Category: The Conversation – Canada

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Bhavini Gohel, Clinical Associate Professor, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary

Wildfires are no longer rare disasters in Canada. They are now an annual reality, and 2025 has already been one of the worst on record, with 3,582 fires burning 6.2 million hectares as of July 30 — quadruple the 10-year average.

At a time when hospitals are already strained by staff shortages, long wait times and rising costs, wildfires add yet another layer of pressure.

Rural communities are usually the hardest hit by wildfires. These communities rely on small health facilities with limited staff and equipment.

When fires cut off access or force evacuations, these facilities struggle to provide even basic care. As a frontline health-care worker and system leader, I have seen first-hand how every part of health system — from hospital operations to workforce readiness and community partnerships — is being tested. Leading resilience initiatives has shown me how urgently we need system-wide co-ordination and investment to protect patients when disasters strike.

Frontline health-care workers face surging pressure during wildfires: treating burns, vehicle accidents during evacuation and smoke-related illnesses that damage lungs, worsen asthma, and increase risks of strokes, heart attacks and cardiac arrest. Seniors, children, pregnant women and people with chronic illnesses are especially vulnerable.

Beyond physical harm, survivors often face lasting anxiety, depression and trauma. Wildfires are not just environmental events; they are public health crises that demand stronger, more resilient health systems.

Preparing for a predictable risk

During wildfires, poor air quality makes it difficult for both patients and staff to stay safe indoors. Fires can disrupt medical supply chains, damage buildings and force hospitals, clinics and operating rooms to close. Surgeries can be delayed, emergency care becomes harder to access, and patients often crowd into the few facilities still running, stretching resources even thinner.

Health-care workers face their own challenges: finding safe routes to work, arranging child or elder care during evacuations, and coping with the uncertainty of when, or if, they can return home.

Past wildfires in Alberta, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories have forced urgent evacuations of patients, the relocation of health-care workers and the rapid reorganization of care at enormous cost. Each of these events has added millions of dollars in costs and created more strain for a health system already struggling to keep up.

Wildfires are now a predictable part of Canada’s climate reality. Yet health systems remain under-prepared. While emergency management frameworks exist, they often fall short of addressing broader and long-term needs during wildfires and fail to build true resilience. The Climate-Resilient Acute Care Clinical Operations framework and wildfire framework highlight what is required, but these requirements must be scaled and integrated across the entire health system.

What resilience looks like

Building climate resilience in health care requires focusing on several key pillars.

Leadership and governance must come first. Yet many health leaders are not provided with the knowledge or training they need to understand how wildfires affect both health outcomes and health-care systems. Leaders must be equipped to make quick, informed decisions that safeguard patients and staff when disasters strike.

Financing is another critical piece. Resources must be directed to the areas most at risk during wildfire season and reviewed regularly to ensure funding keeps pace with reality. Without sustainable financing, health systems are left reacting instead of being prepared.

Health information systems also need to be strengthened. Power outages and connectivity failures can wipe out access to patient records and communication tools at the worst possible moment. Developing reliable backup systems and clear plans ensures that records, co-ordination and critical data are not compromised.

At the same time, the health-care workforce must be supported. Staff need training, such as simulation-based exercises that prepare them for wildfire events. Protecting the mental health of staff and encouraging personal resiliency plans are equally important, allowing workers to remain in the system when demands are highest. Workers can only serve patients effectively if they themselves are supported.

Workforce planning must also account for seasonal risks. Wildfire season falls in the summer, when health systems are already short-staffed due to vacations. Every winter, we prepare for respiratory virus surges, but we do not treat wildfires with the same seriousness. This must change.

Strengthening access to care

Protecting medical supply chains is another priority, as disruptions are common during wildfires. Identifying alternatives and ensuring backups to maintain critical supplies is key. Technology can help fill gaps: virtual care platforms can keep patients connected to doctors even when roads are closed, facilities are damaged or patients are displaced.

Equally important is ensuring that patients and communities know how to access care under stress. Preparedness should include clear communication, education kits, checklists, extra medication supplies and mental health resources. Collaboration with municipalities, under-served groups and high-risk communities is vital, since they often feel the effects of wildfires first and most severely.

An investment that pays off

Strengthening health systems for wildfire resilience will require resources. But it’s anticipated that these investments will ultimately save money in the long run by reducing disruptions, preventing costly emergency transfers and minimizing long-term health impacts. Most importantly, they protect access to health care for patients with urgent or ongoing chronic conditions.

