Raphael Lemkin coined the very word “genocide,” but his legacy is now at the centre of a bitter fight over that term: Family members and Jewish leaders say the American institute bearing his name is betraying everything he stood for — by turning the charge of genocide against Israel itself.

“They seem to, what’s the word, be apologetic for what Hamas has done,” Joseph Lemkin, a cousin of Raphael’s, told the National Post, of the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention. “This is what Raphael Lemkin would stand for? Being an apologist for Hamas? Attacking Israel for defending itself?”

In an Oct. 31 letter obtained by the National Post, the European Jewish Association (EJA) urged U.S. federal authorities to examine whether the institute’s words and actions were aligned with its non-profit status.

The Pennsylvania-based institute, named after Holocaust survivor and scholar Raphael Lemkin, is legally required to remain non-partisan and apolitical. Yet, the authors of the letter say it has “taken openly political positions.”

“This isn’t really an honest academic institute,” Lemkin told the Post. “It comes off as more of a political organization than any sort of legit research organization.”

Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-Jewish lawyer who lost 50 relatives in the Holocaust, introduced the world to the word “genocide” in 1944 by merging the Greek “genos” (race, tribe) and the Latin “cide” (killing), first mentioned in his book, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress.

His advocacy after the Second World War led to the incorporation of genocide as an international crime in the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, transforming how the world addresses and seeks justice for mass violence.

Meanwhile, The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention was founded in August 2021 as a non-profit. It was named after Raphael Lemkin without his family’s permission, according to the EJA.

Its website says

 it is “nonpartisan,” and works globally to promote grassroots genocide prevention. Its website highlights coverage of trans issues and conflicts in Israel, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere in the world.

In March, it issued a “Letter to the American People” that suggested its worldview: “Many of you have reached out to the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security to ask what you can do in the face of what appears to be an authoritarian coup against the U.S. Constitutional order, driven and overseen by a President and a billionaire who gave the Nazi salute at the President’s inauguration, and deeply infected by the genocidal thinking of many conservatives and evangelicals, targeted mainly at immigrants of colour and trans people (for the time being). We have watched these developments with dismay, and like many of you, we’ve had some dark days. The disturbing political developments have impacted our U.S.-based team members in different ways depending on where they exist within the dynamics of oppression. So, we have been trying to figure out the same things as everyone else. We are with you.”

In its letter, EJA points to several statements made by the institute that they feel violate its obligation to be nonpartisan.

On Oct. 13, 2023, days after Hamas’s massacre of 1,200 Israelis and before Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, the institute issued a “Genocide Alert,” condemning what it said was an “endorsement” on the part of western leaders for Israel “to effectively commit genocide.”

On Oct. 18, 2023, also before Israel’s ground invasion, it called on the International Criminal Court to indict Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for genocide.

EJA board member Harley Lippman, in the letter, said: “Why is this organization not speaking out for persecuted Christians, Yazidis, or other victims of real genocides? Why only Israel? Why promote narratives that fuel antisemitism instead of fighting genocide everywhere?”

Lemkin was a staunch Zionist, Lippman told the Post, as evidenced by him being an editor and columnist of Zionist World, a publication supportive of the State of Israel.

EJA’s latest warning follows a Sept. 7 letter to Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, and the Pennsylvania Bureau of Corporations and Charitable Organizations, from the legal firm Sherman, Silverstein, Kohl, Rose and Podolsky, retained by EJA, and Joseph Lemkin.

The letter asserts that the Lemkin Institute is in violation of several laws, such as using Lemkin’s name and likeness in violation of both statutory and case law, and identity theft.

“The Lemkin Institute is not authorized by Raphael Lemkin’s family, his Estate, or any custodian of his legacy to rely upon his name for any purpose,” it said.

“The issue is not whether the Lemkin Institute’s attacks on Israel and the United States are based on incorrect facts and wrong conclusions, but whether the Lemkin Institute may make these arguments in Lemkin’s name. Under the law, it may not.” The letter asserts the institute caused reputational damages.

Alan Milstein, one of the firm’s attorneys, told the Post that the authors of the letter “have a valid claim that the use of the Lemkin name was inappropriate,” and suggested legal escalation is possible.

“Everyone in my immediate family, my sisters, brothers, my mom, everyone that we know that’s somewhat close and knowledgeable about Raphael, is very supportive of our effort to distance, and condemn” the institute, Joseph Lemkin, a New Jersey attorney, told the Post.

“Of course everyone has the right to say what they want, but then to hang your hat on someone’s name that absolutely wouldn’t agree with this, and tying our family to what they’re saying, was just so offensive.”

Last August, the institute condemned Israel for eliminating Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. In a statement, it said that, “Many analysts speculate that this was a purposeful attack by Israel to incite” what they believe would be “an all-out regional war in the Middle East.” In a Sept. 18 post on X , the institute said it “condemns Israel’s terrorist attacks against Lebanese people,” referring to targeted attacks against pagers and walkie-talkies used by Hezbollah, a designated terror entity by the U.S. and Canada.

According to the Lemkin Institute, Hezbollah is a “political party and a service provider for southern Lebanon,” while Israel is a “genocidal state that is completely out of control and supported by a western world that is, in large measure, too racist and Islamophobic to care.”

When reached by the National Post, The Lemkin Institute claimed to have not received the latest letter from EJA, but pointed to an Oct. 14 online response when asked about the controversy.

