on resolutions that do not address the complexities of the issues or address the actions of all parties. We also remain opposed to the disproportionate singling out of Israel for criticism. Canada rejects the suggestion that there is any kind of ‘double standard’ at play.”

Many people Al Jazeera spoke to said there is a growing sense that the Canadian government’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict could change in the face of shifting demographics.

“As Parliament gets more diverse and has connections to different communities, I do think that the calculus – in terms of, ‘Is this going to hurt me or help me electorally?’ – is shifting,” said Bueckert.

“It clearly hasn’t shifted enough to change Canada’s position in a meaningful way, but that is how we can make sense of the change in tone where Canada at least has to appear to care about what’s happening to people in Gaza.”

Since the war began, there also has been a split within the Liberal Party between politicians who staunchly support Israel and those calling for a ceasefire despite Trudeau’s own reticence to do so.

Less than two weeks into the Israeli military operation, Liberal MP Salma Zahid, who represents a district east of Toronto, Canada’s largest city, stood up in the House of Commons to urge Ottawa to call for a ceasefire.

“It’s very, very important that Canada be a strong voice to call for a ceasefire and make sure that we put an end to the killing of these innocent civilians,” she told Al Jazeera in a phone interview in November.

Asked about divisions within her own party, Zahid said the Liberal Party is a “big tent” and that all views can and should be heard. But she said she aims to represent her constituents, many of whom are Muslim Canadians.

“Some people have called me a terrorist sympathiser. That is sad to see that. But I will not stop because of these comments on social media or anything. I think it is really very important that I be there as a strong voice for the Palestinian people and also for the community,” Zahid said.

Uthman Quick, communications director at the National Council of Canadian Muslims, said a recent poll showed the disconnect between public opinion and the Liberal government’s positions.

The poll, released by the Angus Reid Institute on November 7, found that 30 percent of Canadians said they wanted an immediate ceasefire, compared with 19 percent who did not. Among Liberal voters, 34 percent supported a ceasefire compared with 12 percent who were opposed.

While Quick said the federal government’s tone has shifted since the war began, rhetoric alone is not enough. “For the amount of violence and killing that we’ve seen in Gaza, I think that warrants a more drastic approach from our government to really call for peace and for a ceasefire,” he told Al Jazeera.

He also said the government’s position could lead to political ramifications that extend beyond Arab and Muslim communities, as anti-war protests draw people of all backgrounds. “It’s not just a purely Muslim slash Palestinian slash Arab community divide on electoral fronts,” Quick said.

According to Deif at Human Rights Watch, Canada should be trying to pursue a “consistent policy” rooted in international law – and condemn war crimes regardless of who is responsible and who is the victim. It also should suspend weapons sales to Israel so long as “Israeli forces commit widespread, serious abuses against Palestinian civilians with impunity”.

“What we would like to see is Canada engaging on Israel-Palestine in the way that Ambassador Bob Rae engaged on Myanmar and the Rohingya crisis, in the same way that [Foreign] Minister [Melanie] Joly engaged on Ukraine following the Russian invasion,” she told Al Jazeera.

The consequences of inaction, she added, can be devastating.

“When powerful governments, whether it’s Canada or other Western states, turn a blind eye to the Israeli government’s abuses and serious violations of international humanitarian law, it certainly sends a message that it can continue to commit those acts.”

Source : Al Jazeera

The post Israel, Palestine and Canada’s ‘Schizophrenic Foreign Policy’ appeared first on Policy Print.

A controversial policy change that bars teachers from using a student’s preferred pronouns without parental permission will soon go into effect in New Brunswick despite pushback. It has caused political turmoil in the Canadian province.

In May, under Premier Blaine Higgs, New Brunswick announced that a policy to create a safe space for students who identify as LGBT in schools will be amended, with the changes coming into effect on 1 July.

The amendments to the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity policy – also known as Policy 713 – removed explicit mention of allowing students to participate in extracurricular activities, including sports teams, that reflect their gender identity.

More controversially, the changes – as explained by the province’s education minister Bill Hogan – also forbid teachers from using the chosen preferred names and pronouns of a student under the age of 16 without the consent of their parents.

