Category: English

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Susanna Klassen, Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Sociology, University of Victoria

Canada’s ongoing trade dispute with the United States has increased consumer awareness of domestic food products, with some experts arguing that food should be considered a matter of national defence.

While support for buying local food is increasing — one study found two-thirds of Canadians were willing to pay more for local food — there is still much that gets left off the table in conversations about local food.

The “buy local” adage doesn’t address the deeper issues with Canada’s food production systems. Inter-provincial trade barriers, outdated pesticide regulations, food insecurity and other gaps in Canadian food policy all undermine Canada’s ability to build an equitable and sustainable food system.

Most critically, discussions about local food often overlook the very people that make food production possible: farm workers. These workers form the backbone of the agricultural sector, yet many face unsafe working conditions, inadequate pay and exclusion from basic labour protections.

The human cost of agriculture

Improving job quality in agriculture is important not just for the economic viability of regional food systems, but also because agricultural work is notoriously dangerous, dirty, demeaning and devalued.

An increasing proportion of Canada’s agricultural labour — about one-quarter — is performed by migrant workers from the Temporary Foreign Worker program. These workers are tied to their employers, and often face dismissal or repatriation if something goes wrong at work. This institutionalized deportability leaves many farm workers vulnerable to exploitation.

Read more:
Canada needs to overhaul the Temporary Foreign Worker program, not just tinker with it

Agricultural work in Canada is defined by precarity, suppression and exclusion. Workers often face a lack of access to health care, unhealthy living conditions and unsafe workplaces.

This is not by chance. Farm work has historically been exempt from labour-protective laws due to a long-standing belief in agricultural exceptionalism — the idea that because it’s subject to uncontrollable factors such as weather, and contributes to national food security, agriculture should be afforded special state support and regulatory exemptions.

In practice, many believe agricultural work should not be held to the same standards as jobs in other sectors. Farm workers are often excluded from important safeguards in many jurisdictions, like overtime pay.

When combined with precarious immigration status, even the limited protections that farm workers have access to on paper may not be accessible in practice.

Why organic farmers are struggling

To better understand why some employers provide better conditions for hired farm workers, we surveyed organic farmers growing vegetables — a nutritionally important and labour-intensive industry — in British Columbia.

We asked farmers about what motivates their farming decisions, the characteristics of their farm and about their perceptions of how to improve job quality for hired workers.

We focused on organic farmers because organics are often viewed by consumers as more sustainable, and the industry has aligned itself with the value of fairness in Canada, including worker well-being. In theory, organic farmers should be among the most motivated to provide good jobs for their employees.

Despite this ethical alignment, we found that both certified and non-certified organic farms in B.C. scored poorly on most aspects of job quality that we measured, including employment and grievance procedures, paid time off and extended health benefits.

Organic farms performed better on practices related to occupational health and physical strain, such as using strategies to reduce repetitive motion for workers.

The limits of good intentions

Many farmers reported social justice-oriented motivations for job quality improvement, but they were often unable to translate these ideas into practice.

The most commonly reported barrier to improving job quality was cost, while the strongest predictor of better practices was farm economic size, measured by farm revenue and income.

In larger enterprises, investments in infrastructure and procedural improvements to labour quality can be justified because they are perceived to benefit more workers and support more complex farm operations.

However, the link between larger farms and higher job quality may belie another relationship: bigger farms are better positioned to hire workers through the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, which has specific requirements for wages and terms of employment. At the same time, the program produces power imbalances that can lead to the mistreatment and structural disempowerment of migrant workers, which is certainly bad for job quality.

Our results also suggest that the price premiums from selling food organically don’t appear to be enough to overcome the perceived financial barriers of implementing job quality measures.

A resilient and affordable food system depends on good quality jobs in agriculture. Failing to address job quality for farm workers is a missed opportunity. Many low-cost improvements to support safe and decent working conditions exist, and programs to ensure living wages for farm workers should ensure organic and ecologically produced food is affordable for all Canadians.

Susanna Klassen receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Hannah Wittman receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. Canada’s food sovereignty depends on better jobs for farmworkers – https://theconversation.com/canadas-food-sovereignty-depends-on-better-jobs-for-farmworkers-268166

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael Kehler, Research Professor, Masculinities Studies, School of Education, University of Calgary

In a marathon Game 7 of the 2025 World Series at the Rogers Centre, the Toronto Blue Jays fell to the Los Angeles Dodgers in 11 innings. It was a devastating finish to a series defined by unforgettable plays.

The series left fans with indelible memories of hits, runs and near-misses — unbelievable and inexplicable moments that few will forget in the years to come. But that wasn’t all the stood out.

From chants for Vladdy — first baseman Vladimir Guerrero Jr. — to calls for a “Springer Dinger” from designated hitter George Springer, fans also witnessed something deeper: the unmistakable emotional connection among these elite male athletes.

