Category: English

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Zhanna Lyubykh, Assistant Professor, Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University

About one in four employees has a diagnosable mental health condition, and up to 65 per cent say mental health concerns interfere with their ability to work.

The economic toll is staggering. In the United States alone, mental health concerns cost over $280 billion annually. Worldwide, that figure reaches an estimated US$1 trillion annually.

Mental health is increasingly being recognized as critical to workplace functioning. Organizations invest substantial resources in wellness programs, mental health training and employee assistance programs. Some even offer on-site therapy sessions at no cost to their employees.

Yet despite these efforts, many employees remain hesitant to seek help or disclose their mental health conditions. This reluctance can leave employees under-supported and contribute to increased absenteeism and turnover. Those who choose not to disclose often miss out on access to workplace accommodations and support, which can exacerbate their conditions and even increase the risk of job loss.

Disclosure can be a gateway to vital support, but questions remain about how to facilitate such disclosures. Our research, recently published as an open-access article, shows the decision to disclose a mental health condition isn’t purely personal and can depend on the broader workplace environment.

Supportive workplaces lead to better mental health

Across two samples, we surveyed 1,232 employees from Canada and the U.S. We recruited participants from Qualtrics, an online panel provider, and a large financial institution in Canada that operates across multiple locations. We asked employees — both with and without mental health concerns — to indicate the extent to which they perceived their organization as supportive of disclosing mental health concerns.

Employees with mental health concerns shared whether they had disclosed their condition to their employer, how willing they were to disclose in the future, their levels of anxiety and depression, and a range of work-related attitudes and behaviours.

We found that a work environment that was safe and supported the disclosure of mental health concerns was extremely beneficial for both employees and organizations.

First, employees working in highly supportive environments were 55 per cent more likely to disclose their mental health concerns. These environments were also linked to greater willingness to disclose current or potential mental health concerns.

Second, supportive environments were associated with lower levels of anxiety and depression, both of which are important indicators of mental health. This suggests that organizations can contribute to employee mental health by fostering supportive environments.

Third, employees who felt their organization supported disclosure reported higher job satisfaction, greater work engagement, and more organizational citizenship behaviours, such as helping co-workers or going above and beyond their job duties. These kinds of behaviours help create healthy, high-performing workplaces.

In one of our samples, we matched employee responses with their organizational records of absenteeism. We found that when employees rated their organizational environment as supportive of mental health disclosure, they were less likely to miss work due to illness.

Supporting mental health disclosure

Our study identified three elements of a workplace that support mental health disclosure. The first is the absence of stigma and anticipated discrimination. Many employees choose to conceal their concerns because they are fearful of being stigmatized, facing unfair treatment or being passed over for promotions.

Employees often pick up on subtle cues in their environment — consciously or not — to estimate the risk of stigma. If they observe colleagues with disclosed mental health conditions being treated negatively, this signals low organizational support and makes disclosure appear risky.

The second element is the availability of organizational resources. Disclosing one’s mental health concerns should unlock access to organizational supports, such as time off or counselling programs. These supports need to be tangible and go beyond mere mentions in the employee handbook. Employees form perceptions about how seriously their organization takes mental health based on whether these resources are present and accessible.

The third element is the presence of social support. Our research found that social support was an important indicator of informal culture around mental health concerns. Such support may include emotional support from peers or supervisors, and the ability to openly discuss mental health.

Employees notice whether, and how, mental health is discussed at work. When employees are encouraged to talk openly about it, the workplace appears more conducive to disclosure. In contrast, when concerns are dismissed or met with unhelpful advice such as “stay positive” or “toughen up,” the environment is unlikely to be seen as supportive.

How organizations can support disclosure

Our research points to four main strategies organizations can use to foster an environment that signals support for disclosing mental health concerns.

1. Identify areas for improvement.

Our research provides a list of survey items that organizations can use to track employee perceptions and identify priority areas for improvement. For example, employees might be asked whether they feel safe disclosing a mental health concern, or whether they believe the organization responds supportively when others do. These items can be include in annual employee surveys, with anonymity ensured to encourage honest responses.

2. Combat stigma by role modelling.

Workplace leaders are well-positioned to make positive change and role model appropriate behaviours. Employees often look to leaders and model their behaviour. Providing leaders with training about implicit biases, and equipping them with tools to provide support to employees with mental health concerns, can help start the cycle of positive change. Leaders who receive mental health training tend to be more supportive, more likely to encourage disclosure and are better able to guide employees toward appropriate help.

