Connect with us

National

Asylum seekers spreading from largest cities into the rest of Canada

Published

25 minute read

Federal failures broke Canada’s asylum system

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Michael Barutciski

Our quiet asylum crisis is largely a self-inflicted wound.

Introducing the problem 

Recently released statistics indicate over 144,000 migrants claimed asylum in Canada during 2023. This is the highest year on record and is several times higher than any year before the Liberals formed government in 2015. Until a decade ago, Canada was receiving on average less than 25,000 asylum claims per year.

In the days following the publication of the latest numbers Canada’s English-speaking media barely covered this story, despite extensive reporting from Quebec media. Perhaps this is not surprising given that almost half the asylum claims were made in Quebec, prompting premier François Legault to send a formal letter to prime minister Justin Trudeau requesting financial help and measures to stem the flow. However, a comparable number of claims were made in Ontario, which explains why Toronto’s municipal authorities have also been asking for federal money to help with the overwhelmed local services.

Why have there been so many asylum claims in 2023 despite the closing of Roxham Road almost a year ago? After several years of use by asylum seekers, the infamous rural crossing between Quebec and upstate New York was closed. Activists and academics warned that illegal entries along the U.S. land border would increase but this did not happen. Entering illegally was simply not necessary because Ottawa also loosened legal requirements for entry to Canada; the easiest way to eliminate so-called “irregular” migration is to “regularize” it.

The explosion in asylum claims post-Roxham is the result of two simultaneous policy decisions: (1) loosening the criteria for visa issuance and (2) allowing visa-free travel for potential asylum seekers. In other words, our quiet asylum crisis is largely a self-inflicted problem.

The only logical explanation for these striking policy decisions is wide-spread ideological conviction that Canada must be as open as possible. But this conviction is now posing a long-term threat to the asylum system. The country has suffered from a lack of debate and viewpoint diversity that allowed this simplistic ethic to flourish unopposed throughout our political and media establishment.

The good news is that Canadians are finally having a genuine debate about immigration policy. It is encouraging that this debate is also happening within an atmosphere that remains decidedly pro-immigration. No serious analyst is blaming the actual migrants; the blame is instead directed at administrative policies that have allowed the proliferation of incoherence and even abuse in our system.

However, within this new debate on immigration policy, we need to keep in mind that asylum is a distinct issue that carries its own important legal and moral obligations. Our liberal democratic principles are subverted if we do not treat those who seek asylum humanely and with dignity.

We also need to make sure that the principles undergirding our asylum system are coherent. The justification for who we decide to grant asylum to, as well as who is denied protection and removed from Canada should be plain to the public. Distortion or abuse of these principles can undermine public confidence and support for the generosity that has long characterized Canada’s international image.

The federal government’s laxness in sticking to and articulating a principled policy created the current problem. Canada is once again faced with an asylum predicament, while the country’s fiscal position limits the policy options. Any Canadian concerned with the well-being of individuals seeking asylum should be concerned that Canada may be forced to turn away from our historically humanitarian approach as a corrective to a crisis created by near-sighted and careless policy.

Contextualizing the asylum numbers globally and domestically  

Examining comparable western liberal democracies reveals an important context.

The broken asylum system in the U.S. is yet again playing a role in the upcoming presidential election as Americans watch uninvited migrants flow through their southern border with Mexico to claim asylum. In the meantime, president Biden has resumed construction of the border wall he stopped early in his mandate.

As the European country with the most asylum seekers, Germany has received a similar number of asylum seekers per capita compared to Canada. A key distinction is that Germany’s progressive leaders have been acknowledging there is a crisis. The United Kingdom is still trying to enact draconian legislation to stop asylum seekers from crossing the Channel and to establish an offshore processing scheme in faraway countries such as Rwanda. Likewise, Italy has announced it will intercept ‘boat people’ crossing the Mediterranean and transfer them to Albania for processing. Austria and Denmark are exploring a similar approach. More extreme Dutch politicians recently won an election in the Netherlands on migration-related problems and they are now trying to form a government.