In a post-Game 7 interview, utility player Ernie Clement tearfully expressed his love for his teammates while acknowledging the emotional toll of the series.

Pitcher Chris Bassitt described the bond between the team as “true love.” The sentiment echoed by many of the players was one of love, gratitude and deep friendship — qualities often reserved, if rarely expressed, among men for other men.

With the public outpouring of elation, tears and unabashed love, we are left to wonder if men’s sport culture is beginning to move beyond the toxic masculinity that has too often dominated headlines.

Rather than uphold a dominant, all-too-familiar hyper-masculine image of male athletic competitors, this years’ World Series might have opened our eyes to a counter-narrative in sport.

Masculinity and sport in Canada

Our expectations of sport culture and masculinity in Canada have largely been defined by Canada’s other national pride, hockey. Its narratives frequently valourize toughness, stoicism and physical dominance, reinforcing a narrow vision of what it means to “be a man” in sport.

Recent controversies, including Hockey Canada’s failure to address sexual assault allegations and the misuse of registration fees to settle claims, have highlighted how entrenched these norms can be.

Research shows that boys and men yearn for close male friendships. Yet in national sport, we rarely see the close intimacy, level of support and caring that were evident among the Blue Jays this year.

Men are expected to compete, not care, especially in the gladiatorial arenas of sport.

The more common, and often troubling, side of male bonding in sport has been associated with violence, aggression and locker room cases of bullying, homophobia and misogyny.

A different model of male bonding

While sport culture is often centred around competition, dominance and showmanship, interactions among the Blue Jays gave a rare glimpse at how sport culture could be different among men.

A recurring theme among all players was a genuine sense of caring for one another. “It’s not very often you get a group together that genuinely likes one another and genuinely cares about one another,” said Blue Jays manager John Schneider after Game 7.

The media and fans were drawn to what appears to be an authentically, emotionally connected group of men. Globe and Mail reporter Marcus Gee called it a “fellowship,” noting how much the players “liked each other.”

Individually and collectively, the Blue Jays were emotionally vulnerable. Gee suggested the lesson the Jays offered was “the power of unity, the power of connection, the power of love.” Whether we call it connection, love or fellowship, there is no mistake that what fans witnessed was a rare and possibly enduring lesson also about sport, masculinity and caring.

Challenging traditional masculinity

Research has shown that while boys and men are aware of the expectations for fitting in and being accepted among their peers, they also have the capacity to resist conventions of sport masculinity. Male athletes can resist the cultural norms associated with being “one of the boys.”

What we witnessed among the Blue Jays’ players was a rare public display of affection and intimacy in sport, going beyond sportsmanship, camaraderie and fellowship. The relationships, respect, friendships and love went beyond the implicit licence granted by being on the field to hug another player.

The traditional codes of masculinity when among the boys were disturbed and maybe challenged by repeated expressions of affection that men regularly avoid off the field.

The level of respect and outpouring of support along with the kindness of words signalled ways that men and boys can resist narratives of stoicism and the enduring challenge of expressing themselves.

There are indeed important lessons that sports fans might all take away along with the vivid memories of this World Series — lessons of caring among men.

Read more:
Suffering in silence: Men’s and boys’ mental health are still overlooked in sport

The power of friendship

Images of Guerrero Jr. hugging rookie pitcher Trey Yesavage, the emotional honesty of Clement and the visible love the Blue Jays have for their teammates remind us of the significance of friendships among boys and men, and the power of healthy relationships in which men care for, and about, others.

Sport culture among men and boys is historically a bastion of elite, privileged masculinities. Too often, boys and men are complicit in the lessons we learn about being accepted, about belonging among the boys, about being like the rest of the boys.

Men often fear the isolation and alienation if they do not subscribe to the rules and norms typically promoted and upheld in sport culture, echoed in chants of “man up” or “no pain, no gain.”

Perhaps one of the greatest lessons from this World Series was captured in one final image: a red-haired boy collapsed in tears with his father resting his hand on his back, considering the future, not of sport, but of a son able to cry openly, unashamedly.

Michael Kehler 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. Boys do cry: The Toronto Blue Jays challenge sport’s toxic masculinity with displays of love and emotion – https://theconversation.com/boys-do-cry-the-toronto-blue-jays-challenge-sports-toxic-masculinity-with-displays-of-love-and-emotion-268971

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ryan M. Katz-Rosene, Associate Professor, School of Political Studies, with Cross-Appointment to Geography, Environment and Geomatics, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

Shortly before COP30 talks begin in Brazil, tech billionaire and philanthropist Bill Gates has launched a “narrative grenade” into the discourse of climate politics by publishing a lengthy memo calling for a rethink of how the climate crisis is framed and addressed.