If we fail to prepare, wildfires will continue to exacerbate the cracks in our health system. Patient-centred, climate-resilient care is no longer optional; it is essential.

Bhavini Gohel is affiliated with Canadian Coalition for Green Healthcare & Brain Climate Equity Collaborative

– ref. How wildfires and other climate disasters put health systems under extreme pressure – https://theconversation.com/how-wildfires-and-other-climate-disasters-put-health-systems-under-extreme-pressure-265483

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Scott J. Davidson, Assistant Professor and CARCLIQUE Research Chair, Groupe de recherche interuniversitaire en limnologie (GRIL), Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Peatlands are among the world’s most important yet underappreciated ecosystems. They are a type of wetland that covers a small fraction of the Earth’s land, while containing the most carbon-rich soils in the world.

Healthy peatlands shape water cycles, support unique biodiversity and sustain communities. Yet for all their importance, we still lack a clear picture of how peatlands are changing through time.

When peatlands are drained, degraded or burned, the carbon they hold is released into the atmosphere. More than three million square kilometres of wetlands have been drained by humans since 1700, meaning we have lost a huge amount of carbon sequestration potential globally. This makes it all the more important for us to understand and conserve remaining peatlands.

Traditionally, studies of peatlands have focused on a few well-researched sites, often in temperate or boreal regions. But climate change, land use pressures and extreme weather are affecting peatlands everywhere, including in remote, tropical and under-studied regions.

To predict how peatlands will change and react under future conditions, we need frequent data on different types of peatland habitats that captures how they change over seasons and years.

In our recent research, we harnessed the power of people, easily accessible technology and a research network to collect data using a distributed data approach. This means using data collected following a standardized methodology: everyone collecting similar data using the same methods regardless of location.

---

Read more:
Canadian wetlands are treasures that deserve protection

---

Methods that make a difference

Our study, called The PeatPic Project, used smartphone photography to collect data. We connected with peatland researchers around the world via social media and word of mouth and asked them to collect photographs of their peatlands during 2021 and 2022. We gathered more than 3,700 photographs from 27 peatlands in 10 countries.

We analyzed these photographs to look at the plant colour, telling us how green leaves are across the year, and providing rich information on the vegetation growing there. Changes in green leaf colour indicate when plants start their growing season.

They also indicate how green or healthy plants are, how much nutrient plants take up and when they turn brown in the autumn. Colour shifts can also signal changes in moisture or nutrient conditions, temperature stress or disturbance.

This kind of science, conducted by a global community of researchers, amplifies reach. Local observers can use smartphones to record seasonal changes, water levels, vegetation colour or cover, land use or disturbance. With training, standardized protocols, good metadata and validation, community-generated data can be robust. These methods lower the cost, increase the amount of data available to researchers, and build local stewardship and global networks.

Better predictions of peatland function are not just academic; they are essential for mitigating the effects of climate change, protecting biodiversity, water security and reducing risks from disasters like fires and droughts.

Information derived from images can be converted into mathematical representations of plant behaviour and this can in turn be added into digital twins of peatlands.

Creating digital twins of peatlands can help experts simulate “what if” scenarios. For example, what happens if drainage increases after a wildfire or restoration is initiated? But to build useful digital twins, we need data in place: across biomes, seasons and scales.

---

Read more:
What are digital twins? A pair of computer modeling experts explain

---

What needs to happen next

We now have easily accessible tools and technology that allow us to monitor peatlands in ways that were not possible a decade ago. But advancing this depends on action from multiple fronts:

• Research networks should develop, share and adopt standard protocols and data practices so that data from different places and sources can be combined, compared and scaled.

• Communities, including members of the public, can be partners in observation. Training, co-design, fairness and recognition are essential. Local observations, including smartphone photography, could feed directly into decision-making.

• The public can help by supporting policies that fund this work by participating in community science initiatives and recognizing how something as simple as a smartphone photo can significantly contribute to understanding how our planet works.

In fact, the PeatPic Project inspired us to create another community science project called Tracking the Colour of Peatlands. This project involves fixed point locations on 16 peatlands around the world, where members of the public can take a photo of the peatland at different times to help us build a picture how the ecosystem changes over the year.

Peatlands are not fringe ecosystems. They matter for people, climates, water and biodiversity. Harnessing distributed data gathering across a global community, and accessible tools like smartphones gives us a chance to see how peatlands change, to predict where they are most at risk and to act ahead of crisis.