Across the world political leaders, ranging from U.S. Democrats to Germany’s coalition Social Democrat and Green partners, are realizing that current approaches to asylum are undermining their democracies and stoking reactionist anti-immigrant rhetoric. By constantly emphasizing their openness to migration and refusing to acknowledge problems, the Trudeau’s Liberals appear as a global outlier even among progressive (typically pro-immigration) governments.

The Canadian problem is not as dramatic as the situation on some parts of the Mexico-U.S. border or the Mediterranean sea routes in Europe. The issue in Canada, however, is still breaking a system which has traditionally relied on strong public confidence in our borders and controlled migration flows.

To understand the latest Canadian asylum statistics, we also need to distinguish asylum numbers from the numbers concerning another category: the refugee resettlement program that selects and resettles vulnerable people from overseas. As Prime Minister Trudeau has said, Canada should be proud that it is a world leader for this distinct category which is part of the annual intake of permanent residents.

The refugee resettlement program is an example of controlled migration. The incoming numbers can be adjusted at any moment because government authorization for entry under this category is ultimately a discretionary act. It also does not raise policy challenges comparable to sudden flows of uninvited asylum seekers. The government can only try to dissuade uncontrolled migration through measures such as strict visa controls and interstate cooperation, along with airline sanctions for undocumented travelers. Canada was known for decades as a model country regarding this type of migration control.

To suggest that Canada’s recent spike in asylum claims is related to a global displacement crisis, as repeated by the federal government and others trying to downplay the situation, is to ignore the distinct demographics of the Canadian inflow. The global statistics mostly reflect displaced people who remain within their countries of origin, along with those fleeing specific conflict situations (e.g. Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine); by and large these are not the migrants claiming asylum in Canada.

Mexico remains the top source country for asylum claims in Canada, yet the federal government continues to allow Mexicans to enter the country without visas. Second place is currently held by citizens of India, which is also a top source country for accepted temporary residents. The unusual situation has been highlighted by Quebec media that reported on the high number of international students claiming asylum.

According to Radio-Canada, immigration authorities also quietly implemented a new policy to expedite temporary visa processing, including removing the need for proof that applicants will leave Canada at the end of their stay. This has reportedly made it easier for people who would normally have difficulty obtaining tourist visas to enter and then claim asylum upon arrival. This stands in contrasts to a policy held for decades characterized by restrictive visa rules. Unsurprisingly, the international airports in Montreal and Toronto have become magnets for asylum claims.

Another argument used by those downplaying the situation is that Canada is simply taking its fair share when we make global comparisons. While it is true that the vast majority of displaced persons are stuck in poor countries of the global south, this argument is somewhat misleading. Canada is a modern, rich country that offers unparalleled treatment to asylum seekers including generous benefits and almost automatic citizenship to those granted asylum. In many other regions asylum seekers often struggle to receive adequate food and shelter and are given a precarious status from unstable host governments. Suggesting Canada is hosting only a small fraction of these vulnerable migrants is to compare apples with oranges.

Compounding the issues with asylum seekers, the recent boom in government-authorized temporary residents includes migrants who intend to stay permanently; it is reasonable to expect that the inevitable failure of many to secure permanent status will lead to problems of visa overstaying and even abusive asylum claims.

A final piece of context for understanding just how out of control Canada’s asylum numbers have become is the reality of undocumented individuals already living in Canada. Immigration Minister Marc Miller said that Canada now has a significant population of undocumented migrants, possibly over half a million. After decades of resisting American mistakes, we have imported the problem that has contributed to a broken immigration system in the U.S. The immigration minister is presently preparing an amnesty program that would provide a pathway to permanent residence for some of these undocumented migrants. But this presents a moral dilemma; we cannot simply dismiss the unlawful nature of their presence in Canada.

Distinguishing between false and realistic solutions 

Many of the so-called solutions typically suggested by activists and academics are unrealistic. The most common proposal is getting the federal government to simply provide more funding at the local level. Premier Legault is seeking financial help for Quebec, just as Mayor Olivia Chow is for Toronto. Her city’s budget chief refers to a “global crisis in mass migration” and an “existential crisis” in her public appeals to pressure the federal government, while a Liberal MP from Toronto complains of what he perceives to be a “shakedown”.