Gates calls for a “strategic pivot” in climate strategy. That appears to have hit a nerve. Both social and traditional media were ablaze with erroneous assertions about Gates’ supposed reversal of opinion on climate change.

Despite reaffirming support for ambitious decarbonization, his letter is being celebrated by climate skeptics while angering some climate scientists. United States President Donald Trump weighed in, writing: “I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue.”

This is false. Gates makes no such admission. In fact, he specifically writes that “climate change will have serious consequences — particularly for people in the poorest countries.” He emphasizes that “every tenth of a degree of heating that we prevent is hugely beneficial because a stable climate makes it easier to improve people’s lives.”

Gates goes further, calling for major investments into global health and development (particularly on vaccines), and expresses continued support for pursuing net zero carbon emissions — all of which seems to fly in the face of Trump’s climate and foreign aid agenda.

Given this, why are so many climate skeptics celebrating Gates’ letter? And why are some climate scientists frustrated, despite his steadfast support for decarbonization?

What the memo actually says

The core of Gates’ memo is a request for climate negotiators to consider “three truths:”

First, that they consider climate change a “serious problem” but not the inevitable “end of civilization.”

Second, that temperature targets like the 2015 Paris Agreement’s focus on limiting warming below 2 C are not the best goalposts for measuring progress on climate change.

And third, that the best way to defend humanity against climate change is to pursue global health and economic prosperity.

The centrepiece of Gates’ analysis is the claim that technological innovations — like electric vehicles, renewable energy and battery storage —have already started to reduce the carbon intensity of global economic activity and that new, more consequential innovations in the future will be driven by economic development and healthy societies.

He provides as evidence changes in the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) carbon dioxide emissions forecasts — pointing out that a 2014 IEA projection expected significant growth in emissions, while a 2024 projection now sees significant reductions (though some commentators have contested Gates’ interpretation on this specific point).

Gates wants readers to know progress is being made on climate change thanks to growth and technological innovation, and as such, the “worst-case scenarios” are no longer plausible.

Why climate skeptics see this as a win

It is Gates’ initial framing — that climate change is “not the end of the world” — that seems to have resonated most strongly with climate skeptics. The memo begins by critiquing the “doomsday view” that “cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization.” Instead, he argues that “people will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future.”

From that point, climate contrarians seized on the memo. One of the largest conspiracy accounts on X falsely declared that “today Bill Gates admitted himself that Climate Change is all a lie.” Others followed suit.

Even media outlets contributed to the confusion, with Futurism running an article with the deeply misleading headline “Bill Gates Says Climate Change Isn’t So Bad After All.”

This reaction is not surprising. The claim that climate change is not a civilization-ending threat aligns closely with long-standing skeptic rhetoric that mainstream climate science relies on fear to justify politically motivated change.

Research shows that climate skeptics interpret the issue through black-and-white thinking, where cognitive binaries are used to help simplify complex systems.

Within this world view, if climate change is not apocalyptic, then it can be dismissed as exaggerated, and by extension, climate policy is unnecessary, or worse, a cover for social control.

Why some climate scientists are frustrated

The idea that climate change will not literally end civilization is not new — even for Gates. In my own work on the growth-environment debate, I’ve shown how dominant sustainability discourses have long rested on the assumption that even the most pressing environmental problems can be managed, and that economic growth and technological innovation are the best means of addressing them.

For some climate scientists, however, Gates’ memo places too much emphasis on technology — especially exploratory and high-risk technologies like small modular reactors, carbon capture and storage, and geoengineering.

The worry, as climate scientist Michael Mann expressed in reference to the Gates memo, is that this focus on “technofixes for the climate … leads us down a dangerous road,” because such approaches can distract from proven mitigation strategies and provide cover for continued business-as-usual burning of fossil fuels.

Other climate scientists found the memo downplayed the severity of global warming seen to date, not least the warming expected by the end of this century (which, in Gates’ telling could be up to +2.9 C above the pre-industrial era).

For instance, scientist Daniel Swain noted his “dismay and deep frustration” about the framing in Gates’ memo (despite agreeing with some of its central claims), precisely for glossing over the known harms and systemic risks that lie ahead. Swain invoked the late environmental studies professor Stephen Schneider’s reminder that when it comes to global warming, “the end of the world” and “good for humanity” are the two lowest-probability outcomes.

What now?

Like a dazed battlefield after a grenade is detonated, the terrain of climate politics has been unsettled by Gates’ missive, but it is not altogether transformed. The debate will continue. Skeptics will likely add screenshots of misleading headlines about Gates’ “admission” to their repertoire of doubt-casting memes.

Climate scientists, meanwhile, will continue to grapple with the difficult task of communicating climate risk, urgency and uncertainty, in a political environment that is not well-suited to nuance and complexity.

The memo does not change the science. But it does reveal how sensitive climate politics is to framing, and how the same message can become ammunition for very different projects.

