When Canada abstained from a recent vote at the United Nations on a resolution recognizing the transatlantic slave trade as the gravest crime against humanity, the decision may have appeared cautious, even procedural.

It was neither.

Abstention, in this situation, is not neutral position. It’s a firm stance — one that carries legal, political and historical consequences.

A vote about legal meaning, not just history

At first glance, the resolution might seem symbolic; a statement about a past atrocity with a moral status that’s already globally accepted. But in international law, recognition is never merely descriptive. It helps define legal norms and the scope of responsibility.

The category of “crimes against humanity” has evolved significantly since its early articulation at the Nuremberg Trials in the 1940s. What began as a response to the atrocities of the Second World War has developed into an important pillar of international criminal and human rights law.

Identifying the transatlantic slave trade as the gravest crime against humanity isn’t simply restating history. It situates that history within the legal architecture that governs how we understand atrocity, responsibility and redress today.

The resolution passed with 123 votes in favour. The United States, Argentina and Israel voted against it, while 52 states abstained, including the United Kingdom, Canada and all European Union member states, including Spain.

By abstaining, Canada did not opt out of a symbolic gesture. It declined to participate in shaping the legal meaning of one of international law’s most significant categories.

The myth of absention as neutrality

In multilateral diplomacy, absention is usually framed as a middle ground; a way to avoid taking sides. But in practice, especially in process of creating legal norms, absention can function as a form of resistance.

Votes at the UN General Assembly are part of how international norms are consolidated, clarified and sometimes contested. When states abstain from resolutions that seek to expand or develop those norms, they signal hesitation about the direction of that particular legal development.

Canada’s absention therefore raises questions about alignment. It places the country neither among those states affirming a stronger legal characterization of the slave trade nor among those openly opposing it. Instead, Canada now occupies a position of ambiguity — one that may reflect concerns about legal implications, including potential claims for reparations.

But ambiguity isn’t without impact. In the politics of international law, declining to affirm a legal norm can slow its consolidation and weaken its force.

Why recognition still matters

If the transatlantic slave trade is widely acknowledged as a profound injustice, why does formal recognition matter? Because recognition is tied to how harm is measured, narrated and addressed.

Efforts to grapple with the legacies of slavery increasingly involve questions of quantification, of loss, of dispossession and of enduring inequality. Legal recognition, including reports of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, shapes these process by establishing what counts as a harm of the highest order and therefore what kinds of responses are justified.

This is particularly evident in ongoing debates about reparations, where claims are often grounded in the characterization of slavery and the slave trade as crimes against humanity. Without clear and consistent recognition, these claims face higher legal and political barriers.

In this sense, the resolution isn’t only about the past. It’s about the frameworks through which historical injustice is made visible in the present.

A choice with consequences

Canada has long positioned itself as a supporter of international human rights and the rule of law. Abstaining on the UN’s slavery resolution is at odds with that self-perception.

States may have reasons to be cautious in endorsing specific resolutions about legal responsibility. But those reasons should be clearly stated and open to scrutiny.

Absention avoids that scrutiny. It allows states to sidestep difficult questions about history, law and accountability while maintaining the appearance of neutrality.

But there is no neutral ground in the recognition of crimes against humanity. There are only choices about what to affirm, what to resist and what to leave unresolved.

Canada has made one such choice. It should be prepared to explain it.

Julie Ada Tchoukou 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.

Canada’s Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) was established in 1967 to respond to historic racism and nationality bias in Canada’s immigration system. Granting points for age, education, official language skills, Canadian work experience and family ties, the CRS ranks applicants for permanent residency.

The federal government recently proposed changes to CRS points, including the elimination of some point categories. While family-related points are proposed for removal, age-based criteria are not.

My research delves into the legal, ethical and policy reasons why Canada should ditch age-based immigration points.

Age-based points are Charter violations

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly prohibits age discrimination in the equality clause of Section 15(1). According to the Supreme Court’s Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration decision, the Charter applies to anyone who is physically present in Canada, including non-citizens.