3. Make resources visible and easily accessible.

Even when organizations have resources available, employees may not know about them or may find them difficult to access. Organizations and managers need to frequently communicate about the availability of mental health resources and ensure they are easy to access. Red tape and bureaucracy can deter employees from accessing organizational supports.

4. Talk openly about mental health.

Talking about mental health can help normalize it and encourage employees to share their concerns. This can include intentionally creating opportunities for such discussions, such as mental health days. In addition, when senior leaders share their experiences with mental health concerns, it can help normalize such discussions.

Ultimately, a disclosure-supportive environment benefits employee mental health and encourages positive work behaviours. In other words, when employees feel safe enough to speak up, both employees and organizations benefit from it.

Zhanna Lyubykh receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Justin Weinhardt receives funding fromHaskayne School of Business’s Future Fund, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Nick Turner receives research funding from Cenovus Energy Inc., Haskayne School of Business’s Future Fund, Mitacs, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

– ref. Why employees hesitate to disclose mental health concerns – and what employers can do about it – https://theconversation.com/why-employees-hesitate-to-disclose-mental-health-concerns-and-what-employers-can-do-about-it-261158

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sam Routley, PhD Candidate, Political Science, Western University

Prime Minister Mark Carney has suggested a new trade deal with the United States is now most likely to include tariffs. There is, in his own words, “not a lot of evidence right now” that the Donald Trump administration is willing to stand down from imposing levies on Canadian imports.

In making this acknowledgement, Carney has backed down from his previous insistence that Canada would “fight to bring these tariffs to an end.”

But rather than continuing to retaliate with tariffs of its own, the government has begun to confess that such a tactic may be a losing battle.

Carney has instead announced Canada will restrict the tariff-free import of cheap, foreign steel to help domestic manufacturers reeling from American tariffs.

In the wake of the federal government’s recent concession on the Digital Services Tax levied against big American tech companies, it’s another indicator that — unlike the hawkish “elbows up” rhetoric used throughout the federal election campaign — the Canadian government has taken on a more conciliatory tone in advance of the Aug. 1 deadline for a new economic and security deal between Canada and the U.S..

Dual purposes

The timing of Carney’s comments can be interpreted two ways.

Their first and primary purpose is about message control and the need to manage expectations. In announcing this now, the government is not only better able to keep its justification for conceding to Trump at the forefront of media narratives, but it can also prepare Canadians for any further potential concessions in the course of trade negotiations.

The fact that these comments were made prior to a cabinet meeting could be seen as Carney’s attempt to isolate any cabinet ministers who may still favour a more aggressive stance.

More substantively, however, the pivot is also a reflection of the realities of both Canada’s actual position vis-à-vis the U.S. and the pragmatism needed to accomplish real trade agreements.

---

Read more:
U.S. tariff threat: How it will impact different products and industries

---

Although Trump is unpredictable, it increasingly seems that levies on imports are among his genuinely held and signature policy commitments. As Carney noted, the administration’s recent trade deals with both the United Kingdom and Vietnam included tariffs. And, despite the president’s talk of annexing Canada, Carney’s new stance suggests a more reasonable, albeit very costly, deal is possible — even amid Trump’s bluster.

Still, for all the attention they’ve received, tariffs are only part of the ongoing negotiations on the economic and security deal.

What does Trump want?

The U.S. administration, for example, continues to justify higher tariff threats not just for economic purposes, but ostensibly to counter the illegal drug trade.

The fact that the Canadian government has already allotted $1 billion to border defence makes it difficult to assess what would satisfy American negotiators.

More broadly, Trump has expressed a desire to push Canada for changes in security, supply management of the dairy industry, fresh water use and access to rare earth minerals, among others.

---

Read more:
Zombie water apocalypse: Is Trump’s rhetoric over Canada’s water science-fiction or reality?

---

Regardless of how the trade talks proceed in the coming weeks, though, the domestic consequences for Carney will be determined by how willing Canadians are to continue trusting and supporting him.

On the one hand, his comments that tariff-free trade deals with the U.S. aren’t realistic could be costly given the fact that more than two-thirds of Canadians continue to favour a hard-line stance with little to no concessions on key files.

This could result in voters viewing Carney as weak and shifting their support to other leaders. No incumbent stands to benefit from the detrimental effects on economic growth, investments and employment rate Trump’s tariffs will cause.