Another common proposal is to implement a burden or responsibility sharing scheme across the federation so that the bulk of the asylum seekers are not hosted in Quebec and Ontario’s biggest cities. Even in the unlikely situation that the Trudeau Liberals were to accept the mandatory nature of these transfers, it would ultimately be little more than a band-aid in that similar tensions and requests for funding would inevitably arise in other provinces. Likewise, many commentators are urging the federal government to deliver work permits more quickly so that fewer asylum seekers have to rely on social assistance from provincial governments but this too skirts around the core of the problem.

The number of asylum seekers is simply too large and resources at all levels are too small. It is not realistic to expect massive new spending from any level of government during a cost-of-living and housing crisis.

However, there are concrete actions that the federal government can and should take.

Given the influx of Mexican asylum seekers, imposing visas on Mexicans is one measure any responsible government should take. More than 22,000 Mexicans claimed asylum in Canada in the first eleven months of 2023. The Harper government imposed visas on Mexicans in 2009 in the same way that all western countries impose visas on source countries when the number of asylum claims rises significantly. The Trudeau Liberals removed these visa requirements in 2016. We are now well beyond the numbers that previously triggered the imposition of visa requirements and the government will be forced to reverse its decision.

There is also an important security factor that has barely been reported in English-speaking Canada: criminal elements associated with this particular inflow of Mexican asylum seekers have attracted Washington’s attention. Given that the U.S. imposes visa requirements on Mexicans, it is not surprising that it has asked Canada to reinstate them to prevent clandestine entry from its northern border.

The other measure the federal government should take to regain public trust is to tighten recently relaxed visitor visa issuance. This major policy shift is likely related to the new client-focused attitude, a focus on shorter wait times so that visa applicants are satisfied, spreading within the immigration department. Although understandable to some extent, an unqualified shift in this direction appears misplaced for any bureaucratic service that participates in the important state function of border control.

It is astonishing that such an important change to visa issuance was made during the last year despite internal warnings that it would lead to a jump in asylum claims. Unfortunately, decision-making at the ministerial level seems to be driven by ideological commitments rather than by the empirical evidence of Canada’s needs and capacity.

Explaining these self-imposed problems 

It is difficult to know precisely what motivated this policy shift because little information was made public. The only apparent explanation is the desire for virtue signaling and the appearance of compassionate policy from the PM and his various immigration ministers.

The Trudeau Liberals apparently hold the moral conviction that Canada should take an abstract and ill-defined “fair share” regardless of how this affects the overall integrity of the system. They also believe that their progressive university-educated urban constituencies are onboard with an ideological worldview that encourages open borders.

This is partly related to the longstanding politicization of universities. By overcompensating in their attempts not to appear anti-immigrant, Canada’s political and media class are reinforcing the failure of the country’s universities to promote a diversity of analysis concerning the asylum dilemma. Border control and the legitimacy of borders is routinely questioned in universities and there is generally dogmatic refusal to accept enforcement via removals to maintain the system’s integrity.

It is a clear reflection of bias that Canada’s responsibility-sharing treaty with the US, the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), was uniformly denounced in Canada’s publicly funded law journals and academic publications. It took our Supreme Court to clarify, in an unanimous judgment last year, that the US is indeed safe for asylum seekers as stated in the STCA. Publicly funded research should not be so obviously one-sided in addressing complex border issues, especially when credible outside voices (including the Supreme Court) clearly take an opposing view of the law in question.

The concerns raised by the activist academics in this field are not always illegitimate, but the absence of any debate on the larger policy issues creates an echo-chamber in which opposing ideas are rejected out of hand. As a consequence, it is difficult for students to succeed without embracing a social justice agenda.

Progressive media and politicians are promoting an ideology that espouses there is global injustice resulting from a supposed “birthright lottery”. The idea is that people from poor and unstable regions are unable to travel to western countries because they are not lucky enough to have been born somewhere that provides passports which allow visa-free travel. Contrary to western citizens who can easily travel to most countries, these losers in the “birthright lottery” are forced to take risky journeys to claim asylum if they want to escape their difficult conditions. This is the progressive liberal approach to the concept of asylum favoured on Canadian campuses.