Its statements regarding media reports were “defamatory,” they said, adding it was “inflammatory language” to assert that their organization defends Hamas, backs Hezbollah, and targets America.

“We believe that this is a coordinated effort by genocide deniers who wish to bully and shut down free speech and genocide prevention work impacting Israel,” they said.

Benjamin Lemkin, Joseph’s older brother, told the Post from Jerusalem he is “not against people who want to criticize Israel.”

“Israelis, as you probably know, are the biggest critics of their own government. I champion that freedom of speech,” he said.

“It would appear they (the Institute) have whitewashed what Hamas is doing, and have done – a real genocide. They have accused Israel of all kinds of terrible, terrible things, in Raphael Lemkin’s name.”

If Raphael, who died in 1959, were alive today, he said, “he’d definitely would have been outraged. It is an abuse of his work, in this manner.

“It is a besmirching of what Raphael represented, that much is clear. This is a terrible thing that they’ve done to the Lemkin name. They distort, and present a false picture, of what Raphael Lemkin stood for.”

Benjamin Lemkin would like to see “the name disappear,” from the organization, as well as to receive compensation.

“We think that the law is clear,” Lemkin told the Post, “that you cannot hijack someone else’s name. Much less the one as revered as Raphael Lemkin, to raise money and peddle propaganda, mislead the public and foment antisemitism.”

• Warfare experts on what the world is getting wrong on Gaza
• Litigating ‘genocide’: Israeli think tank finds no evidence

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.

A Cold War KGB agent deemed “inadmissible to Canada on security grounds” has won another shot at staying in this country.

Vladimir Popov contacted the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) shortly after he arrived in Canada on a visitor’s visa in August 1995 to tell the Canuck spy agency he’d been a member of the Soviet Union’s Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti (KGB) from 1972 until 1991, according to a new Federal Court review. The judge examined Canada’s public safety minister’s March 2024 decision that denied Popov ministerial relief that would allow him to stay in this country because the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) “was not satisfied that (his) presence in Canada would not be detrimental to the national interest.”

Justice Anne Turley found the minister’s decision to be unreasonable.

“The application for judicial review is granted and the matter is remitted for redetermination,” Turley wrote in a decision out of Ottawa, dated Nov. 12.

Liberal Dominic LeBlanc was minister of public safety when Popov was denied relief.

His decision “suffers” from “flaws,” Turley said.

“While the minister repeatedly states that (Popov’s) evidence and submissions about his conduct since coming to Canada in 1995 were considered, the decision itself reflects no meaningful engagement with that evidence,” said the judge.

“The minister further fails to explain why the evidence was insufficient to establish that (Popov’s) continued presence in Canada would not be detrimental to the national interest. This lack of justification renders the decision unreasonable.”

Popov, a Russian citizen, made a refugee claim here in November 1995, almost four years after the fall of the Soviet Union, said her decision.

“The Refugee Protection Division concluded that (Popov) had established a well-founded fear of persecution based on his political opinion,” it said.

“He was thus granted Convention Refugee status.”

Popov applied for permanent residency in Canada in August 1997.

“This application is currently still pending,” Turley said.

The CBSA interviewed Popov in May 1998. It issued a report a decade later alleging he “was inadmissible” to Canada due to his KGB membership.

In December 2008, Popov applied for ministerial relief, “asserting that his presence in Canada would not be detrimental to the national interest,” said the decision.

In March 2024, LeBlanc “accepted the CBSA’s recommendation and concluded that he was not satisfied that (Popov’s) presence in Canada would not be detrimental to the national interest,” it said.

The Russian challenged that decision “on grounds of procedural fairness and reasonableness,” said the decision.

Turley found “that the ministerial relief decision is unreasonable for its lack of justification.”

The minister is required to consider “more than just national security and whether the applicant is a danger to the public or to the safety of any person,” said the decision.

LeBlanc’s “overarching error in the ministerial relief decision is the failure to engage with and assess (Popov’s) evidence and arguments,” Hurley said.

“It does not suffice to summarize arguments made and then state a peremptory conclusion, because that does not assist in understanding the decision made and its rationale,” Hurley said. “This is precisely what was done here.”

LeBlanc’s assessment reads “as a charging document for (Popov’s) past membership” in the KGB, said the judge.

“The ministerial relief decision refers to other factors including (Popov’s) expressed commitment to democratic values and human rights, his cooperation with Government of Canada officials, his lack of a criminal record in Canada, and his exemplary conduct and work history in Canada,” Hurley said.

“There is, however, no engagement with nor assessment of this evidence. In each instance, after setting out that the evidence was ‘considered’ or ‘taken into account,’ there is simply a conclusory statement that the evidence is insufficient to overcome the predominant national security and public safety considerations.”

The judge gave examples to illustrate LeBlanc’s approach.

“The CBSA has considered Mr. Popov’s assertions that he has now distanced himself from the KGB and its goals. His expressed commitment to democratic values and human rights and freedoms, including through his claimed refusal to participate in KGB-led anti-government coups in Russia in 1991 and 1993, as well as through his cooperation with GOC (Government of Canada) officials and publicly exposing the activities of the KGB and sharing criticism of Russian President (Vladimir) Putin at risk to his own safety, have also been taken into account,” said one example. “The CBSA is of the opinion, however, that these factors are not sufficient to overcome the other predominant national security and public safety considerations of this case — in particular, Mr. Popov’s admitted long-term, active, and informed role with the KGB.”