The future of peatlands, and of the Earth’s carbon and water cycles, depends on seeing, recording, sharing and acting together on what is happening now.

Scott J. Davidson receives funding from the Québec Ministry of the Environment. He is a member of the Groupe de recherche interuniversitaire en limnologie (GRIL), an FRQNT-funded network.

Avni Malhotra’s research was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation.

– ref. Harnessing technology and global collaboration to understand peatlands – https://theconversation.com/harnessing-technology-and-global-collaboration-to-understand-peatlands-265472

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Emily Gilbert, Professor, Canadian Sudies and Geography & Planning, University of Toronto

At a testy meeting in Banff recently, the American ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, mused about the future of pre-clearance in Canada. Cross-border travel numbers are down, he complained, which makes the cost of the program less appealing to Americans.

Hoekstra’s comments came across as a threat — almost a demand that Canadians resume travelling to the United States.

But should Canadians continue to stay away? Maybe it’s time to rethink Canada’s pre-clearance program with the U.S. and the ways it can undermine Canadian civil rights and sovereignty.

Started informally, then expanded

The origins of U.S. customs pre-clearance in Canada date back to 1952. It began as an informal arrangement made at the request of American Airlines, which was interested in building up its business in Canada.

Since then, the program has expanded to nine Canadian international airports and the Alaska Marine Highway System Ferry Terminal in Prince Rupert, B.C. The U.S. has also expanded its pre-clearance facilities to the Bahamas, Bermuda, Ireland and the United Arab Emirates.

Under Canada-U.S. pre-clearance arrangement, American border agents are located in Canada so that travellers can clear customs, immigration, public health and safety and agriculture inspection before they travel. This provides an additional layer of security for the U.S. since it can screen travellers much earlier in their travel journeys and stop suspicious travellers before they board their flights.

For Canadian travellers, it makes crossing the border faster. By clearing customs in Canada, they don’t need to wait in long lines when they arrive in the U.S. This makes it much easier to catch connecting flights and also means airlines can fly into smaller American airports from Canada, which can be cheaper and more convenient.

Police powers

Pre-clearance in Canada has become so commonplace that it’s not faced significant scrutiny, even though recent legislation raises pressing concerns.

In 2015, the U.S. and Canada signed a new treaty on land, rail, marine and air transport pre-clearance. This legislation opened the door to expanded pre-clearance with new facilities at Québec City’s airport and Billy Bishop airport on the Toronto islands, scheduled to open soon. Pilot projects have also been introduced at train stations and ports, which raise their own issues because they’re often located in city centres.

Subsequently, Canada passed its new Preclearance Act that entered into force in 2019. The legislation updated the terms for pre-clearance but also introduced worrisome and expansive new police powers for U.S. officers on Canadian soil.

American border agents now have the power to conduct strip searches if a Canadian officer is not available or is unwilling to participate. American border agents also have the authority to carry weapons.

Under the previous legislation of 1999, U.S. border agents were authorized to use “as much force is necessary to perform their pre-clearance duties” if they did so “on reasonable grounds.” But under the recent legislation, U.S. officers are “justified in doing what they are required or authorized to do under this Act and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.” In other words, the use of force is now legitimized.

Furthermore, while it was previously possible for travellers to remove themselves from inspection without prejudice, under the 2017 legislation, their withdrawal from the border process could be interpreted as grounds for suspicion.

The act of withdrawal itself becomes suspect, with refusal to answer taken as obstruction, which is a criminal offence in both the U.S. and Canada. This can impede someone’s ability to enter the U.S. at a later date.

If someone is suspected of committing an offence, U.S. border agents are also able to detain them as long it does not “unreasonably delay the traveller’s withdrawal” from the process. There is no time limit placed on what is meant by “unreasonably delay.”

Worrisome legislative changes

When the new Preclearance Act was introduced, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tried to assuage concerns by explaining that pre-clearance allowed more protections for travellers because the Canadian Constitution would apply in Canada.

The act itself states:

“The exercise of any power and performance of any duty or function under United States law in Canada is subject to Canadian law, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Human Rights Act.”

But can these protections really be assured when there are overlapping jurisdictions at play?

Take U.S. President Donald Trump’s most recent 2025 travel ban that fully bans nationals of 12 countries and partially bans nationals of seven others.