There is no doubt that this view is attractive from a perspective which values maximal individual liberty but, while it is understandable to sympathize with reversing a perceived global injustice, it is foolish to manage migration with theoretical and ideological constructs devoid of data or real-world concerns. Progressive theorists would have us believe that the capacity for migrants to integrate into a society is limitless because it depends on political will, but in the real world there are both political and practical constraints.

Former German president Joachim Gauck, a leader who symbolizes moral clarity on humanitarian issues, recently gave this terse warning: “limiting migration is not something to be condemned”. It is this type of straight-shooting practical wisdom that is required to reform our liberal democracies that are overwhelmed by asylum seekers.

Concluding remarks 

The humanitarian intentions manifested by the Trudeau Liberals are admirable. But good intentions alone are not enough for an effective and sustainable asylum policy. By pushing a well-intentioned but overly generous approach to asylum, inspired by a post-national ideology, the current government threatens the integrity of Canada’s immigration system. There is too much blind ideological conviction and not enough practical focus on how to protect Canada’s interests, make the most of limited resources, and maintain a compassionate immigration policy in the long-term.

The international asylum system was set up to protect limited numbers of individuals from political persecution. It was not set up to allow masses of people to migrate through back-channels and to be able to stay in host countries by claiming asylum. The goal of any Canadian government must be to avoid importing aspects of the broken U.S. asylum system. This is necessary to maintain a compassionate fair-minded and distinctly Canadian approach.

Realistic policymakers should make sure protection is limited to migrants fleeing individualized persecution (as intended by drafters of the 1951 Refugee Convention). This implies a willingness to enforce the rules to preserve the system’s credibility.

Prime Minister Trudeau has increasingly appeared as a moralist who seems more comfortable preaching his detached values and worldview than governing based on the realities of a situation at hand. Even for those who share many of Trudeau’s views on the importance of migration and diversity to Canadian identity and culture, his underlying attitude can appear patronizing to the extent that diverging opinions are unfairly painted as xenophobic or racist. As a political leader who contributes to setting the tone, this harms the level of debate in a country that depends on sophisticated and nuanced analysis of migration.

The Liberals came to power partly because of the humanitarian spirit they displayed during the Syrian refugee crisis. But now asylum issues may contribute to their downfall as Canadians become increasingly aware of how detached from reality their policies have become.

About the author

Michael Barutciski is a faculty member of York University’s Glendon College. He worked throughout the 1990s as fellow in law at Oxford University’s Refugee Studies Centre, as well as York’s Centre for Refugee Studies. He was later editor-in-chief of Refuge (Canada’s refugee studies journal).

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Freedom Convoy

Court Orders Bank Freezing Records in Freedom Convoy Case

Published on

logo

By

A Canadian court has ordered the release of documents that could shed light on how federal authorities and law enforcement worked together to freeze the bank accounts of a protester involved in the Freedom Convoy.
Both the RCMP and TD Bank are now required to provide records related to Evan Blackman, who took part in the 2022 demonstrations and had his accounts frozen despite not being convicted of any crime at the time.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) announced the Ontario Court of Justice ruling. The organization is representing Blackman, whose legal team argues that the actions taken against him amounted to a serious abuse of power.
“The freezing of Mr. Blackman’s bank accounts was an extreme overreach on the part of the police and the federal government,” said his lawyer, Chris Fleury. “These records will hopefully reveal exactly how and why Mr. Blackman’s accounts [were] frozen.”
Blackman was arrested during the mass protests in Ottawa, which drew thousands of Canadians opposed to vaccine mandates and other pandemic-era restrictions.
Although he faced charges of mischief and obstructing police, those charges were dismissed in October due to a lack of evidence. Despite this, prosecutors have appealed, and a trial is set to begin on August 14.
At the height of the protests, TD Bank froze three of Blackman’s accounts following government orders issued under the Emergencies Act. Then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had invoked the act to grant his government broad powers to disrupt the protest movement, including the unprecedented use of financial institutions to penalize individuals for their support or participation.
In 2024, a Federal Court Justice ruled that Trudeau’s decision to invoke the act had not been justified.
Blackman’s legal team plans to use the newly released records to demonstrate the extent of government intrusion into personal freedoms.
According to the JCCF, this case may be the first in Canada where a criminal trial includes a Charter challenge over the freezing of personal bank accounts under emergency legislation.
Continue Reading