Ryan M. Katz-Rosene was the recipient of an Insight grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to study discourses of the growth-environment debate.

– ref. Why Bill Gates’ climate memo is being celebrated by skeptics while frustrating scientists – https://theconversation.com/why-bill-gates-climate-memo-is-being-celebrated-by-skeptics-while-frustrating-scientists-268940

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Omid Asayesh, Postdoctoral fellow, Sociology, University of Calgary

With more than 85 million people naming it their top choice, Canada has become one of the most desired migration destinations in the world over the past decade.

Yet even in 2024, its highest year on record, Canada only admitted about 480,000 new permanent residents, a small fraction of global demand.

Despite earlier plans to increase admissions, the intake is now set to decline in response to mounting pressures on housing and public services. There’s also been political pushback from opposition parties and segments of the public who argue that the government’s rapid expansion of immigration targets has outpaced Canada’s ability to absorb newcomers.

The challenge, however, is not how few people get in; it is how unpredictable the system has become.

A shifting framework

In June 2022, the federal government amended the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to give itself more flexibility.

It rolled out a new immigration stream to prioritize in-demand occupations in health care, engineering and agriculture, as well as French-speaking applicants.

In the earlier system, fixed points for education and high-skilled work experience provided applicants with a clear way to assess their eligibility. In contrast, the new category-based approach relies on occupational needs that shift rapidly.

The goal was to respond quickly to labour shortages and economic goals by consulting with provinces, industries, labour groups and the public. However, this category-based selection has been rolled out with little consistency or transparency. Announcements come with no clear timelines, fixed numbers or indication of when a stream might close.

In this new framework, broad categories such as health care or STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) encompass hundreds of distinct occupations. Yet the government may single out only a handful of these occupations for invitations while excluding the rest, which makes outcomes unpredictable even within the announced priority categories.

Migration is a long-term project

What this changing immigration policy fails to consider is that immigration is not an instant decision, but a long-term project.

My research shows that people may spend more than a decade preparing for migration by carefully choosing a field of study, seeking related work experience, saving aggressively and even reshaping their personal lives. Some even avoid intimate relationships or postpone having children in hopes of migrating. However, those plans fall apart when the qualifying requirements change quickly.

The uncertainty created by shifting immigration policies is not felt only abroad. Within Canada, roughly three million people are on temporary permits, and many of them are hoping for a chance at permanent residency. They spend years establishing roots in their communities, with the belief that it will ultimately lead to a more secure future. But when policy priorities change unexpectedly, their lives are thrown into limbo.

International students are a clear example. Many spend tens of thousands of dollars on tuition, averaging $41,746 for international undergraduates in 2025–26, encouraged by the promise that a Canadian education will improve their chances of staying.

Yet, as the rules change, they may find themselves with no option to stay in Canada once their studies end. Similarly, temporary foreign workers may fill urgent labour shortages, only to see pathways to permanence narrow or close before they can apply.

A problem for everyone

Quick and unpredictable changes in rules make immigration seem like a lottery rather than a structured system. Success now often depends not on careful planning or merit, but on being in the right place at the right time.

The lottery effect erodes confidence in Canada’s immigration policy. It conveys the idea that long-term planning and investment might not be essential and that today’s standards might change tomorrow.

Uncertainty also fuels a darker consequence: fraud.

When pathways open and close overnight, some people take shortcuts by fabricating credentials, work experience or job offers that match the latest requirements.

These patterns of instability and deception pose significant concerns for a nation that relies on immigration to maintain its labour force, economy and demographic balance. At the same time, immigration has become increasingly politicized in recent years.

Consequently, the political climate has shifted toward risk-averse immigration policies that focus on immediate results instead of developing sustainable approaches.

A more sustainable system

Immigration is essential to Canada’s future because it sustains the workforce as the population ages, with nearly all of Canada’s labour force growth now coming from newcomers.

Despite myths about migration, economic immigrants generally contribute more in taxes than they consume in public services over the long term. Additionally, immigrants start businesses at higher rates, bring diverse skills and perspectives and establish global connections that drive innovation and long-term economic growth.

However, many newcomers struggle to find employment in their designated fields due to barriers such as credential recognition or social integration.

Meanwhile, many temporary residents who have studied, worked in highly skilled jobs and paid taxes for years are ineligible to apply for permanent status because their occupations are not on the list. They end up leaving despite their contributions.

The immigration system should include defined criteria, realistic deadlines and transparent information that lets people inside and outside Canada plan with confidence. Consistency is crucial.

A more sustainable approach would connect permanent residency more closely to proven success in the Canadian labour market. At the end of the day, immigration should be based on preparation, abilities and dedication — certainly not on luck.

Omid Asayesh 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. Canadian immigration policy has become a moving target – https://theconversation.com/canadian-immigration-policy-has-become-a-moving-target-264100