As Amnesty International argues, Trump’s bans are “targeting people based on their race, religion, or nationality, from countries with predominantly Black, Brown and Muslim-majority populations.” Yet these bans are being enforced in Canada via these pre-clearance areas, meaning the rights and protections against discrimination set out in Canadian laws are not being upheld.

Under the terms of the 2015 treaty, pre-clearance officers also receive immunity for civil and administrative offences in their host countries. Furthermore, the U.S. passed legislation a year later stipulating the U.S. has jurisdiction over offences committed by American personnel stationed in Canada.

As Canada’s privacy officer has stated, this lack of accountability in Canada means there is little recourse for someone in Canada who experiences an incident with American border officers when going through pre-clearance. If there is no accountability, then Canadian laws are essentially meaningless.

Border politics

For these reasons, a Canadian reassessment of the pre-clearance program is all the more pressing since efforts are already underway to implement Canadian pre-clearance at land borders with the U.S.

In January 2025, before Trump’s inauguration, a two-year pilot project was announced at the Cannon Corners facility on the New York-Québec border. This would be somewhat different from the police powers granted to American border officials at Canadian airports, but Canada’s objectives have been similar to U.S. security directives — make admissibility determinations before someone enters Canada.

In other words, Canada is proceeding with pre-clearance initiatives that make it more difficult for people to make asylum claims when crossing the Canada-U.S. border.

Hoekstra has put the future of pre-clearance in question. This provides an excellent opportunity to reconsider whether the costs of the program outweigh the benefits in today’s political climate. That’s because no matter how convenient and efficient pre-clearance programs might be, they raise challenging questions about Canadian sovereignty and the rights of Canadian citizens.

The question should really be whether Canada wants to pursue America-style border politics rather than trying to build more humane border policies and practices.

Emily Gilbert has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

– ref. Is the end looming for Canada’s border pre-clearance program with the United States? – https://theconversation.com/is-the-end-looming-for-canadas-border-pre-clearance-program-with-the-united-states-266764

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Tracy Smith-Carrier, Professor and Canada Research Chair (Tier 2) in Advancing the UN Sustainable Development Goals, Royal Roads University

With one-quarter of Canadians struggling to put food on the table, Canada has recently received a D grade from Food Banks Canada for its performance in meeting the country’s food security needs.

According to a 2024 report by the federal government’s National Advisory Council on Poverty, poverty is also on the rise, and people who once thought they were financially secure are starting to feel the squeeze.

Canada is a signatory to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, recognizing the right to food, housing and an adequate standard of living.

As a social scientist, my research shows that Canada is struggling to realize these rights because decision-makers often lack the political will to act, and the judicial system still relies on an outdated approach that cannot hold these decision-makers accountable.

Understanding the rights split

Human rights are indivisible, meaning they’re all equally important and interdependent: one right cannot be realized without realizing the others. To meet their commitments, signatory states have agreed to respect, protect and fulfil human rights and to use the “maximum available resources” at their disposal to progressively achieve them.

While Canada and other United Nations member states have endorsed social and economic rights, these rights have often been treated differently from their civil and political counterparts.

Civil and political rights are typically considered negative rights, which do not require the government to act or provide anything, but rather to protect or not interfere with people’s rights, such as freedom of expression or religion. Social and economic rights, on the other hand, have often been deemed positive rights, meaning they require the state to act or provide resources to meet them, like education or health care.

In 1966, human rights were split: civil and political rights were placed under one covenant, and economic, social and cultural rights under another, rather than having them all affirmed under one, as was originally envisaged in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.

Weaker language was deliberately included in the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by the rights architects, particularly those in the United States, who felt that its ratification should not encroach on state autonomy or require “thicker social programs and a robust welfare state.”

Consequently, the courts, particularly Canadian lower courts and others internationally, have over the years commonly affirmed that social and economic rights are policy matters best determined by political entities and given democratic legitimacy at the ballot box.

While there is overlap between the two sets of rights, social and economic rights have frequently been deemed non-justiciable — not something people can challenge in court — and therefore not ones people can directly claim or pursue legal remedies for. Instead these rights have taken on an aspirational quality.

When courts are reluctant

Gosselin v. Québec set an important precedent for how social and economic rights would come to be interpreted in Canada.

This case relates to a regulation in the 1980s that set Québec’s social assistance benefits for people under 30 at only two-thirds of the regular benefit ($170 rather than $466 per month). The plaintiff claimed that the regulation was age-discriminatory and violated the Québec and Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedoms under Sections 7 and 15.