Alberta

‘Far too serious for such uninformed, careless journalism’: Complaint filed against Globe and Mail article challenging Alberta’s gender surgery law

Published on

Macdonald-Laurier Institute

Macdonald Laurier Institute challenges Globe article on gender medicine

The complaint, now endorsed by 41 physicians, was filed in response to an article about Alberta’s law restricting gender surgery and hormones for minors.

On June 9, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute submitted a formal complaint to The Globe and Mail regarding its May 29 Morning Update by Danielle Groen, which reported on the Canadian Medical Association’s legal challenge to Alberta’s Bill 26.

Written by MLI Senior Fellow Mia Hughes and signed by 34 Canadian medical professionals at the time of submission to the Globe, the complaint stated that the Morning Update was misleading, ideologically slanted, and in violation the Globe’s own editorial standards of accuracy, fairness, and balance. It objected to the article’s repetition of discredited claims—that puberty blockers are reversible, that they “buy time to think,” and that denying access could lead to suicide—all assertions that have been thoroughly debunked in recent years.

Given the article’s reliance on the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the complaint detailed the collapse of WPATH’s credibility, citing unsealed discovery documents from an Alabama court case and the Cass Review’s conclusion that WPATH’s guidelines—and those based on them—lack developmental rigour. It also noted the newsletter’s failure to mention the growing international shift away from paediatric medical transition in countries such as the UK, Sweden, and Finland. MLI called for the article to be corrected and urged the Globe to uphold its commitment to balanced, evidence-based journalism on this critical issue.

On June 18, Globe and Mail Standards Editor Sandra Martin responded, defending the article as a brief summary that provided a variety of links to offer further context. However, the three Globe and Mail news stories linked to in the article likewise lacked the necessary balance and context. Martin also pointed to a Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) statement linked to in the newsletter. She argued it provided “sufficient context and qualification”—despite the fact that the CPS itself relies on WPATH’s discredited guidelines. Notwithstanding, Martin claimed the article met editorial standards and that brevity justified the lack of balance.

MLI responded that brevity does not excuse misinformation, particularly on a matter as serious as paediatric medical care, and reiterated the need for the Globe to address the scientific inaccuracies directly. MLI again called for the article to be corrected and for the unsupported suicide claim to be removed. As of this writing, the Globe has not responded.

Letter of complaint

June 9, 2025

To: The Globe and Mail
Attn: Sandra Martin, standards editor
CC: Caroline Alphonso, health editor; Mark Iype, deputy national editor and Alberta bureau chief

To the editors;

Your May 29 Morning Update: The Politics of Care by Danielle Groen, covering the Canadian Medical Association’s legal challenge to Alberta’s Bill 26, was misleading and ideologically slanted. It is journalistically irresponsible to report on contested medical claims as undisputed fact.

This issue is far too serious for such uninformed, careless journalism lacking vital perspectives and scientific context. At stake is the health and future of vulnerable children, and your reporting risks misleading parents into consenting to irreversible interventions based on misinformation.

According to The Globe and Mail’s own Journalistic Principles outlined in its Editorial Code of Conduct, the credibility of your reporting rests on “solid research, clear, intelligent writing, and maintaining a reputation for honesty, accuracy, fairness, balance and transparency.” Moreover, your principles go on to state that The Globe will “seek to provide reasonable accounts of competing views in any controversy.” The May 29 update violated these principles. There is, as I will show, a widely available body of scientific information that directly contests the claims and perspectives presented in your article. Yet this information is completely absent from your reporting.

The collapse of WPATH’s credibility

The article’s claim that Alberta’s law “falls well outside established medical practice” and could pose the “greatest threat” to transgender youth is both false and inflammatory. There is no global medical consensus on how to treat gender-distressed young people. In fact, in North America, guidelines are based on the Standards of Care developed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH)—an organization now indisputably shown to place ideology above evidence.