According to another example from LeBlanc’s decision, “the CBSA has also duly considered Mr. Popov’s other statements regarding his activities and establishment from his arrival in Canada to the present, including his statements to the effect that: he has learned English and established himself in his community; his wife and son are leading ‘exemplary lives’ in Canada; they file their taxes; they support a variety of community non-profit organizations; and he, his wife and son purchased a home in 2006. The supporting documents and letters of support he submitted in this respect have also been taken into account. Nonetheless, the CBSA is of the opinion that these factors are not sufficient to establish that Mr. Popov’s presence in Canada would not be detrimental to the national interest in light of the predominant national security and public safety concerns in this case — in particular, his prior voluntary, informed, high-level, dedicated role in the KGB for 19 years, through which he personally recruited over 30 KGB informants and engaged in various activities which would have benefitted the KGB as a whole — an agency notorious for its violent tactics, engagement in anti-Western espionage, including against Canada, and brutal suppression of Soviet dissidents.”

LeBlanc is correct, “when he states that he is ‘entitled to ascribe more weight to some factors over others,” Hurley said.

“That said, this does not mean that the minister can simply, as was done here, baldly conclude that personal factors do not outweigh the ‘predominant national security and public safety concerns.’”

According to the judge, “it was incumbent on the minister to ‘come to grips with the considerable body of evidence put forward by’” Popov. “Here, the applicant submitted a voluminous amount of evidence and submissions concerning his life after the KGB. In particular, he specifically addressed his disassociation from the organization and expressed regret over his past involvement. He publicly condemned the KGB — publishing two books that exposed its operations, delivering multiple public speaking engagements, and appearing in interviews on television and digital platforms. These relevant and significant factors are not meaningfully engaged with in the ministerial relief decision.”

• Ex-KGB agent leaves Canada after hiding in Vancouver church for six years to avoid deportation
• New book tells story of Russian ‘illegal’ sent to Canada and betrayed

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

Reviews and recommendations are unbiased and products are independently selected. Postmedia may earn an affiliate commission from purchases made through links on this page.

OTTAWA — Conservative MP Jamil Jivani doesn’t yet have a critic assignment, but he’s still finding plenty of ways to keep himself busy.

One glance

at the link-heavy website

for the Yale Law graduate’s new “Restore the North” initiative conjures up the image of an overachieving high school senior anxiously padding his college application portfolio with extracurriculars.

The homepage is littered with nearly a dozen boxes leading to different sign-up sheets, including petitions to

reverse Liberal immigration policies

, crack down on

open-air drug use

and make

oral nicotine products like Zyn

more widely available. Shouts of “Free the Zyn!” even broke out in the House of Commons last week after Jivani raised the

issue of nicotine pouches

in question period.

“(These things) are tied together in so far as I’m involved in all of them, and they all sort of reflect the sentiments that I’m hearing from Canadians, and young Canadians in particular,” said the 38-year-old Jivani, when asked whether there was common thread to the causes listed on his website.

Jivani has lately been spending a lot of time meeting young Canadians where they’re at, kicking off a campus tour with fellow Conservative MP Ned Kuruc last month.

He’s staying put in Ottawa next week to host a conference on another cause he says is close to his heart: eradicating what he sees as a

leftist form of racism

that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — a fellow Yale Law alum —  has called “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”

Jivani sat down with the National Post for a wide-ranging interview about the upcoming

National Forum to End Liberal Racism

, how

his much-publicized friendship

with Yale classmate JD Vance helped shape his views on affirmative action and how he keeps himself busy to avoid the “drama” on Parliament Hill.

He explained that, even with the House set for a hectic week, it was important for him to carve out time to convene a conversation about the prevalence of

so-called positive discrimination

like diversity quotas in government policies and procedures, especially those related to hiring and promotion.

“The idea behind ending Liberal racism is to acknowledge that a lot of what the federal government does right now is out of line with core values that I think a lot of Canadians have, which is that people should be treated fairly and equally. There are a series of policies the federal government has when it comes to hiring for jobs or in government programs that distribute grants and other resources to the public that are exclusively … based on belonging to certain identity groups,” said Jivani.

Jivani says these discriminatory policies do a disservice to everyone involved.

“On one end, it excludes a lot of people (from opportunities), and that is, in and of itself, a classic case of discrimination. On the other side, for people from the identity groups who may be included in these … policies, it is a gesture towards us that indicates a stamp of inferiority,” he said.

Jivani notably takes issue with

voluntary self-identification boxes

on government job application forms, which he says convey a clear message that minorities are less capable than other candidates.

“But for claiming to be part of an identity group, the government might not hire you,” said Jivani.

Conservative MPs Shuvaloy Majumdar, Sandra Cobena and Vincent Ho will also make presentations at the forum, set for Tuesday evening in downtown Ottawa. Jivani has invited all Liberal MPs to attend, but says none have RSVPed yet.

Jivani’s personal crusade against what he calls Liberal racism is, at first glance, a U-turn from his

2018 book Why Young Men

, where he writes at length about how bonds with Black peers and mentors like professor Andrea Davis, now head of diversity, equity, and inclusion

at Wilfrid Laurier University

, helped him excel at university despite an unstable childhood. Yet, he says his core beliefs remain fundamentally the same, if tempered somewhat by life experience.