Judges in Québec, and later in 2002 in the Supreme Court — although the justices were split on the decision — confirmed the Charter did not impose positive-rights duties on governments, even while the Supreme Court left the door open that it could do so in the future.

Yet some legal scholars contend that the case took constitutional law “two steps backward” and failed to debunk the prejudicial stereotypes surrounding people living in poverty that influenced the decision. In 1992, a Québec Superior Court judge said “the poor were poor for intrinsic reasons” — that they were under-educated and had a weak work ethic.

Such reasoning, however, reflects an individual explanation of poverty — that financial hardship derives from personal failings or deficits — rather than a structural one, where poverty stems from economic downturns, weak labour markets and a lack of affordable child care or housing.

A significant body of evidence now shows that poverty largely has structural origins. Although there have been some victories on social and economic rights, many cases have followed the interpretation in Gosselin.

The right to housing was explicitly identified in the 2019 National Housing Strategy Act. The act introduced the National Housing Council and a complaints and monitoring mechanism through the federal housing advocate, a model that limits people from demanding state-provided housing and suing if they don’t receive it.

Lacking an ecosystem of rights compliance and enforcement, governments have turned to less effective options like charity, rather than engaging solutions that could actually end poverty and hunger, such as a basic income guarantee.

The impasse on social and economic rights has led to the denial of these rights for those living in poverty.

Enforcing implemented rights

Some, like Oxford legal scholar Sandra Fredman, argue the courts should use legal frameworks not to defer to politicians or usurp their decision-making capacity, but to require them to provide reasoned justifications for their distributive decisions.

Although non-binding, the UN’s judicial body, the International Court of Justice, recently concluded that countries have legal obligations to curb their emissions. Some courts, domestically and globally, are also gravitating toward the enforcement and justiciability of human rights, particularly in climate-related cases and the right to a healthy environment.

These could provide new precedents that transform how these rights are understood and enforced in the future.

Without concrete resources, targets and accountability mechanisms to ensure people have dignified access to food, housing and social security, these rights will remain largely hollow.

The “climate of the era” has changed. It’s time for politicians to actively work to fulfill social and economic rights and for the courts to hold them accountable when they fail to do so.

Without substantive rights — ones backed by action — poverty will continue to rise and people will be denied justice.

Tracy Smith-Carrier receives funding from the Tri-agency’s Canada Research Chairs program and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

– ref. Canada’s rising poverty and food insecurity have deep structural origins – https://theconversation.com/canadas-rising-poverty-and-food-insecurity-have-deep-structural-origins-265570

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Gordon A. Gow, Director, Media & Technology Studies, University of Alberta

Earlier this year, a band called The Velvet Sundown racked up hundreds of thousands of streams on Spotify with retro-pop tracks, generating a million monthly listeners on Spotify.

But the band wasn’t real. Every song, image, and even its back story, had been generated by someone using generative AI.

For some, it was a clever experiment. For others, it revealed a troubling lack of transparency in music creation, even though the band’s Spotify descriptor was later updated to acknowledge it is composed with AI.

In September 2025, Spotify announced it is “helping develop and will support the new industry standard for AI disclosures in music credits developed through DDEX.” DDEX is a not-for-profit membership organization focused on the creation of digital music value chain standards.

The company also says it’s focusing work on improved enforcement of impersonation violations and a new spam-filtering system, and that updates are “the latest in a series of changes we’re making to support a more trustworthy music ecosystem for artists, for rights-holders and for listeners.”

As AI becomes more embedded in music creation, the challenge is balancing its legitimate creative use with the ethical and economic pressures it introduces. Disclosure is essential not just for accountability, but to give listeners transparent and user-friendly choices in the artists they support.

A patchwork of policies

The music industry’s response to AI has so far been a mix of ad hoc enforcement as platforms grapple with how to manage emerging uses and expectations of AI in music.

Apple Music took aim at impersonation when it pulled the viral track “Heart on My Sleeve” featuring AI-cloned vocals of Drake and The Weeknd. The removal was prompted by a copyright complaint reflecting concerns over misuse of artists’ likeness and voice.

The indie-facing song promotion platform SubmitHub has introduced measures to combate AI-generated spam. Artists must declare if AI played “a major role” in a track. The platform also has an “AI Song Checker” so playlist curators can scan files to detect AI use.