But support also depends on Carney’s legitimacy. He could maintain public support despite the fact that, on paper, they oppose his actions. Taking a “hard” versus “soft” line in negotiations is itself an ambiguous and fluid set of designations.

A major reason why Canadians elected Carney is because they viewed him as having sound personal judgment and the skill set to deal with Trump. This is why, rather than challenging the value of the decision to compromise on tariffs, the Conservatives and other opponents have focused on conveying him as an unreliable and dishonest leader.

What’s ahead for federal politics?

At this point, polls suggest that Canadians are generally split down the middle on Carney. While around 50 per cent of Canadians are supportive, the other half remain divided between those strongly opposed and those with a more ambiguous position.

Could Carney win over the support of those with an unambiguous view? It seems unlikely. Leaders are the usually the most impactful when they enter office. And while rally-around-the-flag effects are real, they are short-lived. That means the long-term challenge for Carney remains maintaining the support of the voters that brought him to power.

---

Read more:
How Canadian nationalism is evolving with the times — and will continue to do so

---

The Canada-U.S. relationship will continue to develop in a dynamic and unpredictable fashion, even if the economic and security deal is reached soon.

After voters dramatically consolidated around the Liberals and Conservatives in the 2025 election, the most important question for federal Canadian politics moving forward in this shifting global environment is which electoral coalition will endure.

Carney seeks to preserve trust, while the Conservatives search for a compelling alternative. Who will come out on top in the Trump 2.0 era?

Sam Routley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Elbows down? Why Mark Carney seems to keep caving to Donald Trump – https://theconversation.com/elbows-down-why-mark-carney-seems-to-keep-caving-to-donald-trump-261304

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jamie Benham, Endocrinologist & Assistant Professor, Departments of Medicine and Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary

Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) is a hormonal imbalance that affects ovaries, periods and fertility in about one in 10 Canadian women. Different from ovarian cysts, PCOS is associated with infertility, pregnancy complications, heart disease and a general decreased quality of life, and yet fewer than half of those affected even know they have it.

This under-recognition and under-diagnosis is a significant problem, because a recent Canadian study suggests these women are 20 to 40 per cent more likely to experience negative health outcomes during their lifetime than the general population, including hypertension (high blood pressure), kidney disease, gastrointestinal disease, eating disorders, depression and anxiety.

Heart disease risk

The Canadian researchers also found obesity, dyslipidemia (abnormal levels of fat in your blood) and Type 2 diabetes to be two to three times more common for women with PCOS. And most importantly, cardiovascular disease, which causes heart failure and stroke, was not only 30 to 50 per cent more likely, but occurred three to four years earlier than average in women with PCOS.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide, so when PCOS symptoms are missed and untreated, women’s health is at risk.

High cost

There is undoubtedly a personal cost to individual women, both physically and mentally, and living with PCOS can be a significant financial, health-care and work-life burden for many women, too, which may disproportionately affect those in lower socioeconomic groups.

These experiences are further compounded by a system failure to properly diagnose and manage their symptoms. Women report doctors ignoring or dismissing their concerns, not believing them and struggling to make a diagnosis. In fact, a large international survey reported it can take several months, and even several years, before women are diagnosed.

Common PCOS symptoms

PCOS symptoms can vary between different women, but it is important to discuss the possibility of PCOS with your doctor, because careful management and/or treatment can help protect against developing more serious related health issues. Common symptoms include:

• Irregular periods
• Excess body hair, called hirsutism (usually darker hair on the face, arms, chest or abdomen)
• Thinning or loss of hair (like excess body hair, this is caused by high levels of male hormones, or androgens)
• Acne and/or oily skin
• Weight gain

Managing and treating PCOS

Despite PCOS first being diagnosed almost a century ago, there is no single test to confirm whether a woman has it, and there is no cure. If your doctor suspects you may have PCOS, they may order blood work to check your hormone levels and an ultrasound to check your ovaries.

Unlike ovarian cysts, which are fluid-filled sacs that develop on or inside an ovary and can be painful, polycystic ovaries are enlarged, with multiple follicles that can be seen on ultrasound.

If PCOS is diagnosed, further testing for cholesterol and glucose levels is likely in order to manage heart disease and diabetes risk.