“What I learned, I think, from the time I wrote my book till now is just being a lot more sensitive to how race can be used to mask some of the very serious issues in our communities and in our country,” said Jivani.

He added that, even at the time, he was uncomfortable with the excessive focus on race in the media coverage of the book, noting that the absence of a racial qualifier in its title wasn’t an oversight.

“There were people in the media who wanted to make my book about race, when, if you read the book, it talks about boys and young men of all different racial and cultural backgrounds, with the effort of showing actually we have a lot of the same challenges,” said Jivani.

Jivani’s friendships with working-class white classmates like Vance, who wrote about his own hardscrabble upbringing in the

best-selling memoir Hillbilly Elegy

(later a movie), helped reshape the way he views fairness.

“My view is that a lot of the issues can be best understood based on class, based on, you know, broader social dynamics. Like, for example, being the first person in your family to attend a post-secondary or to graduate from university,” said Jivani.

Jivani said he’s all for helping disadvantaged youth pursue higher education and break into professions but adds that race is a poor proxy for need.

Kwesi Opoku, a longtime friend of Jivani’s, says that the push against diversity quotas “sounds a lot like Jamil.”

“Jamil’s a lot of things. He’s a really brilliant guy, he’s very thoughtful but he’s really, at his core, just a regular-shmegular Black guy,” said Opoku.

Opoku said he thinks Jamil’s views are shared by much of the Black community, even if this fact isn’t widely discussed.

“The vast majority of Black people, although it doesn’t get spoken about, are not in support of affirmative action (and) DEI policies. Most Black folks see themselves as not inferior, being able to compete with anybody.”

Another friend and former Conservative staffer, said that Jivani was doing a “massive service” to Canadians by heading off a far uglier discourse about race, one increasingly being driven by young men.

“(Jivani) will get

dismissed by mainstream pundits

as pandering to radicals and reactionaries … but if you go and look at how he engages with them, he doesn’t just agree with them, he pushes back,” said the friend.

He pointed to a recent event at

a Toronto-area campus

where Jivani rebutted arguments put forward by attendees associated with the anti-immigration Dominion Society.

Jivani said that his busy calendar hasn’t given him too much time to dwell on the recent intrigue inside the Conservative caucus, such as the recent double-whammy of a floor crossing and resignation. Nova Scotia MP Chris d’Entremont crossed from the Tories to the governing Liberals and Conservative MP Matt Jeneroux announced that he would be resigning his seat.

“I don’t mean to say it dismissively, because I understand there’s a lot of attention on the drama, but like I just don’t care, dude. I’m just focused on getting my job done,” said Jivani.

Jivani did care enough to call

d’Entremont an “idiot”

after learning of his defection to the Liberals on budget day.

He also said he’s “not worried at all” that his growing public profile will create the impression that he’s after Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s job.

“We’re a team. Every event I go to, there are multiple MPs there, including the National Forum to End Liberal Racism … I’m proud to be part of the team,” said Jivani.

He added that the team already has a captain and he doesn’t see that changing.

“We’ve had our leader (Poilievre) since the election and, from my standpoint, we got, you know, over eight million votes. We got lots of people who sent us here and want us to work hard on their behalf.”

Cole Hogan, a conservative strategist who specializes in digital campaigns, says that Jivani’s expanding digital footprint

— spanning three websites, dozens of videos and a recently launched YouTube series — echoes Poilievre’s own cultivation of a personal sub-brand under the Conservative umbrella.

“In 2021, and even before that, Pierre was sort of doing his own thing. And he would do the longer form YouTube videos at first,” said Hogan.

A flurry of digital content targeting Canada’s

then exploding inflation crisis

positioned Poilievre as the clear favourite to succeed Erin O’Toole as Conservative leader after the party’s loss in the fall 2021 election.

Hogan added that the multiple online petitions that Jivani has launched could help him gauge potential support for a future leadership run.

Alex Marland, a political science professor at Acadia University who recently co-authored a book on

party loyalty in Canadian politics

, said that Jivani’s freelancing is indicative of the fact that the Conservatives recently lost an election and are looking for a message that will put them over the top.

“So in my view, the main thing is its proximity to an election. So the closer you get to an election, the more urgency of unity of message there is. And when you just had an election, there’s often a party that doesn’t win is itself trying to reposition and recalibrate and figure out what its messaging is,” said Marland.

Marland added that the attention Jivani is getting for his personal initiatives is likely a good thing for Canadian democracy, given our political system’s tendency toward the centralization of power.

“It’s really important to make sure that individual MPs get attention, not always the leader,” said Marland.

National Post

rmohamed@postmedia.com

• Coast guard patrol ships to be pulled from service ‘sooner than expected,’ amid pressures from new security mandate
• Canada’s spy chief warns of increasing violent radicalization of Canadian children

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

Some Canadians could be denied a U.S. visa due to obesity or other medical conditions.

“Short-term, visa-exempt visitors should see little change at the border,” lawyer Rosanna Berardi told National Post on Friday. She is the managing partner at

Berardi Immigration Law

.

“Applicants with notable medical conditions should be prepared to show strong financial capacity and private insurance to reduce the risk of refusal.”

Earlier in November, a directive was sent via cable to embassy and consular officials on behalf of the State Department. They were given instructions to screen foreigners who want to live in the U.S. for a wide range of conditions, as well as age and likelihood that they “might rely on public benefits,”

KFF Health News reported

.