In cases where it is not possible to get parental permission, the policy states that a student should be sent to a social worker or a psychologist to develop a plan on how to approach their parents.

Mr Higgs and his right-leaning Progressive Conservative government updated the policy without a legislative vote, due to what they said were “hundreds of complaints from parents and teachers”.

The government has been criticised for not providing evidence of these complaints, and the changes have since created a firestorm in the small province of less than a million people.

Two New Brunswick ministers quit in protest, while two others were pushed out by Mr Higgs for not supporting his plan. The premier now faces a growing threat of being ousted from office, as dissidents from his own party have called for a leadership review citing “a pattern of autocratic” governing.

Even Prime Minister Justin Trudeau weighed in, igniting a debate on the issue at the federal level.

At a Pride event earlier in June, Mr Trudeau said that “trans kids in New Brunswick are being told they don’t have the right to be their true self, that they need to ask permission”.

“Trans kids need to feel safe, not targeted by politicians,” he said.

In response, federal Conservative opposition leader Pierre Poilievre told Mr Trudeau to “butt out” of New Brunswick politics.

“The prime minister has no business in decisions that should rest with provinces and parents,” Mr Poilievre said.

What is Policy 713? And why was it changed?

Initially passed in 2020 after a decade of consultations, Policy 713 in its original form asked for parental consent in order to formally change students’ names or pronouns, but made it mandatory to use a student’s preferred name if it is not possible to get permission from a parent.

It also allowed students to participate on sporting teams and use washrooms consistent with their gender identity.

Nicki Lyons-MacFarlane, who volunteers with LGBT youth in the city of Fredericton, said the policy has benefited many such students in the province.

“Students have been validated and affirmed by this policy,” they told the BBC. “If anything, it has saved lives.”

They added that in light of the changes, students now fear being mis-gendered or outed to their families.

Mr Higgs’ government said the changes to the policy are about “ensuring parents also feel respected”. In a recent interview with the CBC, the premier, who has been in office since 2018, said he has seen “a tremendous amount of outpouring support” for his stance.

But the changes have been the subject of fierce opposition from parts of the public in New Brunswick.

Several local protests have been held, and school psychologists and social workers have filed grievances with the government.

The province’s child and youth advocate, Kelly Lamrock, has called the new policy “shoddy and inadvertently discriminatory”.

Donald Wright, a professor of political science at the University of New Brunswick, said the changes to Policy 713 came as a surprise for some, and have been the topic of conversation for many in the province. But Mr Wright added the premier is known for supporting “wedge issues” that are typically divisive.

“He believes that enough New Brunswickers will support him on this,” he said.

The move, however, has proven to be a remarkable political gamble for the premier, Mr Wright said.

“He has lost a quarter of his cabinet,” he said. “That is not insignificant.”

Hadeel Ibrahim, a reporter who has covered the issue for CBC in New Brunswick, said the changes to Policy 713 were the final straw for those who have previously opposed Mr Higgs’ other policies and his style of governance.

“Some people are saying there is a de-emphasis on the ‘progressive’ part of ‘Progressive Conservative’, because they believe he is going too far to the right,” Ms Ibrahim said.

The rest of Canada weighs in

The debate over the policy in New Brunswick quickly spread beyond the province’s borders.

LGBT advocates in other parts of Canada have raised concern Mr Higgs’ move is a sign of “American-style politics” on gender identity seeping into Canadian society. Laws restricting and regulating the lives of transgender youth are part of a rising trend in the US, with numerous states passing laws that relate to transgender people.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, a national civil rights group, has threatened the premier with a lawsuit, arguing the changes to Policy 713 are “unlawful and unconstitutional”.

But there has also been some support. Action4Canada, a conservative Christian group based in British Columbia, touted it as a “heroic decision” and a test case.

“Premier Higgs and (Education) Minister Bill Hogan have courageously and unapologetically taken the first steps, in Canada, towards protecting children from going down a path of destruction,” the group said in a statement.