Researchers also suggest ways women with PCOS can help manage their condition, which include:

• Eating a healthy diet
• Exercising regularly (including strength training with weights)
• Sleeping for at least seven hours each night
• Reducing stress (work-life balance; deep breathing exercises)
• Relaxing in your favourite way (such as yoga, mindfulness and meditation, hobbies)

PCOS research underway

Despite the current problems, improvement is possible, and there have been sustained efforts in recent years — all over the world — to advocate for women with this condition and invest in PCOS research.

In 2023, an International PCOS Guideline, led from Australia, was published. It recommends an individualized approach to PCOS treatment, including lifestyle modifications (for example, healthy eating and exercising), medical management to treat symptoms and regular checkups to provide support and screen for related complications.

In Canada, the province of Alberta recently launched a much-needed clinical pathway to recognize, treat and advocate for PCOS that could be adopted more widely.

At the University of Calgary, Dr. Jamie Benham, one of the authors of this story, leads EMBRACE (Endocrine, Metabolic and Reproductive Advancements), a new women’s health research lab where a team of clinical researchers is focusing on reproductive disorders across the whole of a woman’s life system, including PCOS and gestational diabetes.

This work, supporting patients’ PCOS care, includes a current online needs-assessment survey, and focus groups beginning later this year, to inform the development of a co-designed patient tool to support PCOS management.

Patient engagement

With such a huge demand for answers, the EMBRACE team works closely with a PCOS Patient Advisory Council, chaired by Robyn Vettese, another author of this story, to uncover complex connections between hormones and health, promote screening, find solutions and provide answers. Importantly, the lab’s research questions come directly from clinic patients, and the answers the lab finds go back to those patients and are then shared more widely.

Other recent PCOS advocacy events include Dr. Benham’s presentation at the inaugural Sex, Gender and Women’s Health Research Hub’s Women’s Health Symposium event in Calgary, and her interview with the Libin Cardiovascular Institute.

PCOS awareness

Another exciting research program in Alberta is PCOS Together. Researchers with this group are working to establish methods that will detect early disease risk in all women with PCOS, as well as clinical interventions that will help prevent disease in high-risk women.

Similar organizations exist in the United Kingdom and Australia, including Verity PCOS, a volunteer-based charity, and Ask PCOS, a researcher- and clinician-led organization. Both organizations provide a wealth of information online.

This is a critical (albeit often overlooked) area of women’s health that needs greater awareness and attention so that we can improve and save women’s lives.

Jamie Benham receives funding from the M.S.I. Foundation, Diabetes Canada, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Robyn Vettese receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Pauline McDonagh Hull does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a big threat to women’s health, but it’s still under-recognized, under-diagnosed and under-treated – https://theconversation.com/polycystic-ovary-syndrome-pcos-is-a-big-threat-to-womens-health-but-its-still-under-recognized-under-diagnosed-and-under-treated-259602

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Meaghan Efford, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia

Burrard Inlet, known traditionally as səl̓ilwəɬ (Tsleil-Wat) in the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ language, has been the heart of the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the səl̓ilwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh Nation) since time immemorial.

The inlet is a water system that wraps through and around what we now know today as the city of Vancouver on the coast of British Columbia. The ecosystem is home to essential habitat for species like Pacific herring, Pacific salmon and harbour seals.

Burrard Inlet is also host to many commercial, industrial and urban developments and interests. This includes the Port of Vancouver, one of the largest marine ports in Canada and the terminal end of the Trans Mountain Pipeline. Today, more than 2.5 million people call the area home and it’s a popular tourism spot.

This is relatively new, however. Colonization and urbanization have caused intense change and damage since Europeans first settled in the area in around 1792, with most changes occurring since the 1880s.

Through a collaborative research project between the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, the University of British Columbia, engineering consultant firm Kerr Wood Leidal and Mitacs Canada, we assessed the impact of colonization on the Burrard Inlet ecosystem since Europeans first settled in the area.

When we look at the cumulative effects of specific events, we are adding the individual impacts of each event together to get a fuller picture of how colonialism impacted the ecosystem.

How we tracked change over time

We chose four sources of stress to the ecosystem to assess for this research:

1) The impact of smallpox on the ancestral Tsleil-Waututh population and the resulting health of the inlet.

2) The impact of settler fisheries, including Pacific salmon and Pacific herring.

3) The impact of settler hunting on land animals, including deer.

4) The impact of urbanization on the health of the ecosystem.

We used an ecosystem modelling software program called Ecopath with Ecosim, and modelled how these events impacted the inlet ecosystem between 1750-1980. We found there was a significant decrease in biomass (how much of a given organism is in an ecosystem) and available habitat.