These people risk becoming a “public charge,” in the eyes of the federal government, or a strain on American resources.

“Under U.S. immigration law, a person is inadmissible as a ‘public charge’ only if they are likely to become primarily dependent on certain government cash benefits or long-term institutional care. That definition has not changed,” said Berardi.

However, she said, the Nov. 6 guidance from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio instructs officials “to treat chronic health conditions, limited finances, low-skilled employment or limited English, prior public assistance, and weak affidavits of support as red flags.”

“You must consider an applicant’s health,” said the cable, according to KFF Health News. “Certain medical conditions — including, but not limited to, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, cancers, diabetes, metabolic diseases, neurological diseases, and mental health conditions — can require hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of care.”

“Officers are now told to scrutinize medical exams more closely and weigh these factors heavily in the ‘totality of the circumstances,’ effectively raising the bar for applicants with significant health issues and modest financial resources,” said Berardi.

While 99 per cent of Canadians don’t require a visa to enter the U.S., said Berardi, there is a small group that does. “The only Canadians required to apply at a U.S. consulate are E-1 and E-2 treaty applicants and K-1 fiancé(e) visa applicants,” she said.

Treaty Trader (E-1) and Treaty Investor (E-2) visas are for citizens of countries with which the United States maintains treaties of commerce and navigation,

according to the U.S. Embassy & Consulates in Canada

.

“Canadian citizenship does not create an exemption from the public-charge ground, but most Canadians apply for entry directly at the border and avoid consular review entirely,” Berardi said.

“The new guidance will have its greatest impact on the small group that do need visas — especially E-1/E-2 applicants and anyone seeking a family- or employment-based immigrant visa.”

Permanent residents of Canada, who

must have a visa

to enter the U.S., “will feel the effect even more.”

In a statement to National Post, the Canadian Snowbird Association said it was aware of the new U.S. visa guidance “related to certain chronic health conditions.”

“At this time, there is no indication that Canadians entering the United States as tourists, who do not need to pre-apply for a visa, will be affected by this policy,” the statement said.

“The vast majority of Canadian snowbirds also travel to the U.S. with comprehensive private travel medical insurance, which further reduces any concern that they would be viewed as a potential burden on the U.S. health-care system.”

The directive appears to be part of a continuation of the Trump administration’s crackdown on the “flow of immigration,” The Washington Post reported.

“It’s no secret the Trump Administration is putting the interests of the American people first,” Tommy Pigott told National Post in an emailed statement. He is the principal deputy spokesperson for the State Department.

“This includes enforcing policies that ensure our immigration system is not a burden on the American taxpayer.”

• U.S. predicted to lose $5.7 billion in tourism as Canadian boycott continues
• Palestinians living in Gaza lose lawsuits that would force Canada to process crisis travel visas

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

OTTAWA — Ottawa’s fiscal watchdog called out the Carney government Friday for using an “overly expansive” definition of investments that shifts about $94-billion in spending over the next five years to the more palatable capital side of the ledger.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), an independent offer who scrutinizes government raising and spending of tax dollars, said in a new report on this year’s budget that the government’s inclusion of such items as corporate income tax expenditures, investment tax credits and operating subsidies should not be considered capital spending.

The PBO report, which also shed new light on Ottawa’s dire fiscal situation, said the government’s “new framework adopts a definition of capital investment that expands beyond the current treatment” used internationally. “The government’s definition of capital investment is too broad.”

The Carney government’s first budget, unveiled last week, marked the first time that Ottawa had separated capital and operational or day-to-day spending. While debates about accounting practices are unlikely to stir many heated debates in Canadian cafes and pubs, economists say it’s important because the new method could lead to more spending.

The government argued that it’s more informative to account separately for day-to-day spending and those capital items that are made with a long-term focus. In his post-budget “road show” this week, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne has said the government’s new fiscal practices are in line with what some other countries are doing.

Some economists, however, have questioned the government’s decision to create that distinction, arguing that it’s simply accounting optics and that all types of expenditures must be paid for. A recent report by the C.D. Howe Institute, a leading think tank, criticized the move and questioned the motive. “The large deficits projected in this update cannot be downplayed or disguised by dividing the budget into two new categories.”

Some also worry that the government will pile as many expenses as possible into the “investments” side of the ledger, because they might seem more politically palatable to voters and because the government wants to meet its new goal of balancing its operating expenses within three years.

But Benjamin Tal, the deputy chief economist of CIBC World Markets, said he likes the government’s new accounting because it adds clarity and doesn’t believe it will encourage extra spending.

Capital spending includes many items that are physical assets such as infrastructure, housing, military equipment and even software that are often seen as “investments.” These types of items are often seen as more fiscally responsible because they provide enduring assets and often include sales for Canadian companies. Some capital spending, such as spending on ports, rail and other transportation routes that are designed to make exports more efficient, can also boost productivity and the economy.

Operational costs include big-ticket “day-to-day” items such as transfers to provinces and territories, program spending and salaries for hundreds of thousands of public servants and millions of citizens who receive social service payments.

Carney has started a process to trim operational spending, notably slicing into the growth of the public service, to help pay for increased capital spending.

While acknowledging that there’s some subjectivity in distinguishing between capital and operational spending, PBO Jason Jacques recommends that Ottawa set up an independent expert body to sort through how spending items should be categorized.