For example, in a U.S. legal case over Alabama’s youth transition ban, WPATH was forced to disclose over two million internal emails. These revealed the organization commissioned independent evidence reviews for its latest Standards of Care (SOC8)—then suppressed those reviews when they found overwhelmingly low-quality evidence. Yet WPATH proceeded to publish the SOC8 as if it were evidence-based. This is not science. It is fraudulent and unethical conduct.

These emails also showed Admiral Rachel Levine—then-assistant secretary for Health in the Biden administration—pressured WPATH to remove all lower age recommendations from the guidelines—not on scientific grounds, but to avoid undermining ongoing legal cases at the state level. This is politics, not sound medical practice.

The U.K.’s Cass Review, a major multi-year investigation, included a systematic review of the guidelines in gender medicine. A systematic review is considered the gold standard because it assesses and synthesizes all the available research in a field, thereby reducing bias and providing a large comprehensive set of data upon which to reach findings. The systematic review of gender medicine guidelines concluded that WPATH’s standards of care “lack developmental rigour” and should not be used as a basis for clinical practice. The Cass Review also exposed citation laundering where medical associations endlessly recycled weak evidence across interlocking guidelines to fabricate a false consensus. This led Cass to suggest that “the circularity of this approach may explain why there has been an apparent consensus on key areas of practice despite the evidence being poor.”

Countries like SwedenFinland, and the U.K. have now abandoned WPATH and limited or halted medicalized youth transitions in favour of a therapy-first approach. In Norway, UKOM, an independent government health agency, has made similar recommendations. This shows the direction of global practice is moving away from WPATH’s medicalized approach—not toward it. As part of any serious effort to “provide reasonable accounts of competing views,” your reporting should acknowledge these developments.

Any journalist who cites WPATH as a credible authority on paediatric gender medicine—especially in the absence of contextualizing or competing views—signals a lack of due diligence and a fundamental misunderstanding of the field. It demonstrates that either no independent research was undertaken, or it was ignored despite your editorial standards.

Puberty blockers don’t ‘buy time’ and are not reversible

Your article repeats a widely debunked claim: that puberty blockers are a harmless pause to allow young people time to explore their identity. In fact, studies have consistently shown that between 98 per cent and 100 per cent of children placed on puberty blockers go on to take cross-sex hormones. Before puberty blockers, most children desisted and reconciled with their birth sex during or after puberty. Now, virtually none do.

This strongly suggests that blocking puberty in fact prevents the natural resolution of gender distress. Therefore, the most accurate and up-to-date understanding is that puberty blockers function not as a pause, but as the first step in a treatment continuum involving irreversible cross-sex hormones. Indeed, a 2022 paper found that while puberty suppression had been “justified by claims that it was reversible … these claims are increasingly implausible.” Again, adherence to the Globe’s own editorial guidelines would require, at minimum, the acknowledgement of the above findings alongside the claims your May 29 article makes.

Moreover, it is categorically false to describe puberty blockers as “completely reversible.” Besides locking youth into a pathway of further medicalization, puberty blockers pose serious physical risks: loss of bone densityimpaired sexual developmentstunted fertility, and psychosocial harm from being developmentally out of sync with peers. There are no long-term safety studies. These drugs are being prescribed to children despite glaring gaps in our understanding of their long-term effects.

Given the Globe’s stated editorial commitment to principles such as “accuracy,” the crucial information from the studies linked above should be provided in any article discussing puberty blockers. At a bare minimum, in adherence to the Globe’s commitment to “balance,” this information should be included alongside the contentious and disputed claims the article makes that these treatments are reversible.

No proof of suicide prevention

The most irresponsible and dangerous claim in your article is that denying access to puberty blockers could lead to “depression, self-harm and suicide.” There is no robust evidence supporting this transition-or-suicide narrative, and in fact, the findings of the highest-quality study conducted to date found no evidence that puberty suppression reduces suicide risk.

Suicide is complex and attributing it to a single cause is not only false—it violates all established suicide reporting guidelines. Sensationalized claims like this risk creating contagion effects and fuelling panic. In the public interest, reporting on the topic of suicide must be held to the most rigorous standards, and provide the most high-quality and accurate information.