We focused on 12 animal groups based on another collaborative project that focused on traditional Tsleil-Waututh diets.

To do this, we drew on multiple sources of data, including Tsleil-Waututh traditional ecological knowledge, archeological data, historical and archival work and ecological resources.

By combining these different sources of information, we can address gaps in each data source and weave together information to paint a fuller picture of ecological change over time.

What we found

Our research highlights how shoreline change from events like the construction of the Port of Vancouver resulted in the loss of more than half of the intertidal habitat that clams, crabs, birds and fish rely on.

Along with over-harvesting, this has resulted in a dramatic population decline for these species. Clams and other bivalves have also become unsafe to eat due to pollution.

Over-fishing has been a huge problem. Forage fish, including Pacific herring, eulachon, surf smelt and Northern anchovy, collectively experienced a 99 per cent decline in biomass.

Pacific herring was completely wiped out by dynamite fishing, and only recently returned.

Pink salmon and chum salmon both experienced more than 40 per cent losses in biomass due to over-fishing. White sturgeon were almost wiped out.

Mammals didn’t fare any better: three-quarters of the deer and elk populations and over one-quarter of the harbour seal population in the area around the inlet were lost to hunting.

Smallpox had a devastating effect on Salish communities throughout the region. The loss of lives caused dramatic change in the ecosystem because it reduced how much food was taken out of the ecosystem significantly.

The smallpox epidemics only touch the surface of how colonization impacted Indigenous lives. Other events that we didn’t include in the model — like the Residential School system and the Reserve System, for example — severely limited or criminalized stewardship activities that Tsleil-Waututh and other Nations have been using to take care of their territory for millennia.

Tsleil-Waututh stewardship and sovereignty

Tsleil-Waututh people are specialists in managing and stewarding the marine, tidal and terrestrial resources of the inlet’s ecosystem. Tsleil-Waututh salmon stewardship sustainably maintained a chum salmon fishery for almost 3,000 years.

The research questions, priorities and direction of our project were established through frequent collaborative meetings. This approach ensured Tsleil-Waututh co-authors and colleagues were involved in every step of the research.

This kind of community-driven work is complex. It is also incredibly valuable for understanding ecosystem change over time. Without the leadership and knowledge of Tsleil-Waututh knowledge-holders, this research would have had massive data and knowledge gaps and the work would have much less significance.

This is an example of transdisciplinary research: research that is interdisciplinary, that draws on multiple disciplines for data and methods and is grounded in community from the beginning.

Our research shows that colonialism has had a devastating impact on habitats and biodiversity in and around Burrard Inlet. This is not just an ecological story, but a human story that speaks to the wide-reaching impacts of colonization. It is an intertwined story that shows how harmful colonization and rapid urbanization can be, both to humans and to the ecosystems we call home.

Meaghan Efford received funding from Mitacs Canada through a collaborative project with Tsleil-Waututh Nation.

– ref. Colonization devastated biodiversity, habitats and human life in the Pacific Northwest – https://theconversation.com/colonization-devastated-biodiversity-habitats-and-human-life-in-the-pacific-northwest-260791

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Shiva S. Mohan, Research Fellow, Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration & Integration program, Toronto Metropolitan University

Canada’s federal government recently introduced the Strong Borders Act, also known as Bill C-2, that proposes Canada tighten migration controls and modernize border enforcement between Canada and the United States.

Critics have warned the bill “could pave the way for mass deportations” as well as increase precarity for legal migrants.

---

Read more:
Why Canada’s Strong Borders Act is as troublesome as Donald Trump’s travel bans

---

Even now, under existing laws, a migrant could be “legal” and still be denied health care, lose their job or effectively be unable to leave Canada for fear of being denied re-entry.

Bill C-2’s expanded enforcement powers and increased risk of status revocation could make these precarities much worse.

This is already the quiet reality for thousands of migrants in Canada under their “maintained status”, formerly “implied status.” This status is a legal provision designed to protect continuity for temporary residents who apply to extend their permits.

Maintained status itself is not the problem. On paper, it offers legal protection.

But in practice, it often collapses because of the ecosystem in which it operates: fragmented institutions, absent co-ordination and lack of transparency.

Maintained status has been narrowed

In May 2025, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) quietly narrowed the scope of maintained status.

Under the new rules, if a person’s first application is refused while they are on maintained status, any second application submitted during that period is now automatically refused.