The new report also shed further light on Ottawa’s escalating pile of red ink. The Carney government’s first budget, released last week, projected an average deficit of $64.3-billion between this fiscal year and 2029-30, more than double what was projected about a year ago in the 2024 Fall Economic Statement.

The PBO report also said that the federal government now has “limited room to cut taxes or increase spending” if it wants to keep the federal debt-to-GDP ratio stable over the next three decades. “This is different from the last three years, when fiscal policy provided more flexibility to deal with future risks,” said Jacques.

In its first budget, the Carney government forecast a deficit this year of $78.3-billion, the third-highest in Canadian history and the largest ever in a non-pandemic year. The Carney government’s forecast calls for modest dips in the annual deficit over each of the next four years, although the cumulative effect will be another $320-million of new debt before the end of the decade.

The federal government has now accumulated $1.27-trillion in debt, almost half of which has been added over the last five years. With the budget’s updated forecast for this fiscal year, Ottawa is now on pace to amass $593.1-billion in debt over that five-year span, or 46.7 per cent of the total debt accumulated in Canadian history.

The federal government also said this week that it intends to hire a permanent PBO. Jacques, a veteran of the PBO office, has been filling the position on an interim basis since September. In his first few weeks on the job, Jacques was highly critical of government spending, calling it “stupefying,” “shocking” and “unsustainable.”

National Post

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

A Hells Angels hitman who killed a man in Nova Scotia can’t fathom why the Parole Board of Canada takes his victim’s family’s word over his when it comes to granting him freedom.

Dean Daniel Kelsie is serving a life sentence for the October 2000 shooting death of Sean Simmons in the lobby of a Dartmouth, N.S., apartment building. The court heard Simmons was killed for having had an affair with the wife of a member of the Hells Angels motorcycle gang.

In a new appeal, Kelsie, who is in his early 50s, argued unsuccessfully against the decision this past spring to yank his day parole.

“You submit that the board’s reasons demonstrate that the victims directly influenced the board’s decision, and you wonder about the actual impact of their presence and more importantly, the weight that the board gave to their representations and attendance,” said a new decision on Kelsie from the Parole Board of Canada’s Appeal Division.

“You are of the opinion that the board’s decision fails to consider the full context of your case, and that the decision was unduly influenced by the victims who were present. You argue that the victim’s statements and presence were given too much weight in the assessment and that you do not understand why their statements were given more weight than your explanations.”

The parole board revoked Kelsie’s day parole on March 18 because inmates at the Quebec halfway house where he was staying were scared to sleep in the same room as him, and his handlers couldn’t find another halfway house that would take him.

This past June, Kelsie asked the appeal division to overturn that, according to the decision dated Nov. 7. He argued that the parole board “failed to observe a principle of fundamental justice” and its “duty to act fairly.”

The parole board countered that it considered “the poignant and emotional statements made by victims at the outset of the hearing that highlight the trauma that continues to be caused by (Kelsie’s) actions.”

It noted those are important because they “give a face to the consequences of the crimes” and that the parole board is legally obliged to consider them.

The decision from the Appeal Division notes it could not find “any grounds that would lead to the conclusion that the board was unduly influenced by the statements and that the board’s decision was unreasonable because of this consideration.”

The Appeal Division found the parole board respected Kelsie’s right to be heard.

According to the March decision that sent Kelsie back to prison, his non-verbal communication could be intimidating, and his roommates in a Quebec halfway house found some of his comments threatening.

At his appeal, Kelsie called that a “misperception from others,” and he noted he’d “never been double bunked before and that” caused “adjustment issues.”

Kelsie told the Appeal Division that he’s had “no more violence in” him since 2015.

“At the hearing, you admitted that you needed to address your attitude,” said the new decision. “You explained that you … have difficulty communicating with others and that you do not realize that your attitude is intimidating.”

Since he returned to prison, Kelsie told the Appeal Division he’s been working on himself, and that he was “able to defuse a potentially conflictual situation by taking a step back and discussing the issues with the other offender.”

The Appeal Division found that Kelsie’s “point of view and explanations were considered” during the March hearing that sent him back to prison. “While you believe that your explanations during the hearing were not considered, the Appeal Division finds that this was not the case.”

It was “within the board’s discretion,” despite Kelsie’s explanations, to find he “demonstrated a lack of insight” and that he was “unable to adjust” his behaviour, despite attempts by his case management team to keep him out of prison.

Support from the halfway house where he was living until this past March “was withdrawn despite your commitment to a behavioural contract,” said the Appeal Division, noting Kelsie “also continued to experience challenges with co-workers and (was) sometimes an instigator.”

It stressed “both positive and negative information was considered by the board,” before it sent Kelsie back to prison.

“Your right to be heard was respected.”

Kelsie conceded that he has “committed very serious crimes” but that he’s changed since then.

“Overall, you believe that the decision to revoke your release is unreasonable because it fails to explain why your perceived negative attitude has increased your risk when there was no indication of reoffending or a return to any criminality,” said the Appeal Division.

But “it was within the board’s discretion to have placed more weight on other more negative information,” it said.

The Appeal Division disagreed with Kelsie’s “submission that it was unreasonable for the board to have drawn a link between the behaviours leading to” his most recent suspension and the risk he poses.

“As noted by the board, you have a violent criminal history and despite your index offence occurring more than two decades ago, you were recently convicted of uttering threats for an incident that occurred during a previous period of day parole. Therefore, while you submit that you have changed and conceded that there is still work to do on your personality traits, it was reasonable for the board to have found that you were incapable of modifying your behaviour.”