The debate comes at the heels of other controversies on LGBT issues and schools that have taken place across the country. Earlier in June, a Catholic school board in the Toronto area voted against flying the Pride flag outside its main offices, prompting a student walk-out in protest.

A poll commissioned by Canadian think-tank Second Street of 1,523 people in early May – before New Brunswick’s policy changes were announced – suggested that 57% of Canadians believe parents have a right to be informed by a school if a child wants to change their gender identity.

“I don’t think it is too surprising that parents want to know what their kids are up to in school,” said think-tank president Colin Craig of the results.

Ms Ibrahim said that no official polling has been done on the policy change in New Brunswick. As a result, it has been difficult to discern just how much local support the premier has on this issue.

As the amended policy comes into effect on Saturday, some teachers in New Brunswick have already stated that they will not follow it.

A handful of school boards have said they will develop their own policies that will allow teachers to use a students’ chosen name and pronouns informally, regardless of parental consent or age.

Given the political and public reaction, Mr Wright at the University of New Brunswick said there appears to be more support for Policy 713 in its original form than the amendments.

And with his future as leader now on the line, Mr Wright said the premier may have “misplayed his cards”.

Source: British Broadcasting Corporation

The post Policy 713: LGBT School Policy Change Causes Political Turmoil in Canada appeared first on Policy Print.

The bank’s governing council decided to increase the policy rate again, reflecting its view that monetary policy was not sufficiently restrictive to bring supply and demand back into balance and return inflation sustainably to the 2 percent target, the central bank said in a press release.

The bank conducted eight consecutive interest rate hikes since March 2022, adding 425 basis points in total to tackle inflation. However, it maintained the policy rate at 4.5 percent in March and April this year.

According to the bank, consumer price index (CPI) inflation ticked up in April to 4.4 percent, the first increase in 10 months, with prices for a broad range of goods and services coming in higher than expected. Goods price inflation increased, despite lower energy costs. Services price inflation remained elevated, reflecting strong demand and a tight labour market.

The bank continued to expect CPI inflation to ease to around 3 percent in the summer, as lower energy prices feed through and last year’s large price gains fall out of the yearly data.

However, with three-month measures of core inflation running in the range from 3.5 percent to 4 percent for several months and excess demand persisting, concerns have increased that CPI inflation could get stuck materially above the 2 percent target, the bank said.

The governing council will in particular be evaluating whether the evolution of excess demand, inflation expectations, wage growth and corporate pricing behaviour are consistent with achieving the inflation target before announcing the rate target next month, the bank said.

The bank added it is also continuing its policy of quantitative tightening to complement its restrictive stance of monetary policy and normalizing its balance sheet. 

The post Bank of Canada Raises Policy Rate by 25 Basis Points appeared first on Policy Print.

According to Canadian media reports, hundreds of protesters gathered in front of the Indian consulate in Vancouver on Saturday over demands for an independent Sikh state, a simmering issue for decades recently triggered again.

Canada has the highest population of Sikhs outside their home state of Punjab in India. “It is expected that the Canadian government will take all steps which are required to ensure the safety of our diplomats and security of our diplomatic premises so that they are able to fulfil their normal diplomatic functions,” India’s Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement.

The statement follows Indian police on March 21 launching a hunt for Sikh preacher Amritpal Singh, who has revived talk of an independent Sikh homeland and stoked fears of a return to violence that killed tens of thousands of people in 1980s and early 1990s.

Police have accused Singh and his supporters of attempted murder, obstruction of law enforcement and creating disharmony and said he had been on the run since last week when officers tried to block his motorcade and arrest him.

Indian police also opened an investigation last week into a protest at its High Commission in London, where protesters with “Khalistan” banners took an Indian flag down from a first-floor balcony of the High Commission to denounce recent police action in India’s Punjab state.

India summoned the top British diplomat in New Delhi last Sunday seeking an explanation.

Khalistan is the name of an independent Sikh homeland that some members of that community aspire to, both at home in India and in countries where Sikhs have settled.

Source : Brecorder

The post India Summons Canada High Commissioner, Concerned Over Sikh Protesters appeared first on Policy Print.