Many people who apply for permanent residence do so from within Canada. In fact, the federal government has introduced a two-year initiative — in 2026 and 2027 — to fast-track permanent residence for skilled workers who are already in Canada in specific high-demand sectors.

According to the lawyers I interviewed for my book, Age and Immigration Policy in Canada, such individuals would have solid legal grounds to launch a Charter challenge. They could claim that the points system constitutes age discrimination in violation of Canadian law.

Ageist immigration policies

Age discrimination embedded in the points system also contradicts Canadian values. Currently, a person gets zero points for age if they are under 18 or over 45.

Imagine the public outcry if a person received zero points for being a woman? Or for being a racialized person? Many Canadians would rightly call out such overtly sexist and racist policies.

Similarly, points for age undermine the merit-based foundations of the CRS. They contradict rights-based hiring practices that prohibit asking candidates their age and stereotyping older workers.

My archival research suggests the architect of the CRS, then-Deputy Immigration Minister Tom Kent, did not have a clear policy rationale for the initial age-based points. One historian has argued: “The points system, as it was originally conceived, has as much to do with politics as with labour markets.”

There is also some internal contradiction within the points system between the decreasing points for age and the increasing points for education and work experience. The latter rely on the passage of chronological time, while the former subtracts points for it.

Age-based points are bad policy

Policymakers and public commentators sometimes justify age discrimination in the points system by claiming that older immigrants are likely to take more from Canada than they are to give. But research shows that this is empirically incorrect.

First, Canadian and Québec pension plans are contributory — benefits are calculated by lifetime earnings in Canada. For Old Age Security, people must be residents of Canada for at least 10 years to qualify, and they must have resided here for at least 40 years to receive the maximum benefit.

As a result, immigrants to Canada receive fewer contributions and are more likely to be poor than any other group of Canadians when they retire.

Second, while some may assume older immigrants will be a burden on the health-care system, the “healthy immigrant effect” is well-documented.

Newcomers also tend to under-use health services. What’s more, there’s a waiting period for universal health coverage. Some immigrants actually return to their home countries to access time-sensitive or culturally appropriate care.

Read more: Why is Canada snubbing internationally trained doctors during a health-care crisis?

Third, people over the age of 45 contribute indirectly to the Canadian economy in ways that are not captured in formal economic data. For example, they undertake unpaid work in family businesses or provide free child care to enable their adult children to work outside the home.

Given these legal, ethical and empirical concerns about age-based points, the time has come to eliminate them altogether. Ongoing public consultations on the CRS are a historic opportunity for Canadians to oppose the age discrimination that has been normalized in our immigration system for too long.

Christina Clark-Kazak receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

In February 2025, the Canadian government announced Alto, a high-speed rail line that will eventually connect Toronto to Québec City. In November, the government said it would introduce new legislation to speed up the project.

One of its proposed benefits is that electrified, high-speed rail will help Canada reduce emissions and meet its climate targets. Alto says the project will help prevent many short-haul flights and remove the carbon emissions equivalent to 100,000 cars from the road each year.

But Alto is unlikely to meaningfully reduce Canada’s GHG emissions. There are indeed benefits from high-speed rail development, including bolstered regional connectivity and economic growth. However, a significant reduction in emissions is not a realistic outcome.

Claimed emissions reductions

Alto — the federal Crown corporation developing the project — said that by getting passengers out of vehicles, “we can collectively remove up to 90 billion vehicle kilometres travelled from the roads over the project’s lifecycle, equivalent to approximately 100 thousand cars’ worth of travel removed annually from the roads.”

While 39 million tonnes may sound large, it’s a relatively small GHG reduction from the point of view of a national-scale infrastructure project lasting more than 60 years. It’s akin to only 0.65 megatonnes of CO2 per year of the project through to the mid-2080s.

For reference, Canada’s annual emissions today are about 1,000 times greater than that. When framed in the context of existing annual emissions, the claimed reductions are modest.

Induced demand

Alto’s expected reduction in vehicle and air travel is likely an overestimate. Research into 210 projects in 14 nations found that ridership forecasts for high-speed rail are often higher than what eventually comes to pass. This gets at another challenge with high-speed rail’s energy impacts: induced demand.