• Hells Angels hitman loses day parole after halfway house roommates too scared of him
• Catholic diocese near Montreal expresses regret about Hells Angels tombstone

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

OTTAWA — A long-troubled fleet of coast guard patrol ships that the Canadian government paid hundreds of millions to build will be pulled from service “sooner than expected,” an internal document shows.

It comes as the civilian agency braces for more demands under its new surveillance mandate from Prime Minister Mark Carney, who announced back in June that it would be folded into the National Defence Department.

Newly released documents obtained by National Post detail the internal deliberations that took place inside the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the immediate days following the Prime Minister’s Office confirming it would be reassigning responsibility for the Canadian Coast Guard to the defence portfolio.

The change came as Carney announced his government would accelerate the country’s defence spending, in part by shifting the coast guard to a more security-focused role, which would allow it to be counted towards its NATO spending target.

Following that June announcement, an internal meeting was held between the fisheries department’s national enforcement officer, responsible for overseeing its conservation and protection efforts, and a senior coast guard official about the impacts that shift could have on the agency’s role in that task.

According to a set of meeting notes, the coast guard official flagged that capacity could be an issue, given its new role and an aging fleet.

“New (Canadian Coast Guard) security mandate is expected to create new pressures from (other government departments) to increase use of (Canadian Coast Guard) platforms for border and security purposes,” one excerpt read, released to National Post under federal access-to-information legislation.

“Emphasis was placed on assumption that RCMP and CBSA need for security and border work using (Canadian Coast Guard) platforms is likely going to increase in near future.”

The official also flagged how the remaining fleet of the coast guard’s mid-shore patrol vessels, specifically designed to perform surveillance, rescue and enforcement of Canada’s coasts, would be retired earlier than anticipated.

“Mid-Shore Patrol Vessels (MSPVs) won’t see life expectancy (140 footers–48 meters),” according to the notes. “These vessels will be removed from service sooner than expected (within a few years).”

Questions were also raised about their replacement plan.

A spokesman for National Defence confirmed in a statement that the coast guard’s eight mid-shore patrol vessels, delivered between 2012 and 2014, carry a life expectancy of 25 years. That means the oldest has currently been in service for roughly 13 years.

The coast guard, according to the statement, was gathering information from users, such as the conservation and protection program, as well as the RCMP, about requirements, which, once finalized, would inform a procurement process.

“The Canadian Coast Guard is undertaking a comprehensive fleet renewal program to modernize its fleet and ensure continued delivery of critical services to Canadians. This strategic initiative includes multiple vessel classes in various stages of design and construction, working closely with Canadian shipyards through the National Shipbuilding Strategy,” wrote Craig Macartney.

This $227-million fleet, also known as Hero-class ships, has been anything but heroic over its less than 15 years in the coast guard. Only two years after the Halifax-Irving Shipyard delivered its final ship,

a series of media reports

revealed the ships to be plagued with various design flaws.

At the time, Irving

pushed back that the issues were minor

. One year later, the ships’ galleys

needed to be redesigned

so that crews could cook safely on board. In 2019,

CBC News reported that officers on various vessels

complained about how the ships rolled “like crazy” at sea, making crew members seasick and unable to work.

Those problems now appear all the more concerning as the government

boosts the agency’s patrol mandate

.

Jody Thomas, former national security adviser to Carney’s predecessor, Justin Trudeau, and a past coast guard commissioner, said the vessels were never right to begin with, and that the coast guard will have to reassess its needs when picking a replacement.

“I think the problem with them was that they were too small and too light for our coast and they took a beating, and therefore have had to come out of service sooner than anybody would have expected,” said Thomas.

“They wanted a fast, small fleet, but maybe it was a bit too small.”

One of the nine ships is now a pile of metal,

having been scrapped earlier this year

after it was sabotaged in 2018 while docked for repairs at a Nova Scotia shipyard. Police have since closed the investigation without laying any charges.

Thomas said the eventual replacement ships would need to be outfitted differently than the Hero-class vessels to include information-collecting equipment such as radars and sensors.

A response from the RCMP has not yet been received. CBSA spokesman Luke Reimer said while the agency was continually looking at ways to strengthen its partnerships, including with the coast guard, “we do not have any specific changes to our working relationship with the Canadian Coast Guard to share at this time,” he said in a statement.

Internally, emails show the coast guard official’s words back in June were not well received by the fisheries’ top bureaucrat, who sent a sharp rebuke directly to the coast guard’s commissioner.

“This is very concerning,” Annette Gibbsons wrote to agency commissioner Mario Pelletier on June 16.

“I don’t know how Neil (the official) has the authority to make these statements. To be clear, the direction from the (prime minister) is that core (Canadian Coast Guard) functions remain unchanged. (Canadian Coast Guard) cannot unilaterally deprioritize core support to (Department of Fisheries and Oceans).”

About an hour later, the official responded, calling how his words had been summarized “disappointing,” adding that he “repeated several times” how its services would not change for current users, including around conservation and protection.

“This is what the official government direction to us says,” he wrote. “I then added that if we are asked to take on more security type requests from partners, we will need to look at how to expand our fleet to do this.”

National Post

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here.