Euphemism hides medical harm

Your use of euphemistic language obscures the extreme nature of the medical interventions being performed in gender clinics. Calling double mastectomies for teenage girls “paediatric breast surgeries for gender-affirming reasons” sanitizes the medically unnecessary removal of a child’s healthy organs. Referring to phalloplasty and vaginoplasty as “gender-affirming surgeries on lower body parts” conceals the fact that these are extreme operations involving permanent disfigurement, high complication rates, and often requiring multiple revisions.

Honest journalism should not hide these facts behind comforting language. Your reporting denies youth, their parents, and the general public the necessary information to understand the nature of these interventions. Members of the general public rely greatly on the news media to equip them with such information, and your own editorial standards claim you will fulfill this core responsibility.

Your responsibility to the public

As a flagship Canadian news outlet, your responsibility is not to amplify activist messaging, but to report the truth with integrity. On a subject as medically and ethically fraught as paediatric gender medicine, accuracy is not optional. The public depends on you to scrutinize claims, not echo ideology. Parents may make irreversible decisions on behalf of their children based on the narratives you promote. When reporting is false or ideologically distorted, the cost is measured in real-world harm to some of our society’s most vulnerable young people.

I encourage the Globe and Mail to publish an updated version on this article in order to correct the public record with the relevant information discussed above, and to modify your reporting practices on this matter going forward—by meeting your own journalistic standards—so that the public receives balanced, correct, and reliable information on this vital topic.

Trustworthy journalism is a cornerstone of public health—and on the issue of paediatric gender medicine, the stakes could not be higher.

Sincerely,

Mia Hughes
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
Author of The WPATH Files

The following 41 physicians have signed to endorse this letter:
Dr. Mike Ackermann, MD
Dr. Duncan Veasey, Psy MD
Dr. Rick Gibson, MD
Dr. Benjamin Turner, MD, FRCSC
Dr. J.N. Mahy, MD, FRCSC, FACS
Dr. Khai T. Phan, MD, CCFP
Dr. Martha Fulford, MD
Dr. J. Edward Les, MD, FRCPC
Dr. Darrell Palmer, MD, FRCPC
Dr. Jane Cassie, MD, FRCPC
Dr. David Lowen, MD, FCFP
Dr. Shawn Whatley, MD, FCFP (EM)
Dr. David Zitner, MD
Dr. Leonora Regenstreif, MD, CCFP(AM), FCFP
Dr. Gregory Chan, MD
Dr. Alanna Fitzpatrick, MD, FRCSC
Dr. Chris Millburn, MD, CCFP
Dr. Julie Curwin, MD, FRCPC
Dr. Roy Eappen, MD, MDCM, FRCP (c)
Dr. York N. Hsiang, MD, FRCSC
Dr. Dion Davidson, MD, FRCSC, FACS
Dr. Kevin Sclater, MD, CCFP (PC)
Dr. Theresa Szezepaniak, MB, ChB, DRCOG
Dr. Sofia Bayfield, MD, CCFP
Dr. Elizabeth Henry, MD, CCFP
Dr. Stephen Malthouse, MD
Dr. Darrell Hamm, MD, CCFP
Dr. Dale Classen, MD, FRCSC
Dr. Adam T. Gorner, MD, CCFP
Dr. Wesley B. Steed, MD
Dr. Timothy Ehmann, MD, FRCPC
Dr. Ryan Torrie, MD
Dr. Zachary Heinricks, MD, CCFP
Dr. Jessica Shintani, MD, CCFP
Dr. Mark D’Souza, MD, CCFP(EM), FCFP*
Dr. Joanne Sinai, MD, FRCPC*
Dr. Jane Batt, MD*
Dr. Brent McGrath, MD, FRCPC*
Dr. Leslie MacMillan MD FRCPC (emeritus)*
Dr. Ian Mitchell, MD, FRCPC*
Dr. John Cunnington, MD

*Indicates physician who signed following the letter’s June 9 submission to the Globe and Mail, but in advance of this letter being published on the MLI website.

Continue Reading

Trending

X