One of the real benefits of high-speed rail development is economic growth. This arises because a new high-speed train makes new forms of economic activity possible.

It reduces the time it takes to travel between cities, making greater connectivity possible, while also increasing tourism opportunities. In theory, it also expands the distance that workers are willing to commute, which could create new housing development opportunities in regions that otherwise would not have experienced them.

Nevertheless, these same benefits potentially undermine some of the environmental arguments for high-speed rail. These new economic opportunities induce new transport demand — not only for the new train but for other modes of travel as well.

Research in this area suggests that about 20 per cent of high-speed rail traffic could be made up of new travellers who would not have made the trip otherwise. That does leave up to 80 per cent of high-speed rail travellers switching from another mode of transportation. However, there are a couple of reasons why that may not result in significant GHG reductions in Canada.

First, many travellers will be those who would have taken the conventional train and who will merely switch to the high-speed train instead. This would indeed mark a lower emissions journey given that VIA Rail’s current trains are diesel-powered. But it’s not as substantive a reduction as switching from air travel, for example.

In addition, sales of electric vehicles are expected to increase rapidly in the coming years. If EVs become more commonplace, or even the norm, the government must consider whether a diverted automobile trip in the decades to come would be diverting a passenger from a (GHG-emitting) combustion engine or a (non-emitting) electric one.

Much of the diverted automobile traffic for high-speed rail — by the time the train line is built — will likely come from EVs. That leaves diverting traffic from aircraft as the main way to reduce transport emissions. Yet even this sector is also expected to electrify in the coming decades.

In fact, it is precisely the short-haul flight market within the busy Québec City-Windsor corridor where small electric aircraft are set to debut in Canada. Airlines have already put in orders for electric planes, which may even enter into service before the first rail link is built.

Emissions from construction

Another significant effect that could increase GHG emissions would be the construction of the rail infrastructure itself. This would not be inconsequential: 1,000 kilometres of dedicated tracks within a swathe of land several dozen metres wide, featuring overpasses and tunnelling to ensure there are no grade crossings with roads, not to mention the need for overhead power lines.

The sheer amount of concrete, steel and copper required to build Alto will be immense, and would contribute to Canada’s GHG emissions during construction.

This is not to say Alto shouldn’t be built, nor that it’s a bad idea. The construction and operation of a high-speed rail line would generate growth and socioeconomic value for Canada.

It would create tens of thousands of construction jobs, billions of dollars in new opportunities annually and could help revive Canada’s suffering steel sector (currently dealing with tariff pressures from the United States).

Such infrastructure could very well be operated without producing much GHG emissions, and fit well within Canada’s aims for a future net-zero society. But this doesn’t mean that introducing a high-speed train itself would substantially help in Canada’s near-term climate mitigation efforts. It won’t.

Ryan M. Katz-Rosene 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.

School absenteeism is a major concern across Canada — and beyond.

As researchers with the Canadian School Attendance Partnership, we have been exploring this issue for a few years, motivated by concerns raised by families, community agencies and school districts.

Canada is one of the few countries without a clear national picture of school absenteeism.

We draw on pieces of data to get an informed estimate of this. Our data comes from the OECD’s global Programme for International Student Assessment, school district reports, news reports via freedom of information requests — and from research studies.

The most common international metric of “chronic absenteeism” refers to 10 per cent of missed instructional days in the year. Our figures suggest that across the provinces, figures range from 35 per cent to three-quarters of all students missing at least 10 per cent of instructional days annually.

Systemic barriers, mental health issues, insufficient school supports and intergenerational distrust of formal schooling are among the factors that intertwine to impact whether a student goes to school.

Need to disaggregate absenteeism data

But the story of absenteeism lies in part in the disaggregation of this data. Students with disabilities, those who are Indigenous and those who identify as 2SLGBTQI are among the most likely to miss school.

Many students with disabilities who miss school are not even counted in absenteeism data. They may experience informal exclusions via being sent home for behavioural reasons or may be placed on part-time schedules.

They are also suspended at higher rates — all of which results in them missing hours of social interaction and classroom instruction.