Palestinians in Gaza who applied to join relatives in Canada two years ago under Ottawa’s crisis immigration policy but haven’t received travel visas lost their lawsuits trying to force officials to act despite security problems in the war-torn region.

Four similar court actions asked the Federal Court to order officials with Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to process their temporary resident visa applications.

Justice Henry S. Brown said the stories of applicants in Gaza were “heartbreaking” but he could not issue the orders they sought.

The court cases stem from Ottawa’s announcement of a “temporary public policy to facilitate temporary resident visas for certain extended family affected by the crisis in Gaza,” which took effect on Jan. 9, 2024.

It was supposed to provide quick refuge for Palestinians with relatives who are either Canadian citizens or permanent residents and willing to be an “anchor relative” in Canada.

The Gaza policy was capped at 5,000 visas. Court heard that almost two years later there are about 4,200 unprocessed applicants.

The policy was similar in purpose to emergency policies for Ukrainians fleeing Russia’s invasion, Afghans fleeing the Taliban’s return to power, and those in danger zones after an earthquake in Türkiye and Syria. The policies remove some criteria normally needed to enter Canada to speed things up in a crisis.

In the policy for Gaza, the government exempted applicants from needing to prove their financial stability and that they would leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay.

Because of the similar nature of the court cases, portions of the decisions are replicated in each decision, all of which were decided by Brown. The last three decisions were released Wednesday.

The four cases represent 10 Gazan residents. The names of each of the visa applicants in the cases was anonymized by the court.

One case involves a family of five — a mother, father, and three children. Court heard they were living in one room in their partially destroyed home in Gaza City with rats and exposed to the rain due to damage to their roof.

Another family is a mother, father and their young son. Court heard they left their home in the Gaza Strip the day after the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas on Israel from Gaza, and have been displaced several times while other family members have died in bombings.

A third case involves a Palestinian man living in the Gaza Strip. Court heard that after October 7 he was unable to continue his studies and lost his job and later his home. A court case heard in September was for a Palestinian woman living in Gaza City who said her house was flattened by a bomb, leaving her without shelter, food or water.

Court heard the special immigration policy was a three-stage process, starting with an anchor relative in Canada completing forms, then submitting documentary proof of identification, status in Canada, and other information; next documents for their Gazan kin seeking visas needed uploading.

Once Canadian immigration officials confirm an applicant is eligible, the policy process states, the applicant’s names are forwarded to the Israeli and Egyptian governments to allow access to the Rafah border crossing to provide Canada their biometric information at a collection facility, court heard. That includes fingerprinting and photographs. The border crossing was needed because there is no Canadian collection facility in Gaza.

That last stage became impossible, court heard.

In the case of the male applicant, used as an example in court, his anchor relative submitted a crisis webform on Jan. 14, 2024, and was approved for processing four days later.

Four months after the application, an entry was made in the immigration case management system noting that he had met all requirements except his security screening and biometrics, meaning his eligibility had been approved but his admissibility was pending.

IRCC officials requested more information in December 2024, including about social media accounts, which was provided the next day, court heard. Everything was in place but biometrics that are done across the border.

“While this was possible in December 2023 when the Policy was issued, the Rafah crossing was closed on May 7, 2024, and remains closed to this day,” Brown wrote in his reasons for judgment. “Therefore, the Applicant — through no fault of his own or of IRCC — has not obtained or sent his biometrics.”

Brown said lawyers for both the applicants and for the government are right, in a way.

He agreed with the applicants that the government has a legal duty to process visa applications made under the policy. He also agreed with the government that officers did not have a duty to process applications within a particular timeframe.

“I am satisfied the Applicant has a legitimate expectation to his application being dealt with in a timely manner. However, this expectation only arises when the Applicant meets all the conditions of the Policy and provides biometric information (which he is unable to do),” Brown wrote.

Brown found that Canada’s policy did not allow visa officers to override other regulations on immigration, and those regulations require a biometric check. The government argued that Ottawa has a duty to maintain the integrity of Canada’s immigration system and Brown agreed.

“The root cause of the Applicant’s failure to provide his biometric data is of course the changed operational context, namely the closure of the Rafah crossing which made obtaining and submitting biometrics impossible.”

He said because of that, the applicants did not meet the threshold for a court order forcing the government to act because that required all elements of a process to be complete before unreasonable delay can be determined.

All cases were denied.

The outcome disappoints Hana Marku, a lawyer who represents some of the visa applicants.

“Canada’s behaviour throughout its rollout of its own policy has been utterly cruel,” Marku said afterwards. “Canada has no serious intention of providing safe refuge to Palestinians. This is why we sought justice from the court…. The Federal Court has given the government a pass to do nothing while Palestinian visa applicants in the Gaza Strip face death and starvation.”

Jeffrey MacDonald, a spokesman for IRCC, declined to comment on the specific cases citing privacy considerations, but said the delay in processing the visas is beyond the Canada’s control.

“Canada is deeply concerned about the situation in Gaza,” MacDonald said. “Everyone must meet Canada’s legal requirements before travelling, including security and biometric checks, where required. Biometrics can only be done outside Gaza, as Canada has no presence there. While we continue to advocate for the safety of those in Gaza, Canada does not ultimately determine who can leave Gaza.”

• Email: ahumphreys@postmedia.com | X: AD_Humphreys

• Truce resumes in Gaza after Hamas attack and Israeli reprisals, IDF says
• Hamas to return body of hostage as families of missing call for break in Gaza truce

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.