This effectively strips applicants of legal status, including protections under maintained status, to remain in Canada. The change shows how even compliant migrants can lose status abruptly, further heightening the insecurity built into the system.

This is a clear expression of complex precarity: a condition in which migrants face legal, economic and social insecurity, even when they follow all the rules.

Maintained status is just one example of this larger phenomenon of Canadian policy generating hidden forms of exclusion.

Legal, but not recognized?

Migrants on maintained status are legally allowed to stay in Canada and continue working or studying under the same conditions as their expired permit. Yet no new permit is issued to confirm this status.

Proof of this legal standing varies depending on how a person applies. Those who apply online may receive a WP-EXT letter confirming their right to continue working. However, this isn’t issued to post-graduation work-permit holders, and expires after 365 days.

Paper-based applicants are advised that no such letter will be provided. Instead, they must rely on a copy of their application, a fee payment receipt or courier tracking information to demonstrate continued legal status.

If no letter is available, or once it expires, IRCC advises applicants to direct employers to the Help Centre web page as proof of their right to remain and work.

These workarounds are legally valid but fall short of what many employers, landlords and service providers consider adequate proof of status.

---

Read more:
Canada’s new immigration policy favours construction workers but leaves the rest behind

---

The limits of informal proof

My current ongoing research points to how employers following rigid HR protocols often reject informal documentation. Some migrants even obtain letters from immigration lawyers to explain their legal right to remain and work.

IRCC does not publish public data on the number of people on maintained status or how long they remain in that condition. Some front-line organizations have adjusted their services in response to this gap.

MOSAIC, for example, a major settlement agency in British Columbia, explicitly lists “migrant workers on maintained status” as eligible for support. This signals institutional recognition of the category.

The broader situation, however, reflects a disconnect between legal recognition by the state and practical verifiability in everyday life.

The risk of travel

Travel while on maintained status is legally permitted only under narrow conditions, such as holding a valid Temporary Resident Visa, being visa-exempt or returning from the U.S. under specific circumstances.

But even in these cases, leaving Canada terminates maintained status.

Migrants may be allowed to re-enter as visitors, but they cannot resume work or study until a new permit is issued. This introduces major uncertainties for people who may need to travel for family, emergencies or professional obligations.

Disparities in provincial health access

Access to public health insurance during maintained status varies widely across provinces.

In Ontario, OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) cards are directly tied to the expiration of work permits. Unless migrants know to proactively request extended coverage and can meet specific document requirements, they risk losing health insurance entirely. Even when eligible, coverage is not automatic and may require out-of-pocket payment pending reimbursement.

In Québec, RAMQ (Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec) treats migrants on maintained status like new arrivals. They must reregister for coverage and face a three-month waiting period from the time of renewal, regardless of continuous legal presence.

In British Columbia, by contrast, the MSP (Medical Services Plan) offers temporary coverage for up to six months (extendable) to individuals on maintained status, provided they previously held MSP and submit IRCC receipt proof.

This more inclusive approach highlights how uneven provincial co-ordination amplifies the precarity of federal policy.

Infrastructure is needed immediately

Migrants face great risks on maintained status.

Despite investments in automation and digital infrastructure, IRCC continues to experience chronic processing delays, leaving migrants in prolonged uncertainty: legally present, but practically unrecognized.

To address this, Canada needs systems and resources designed to uphold legal recognition in daily life. It needs to:

• Create a secure centralized portal that allows migrants to control who can verify their legal status in real time. The U.K.’s share code platform and the American myE‑Verify system provide clear examples of how this can work, reducing confusion for employers, landlords, and service providers.

• Issue co-ordinated provincial guidance, particularly regarding access to essential services such as health care, so that front-line staff have clarity on migrants’ rights under maintained status.

• Protect continuity of status after international travel, ensuring that those who leave Canada while on maintained status do not lose the ability to return and resume work or study.

As Canada advances legislation like Bill C‑2, we must not ignore the country’s quiet erosion of its existing legal architecture for migrants.

Migrants on maintained status have followed the rules.

If we are serious about building trust in immigration systems, we must commit to infrastructure that is workable, visible and fair.

Shiva S. Mohan receives funding from the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration and Integration Program at Toronto Metropolitan University. He has no other affiliations or financial interests that would benefit from this article.

– ref. Canada’s proposed Strong Borders Act further threatens the legal rights of migrants – https://theconversation.com/canadas-proposed-strong-borders-act-further-threatens-the-legal-rights-of-migrants-259349