Factors pertaining to disability, mental health

The problem must also be understood amid the ongoing child and youth mental-health crisis.

Population research suggests roughly 70 per cent of Canadian students have experienced a decline in at least one area of mental health since 2020 and poor mental health is a well-known risk factor for absenteeism.

Different patterns of mental health have been uniquely associated with school absence: for example, anxiety and depression tend to be linked to school avoidance, whereas behaviours like aggression are more often associated with school exclusion and suspensions.

Children and youth with neurodevelopmental disabilities, such as ADHD and autism, are at a particularly high risk. These risks are cumulative, so that children with multiple mental-health challenges experience the most absences and impairments in daily functioning.

Read more: Many autistic students are denied a full education — here’s what we need for inclusive schools

Research indicates that increased absenteeism can worsen existing mental-health challenges and vice versa.

While Canadian research is limited, data from other countries suggests contexts like family strain, socioeconomic disadvantage, sleep disruption, bullying and loneliness likely underlie the connection between absenteeism and mental health.

Absenteeism and academic achievement

School absenteeism, and its disproportionate rates for some student populations, is particularly worrisome given the powerful connections that exist between it and academic achievement.

Beyond access to classroom instruction and assessment, students who are chronically absent miss out on programs, peer connections, mentorship opportunities and school-based services.

These “missing links” impact students’ success and development — crucial for students with needs that put them at risk for poor academic outcomes.

New Brunswick, Ontario approach

Educators and leaders in different school districts across Canada understand the issues raised by absenteeism and are taking a variety of approaches to address them.

New Brunswick mounted a multi-tiered system of supports including school-based protocols and progressive strategies that include family and community partnerships.

In Ontario, the Ministry of Education recently shared its concerns about levels of school attendance, acknowledging the key link with academic achievement.

In response, the province has proposed legislation to make attendance worth 10-15 per cent of the final course mark in Grades 9 to 12. Students whose absences are approved by their family will not be penalized.

Is this approach likely to work? For the students with disabilities and mental health needs, not likely. Here are some reasons why.

Could students really attend if they chose?

Research provides minimal support for how effective incentives are in boosting attendance unless these are accompanied by broader reforms and targeted supports.

Incentives assume attendance is primarily a motivational issue — that students could attend if they chose to. But this isn’t always the case: think, for example, about a student who is kept home to watch younger siblings while a parent goes to work.

Attaching marks to attendance tends to benefit students already well-positioned to attend. Policies that rely on incentives risk shifting responsibility onto students rather than strengthening the conditions that make attendance possible.

What families say about complex reasons

Many of the families we have encountered in our research describe complex interactions between disabilities and mental-health needs that prevent their children from attending.

Parents may withdraw their child because of concerns about the learning or social environment, or their child may be sent home because of an educational assistant calling in sick or because of school concerns about student behaviour.

These students are also far more likely to be suspended and face various disciplinary consequences.

A narrow, grades-based approach to improving attendance fails to account for these students at best, and penalizes them at worst.

Problems with excused absences

Although the Ontario policy specifies that excused absences won’t affect grades, there’s strong evidence that all students are not equally likely to have absences formally excused.

Access to medical care, parental availability and resources, familiarity with school processes and relationships with schools all influence whether an absence is recorded as excused.

As a result, attendance-based grading policies can unintentionally compound existing inequities rather than reduce them.

Big-picture approaches

Effective approaches to increase attendance require a mix of systemic, big-picture approaches and student and family-focused solutions.

Collecting and sharing data that tells the different stories of student absences in a variety of ways can guide interventions.

Creating school environments that meaningfully include and support learning for all students, socially and academically, is key — these also need to prioritize relationships between students, families, educators and broader communities.

Accountability for absenteeism needs to be expanded beyond students, families and schools to include the broader societal resources that affect absenteeism for students with disabilities and others — resources like housing, social services, transportation and access to health care.

Absenteeism is not an individual but a societal issue. Solutions need to address the multiple layers in which students are embedded to have a chance of reversing this problem.

Jess Whitley receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

David Smith receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Natasha McBrearty receives funding from Vanier, a research grant from the government of Canada.

Maria Rogers 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.