Spotify’s announcement adds another dimension to these efforts. By focusing on disclosure, it recognizes that artists use AI in many different ways across music creation and production. Rather than banning these practices, it opens the door to an AI labelling system that makes them more transparent.

Labelling creative content

Content labelling has long been used to help audiences make informed choices about their media consumption. Movies, TV and music come with parental advisories, for example.

Digital music files also include embedded information tags called metadata, which include details like genre, tempo and contributing artists that platforms use to categorize songs, calculate royalty payments and to suggest new songs to listeners.

Canada has relied on labelling for decades to strengthen its domestic music industry. The MAPL system requires radio stations to play a minimum percentage of Canadian music, using a set of criteria to determine whether a song qualifies as Canadian content based on music, artist, production and lyrics.

---

Read more:
How do we define Canadian content? Debates will shape how creatives make a living

---

As more algorithmically generated AI music appears on streaming platforms, an AI disclosure label would give listeners a way to discover music that matches their preferences, whether they’re curious about AI collaboration or drawn to more traditional human-crafted approaches.

What could AI music labels address?

A disclosure standard will make AI music labelling possible. The next step is cultural: deciding how much information should be shared with listeners, and in what form.

According to Spotify, artists and rights-holders will be asked to specify where and how AI contributed to a track. For example, whether it was used for vocals, instrumentation or post-production work such as mixing or mastering.

For artists, these details better reflect how AI tools fit into a long tradition of creative use of new technologies. After all, the synthesizer, drum machines and samplers — even the electric guitar — were all once controversial.

But AI disclosure shouldn’t give streaming platforms a free pass to flood catalogues with algorithmically generated content. The point should also be to provide information to listeners to help them make more informed choices about what kind of music they want to support.

Information about AI use should be easy to see and quickly find. But on Spotify’s Velvet Sundown profile, for example, this is dubious: listeners have to dig down to actually read the band’s descriptor.

---

Read more:
The triumph of vinyl: Vintage is back as LP sales continue to skyrocket

---

AI and creative tensions in music

AI in music raises pressing issues, including around labour and compensation, industry power dynamics, as well as licensing and rights.

One study commissioned by the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers has said that Gen AI outputs could put 24 per cent of music creators’ revenues at risk by 2028, at a time when many musician careers are already vulnerable to high costs of living and an unpredictable and unstable streaming music economy.

The most popular AI music platforms are controlled by major tech companies. Will AI further concentrate creative power, or are there tools that might cut production costs and become widely used by independent artists? Will artists be compensated if their labels are involved in deals for artists’ music to train AI platforms?

The cultural perception around musicians having their music train AI platforms or in using AI tools in music production is also a site of creative tension.

---

Read more:
AI can make up songs now, but who owns the copyright? The answer is complicated

---

Enabling listener choice

Turning a disclosure standard into something visible — such as an intuitive label or icon that allows users to go deeper to show how AI was used — would let listeners see at a glance how human and algorithmic contributions combine in a track.

Embedded in the digital song file, it could also help fans and arts organizations discover and support music based on the kind of creativity behind it.

Ultimately, it’s about giving listeners a choice. A clear, well-designed labelling system could help audiences understand the many ways AI now shapes music, from subtle production tools to fully synthetic vocals.

Need for transparency

As influence of AI in music creation continues to expand, listeners deserve to know how the sounds they love are made — and artists deserve the chance to explain it.

Easy-to-understand AI music labels would turn disclosure into something beyond compliance: it might also invite listeners to think more deeply about the creative process behind the music they love.

Gordon A. Gow receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

Brian Fauteux 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. Why industry-standard labels for AI in music could change how we listen – https://theconversation.com/why-industry-standard-labels-for-ai-in-music-could-change-how-we-listen-262840

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Billie Anderson, Lecturer, Disability Studies, King’s University College, Western University

In Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein, the true horror lies in scientist Victor Frankenstein’s hubris and refusal to care for The Creature he creates.

Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel Frankenstein gave The Creature an eloquent voice — but cinema has often silenced him, rendering him mute, groaning and monstrous in both appearance and behaviour.

Del Toro’s Frankenstein, which arrives in select theatres and on Netflix this fall, presents a Creature who thinks, feels, suffers and demands recognition.

The film, which I saw recently at its Toronto International Film Festival screening, restores to The Creature not only speech, but also, as some reviewers have noted, subjectivity.

Del Toro’s Frankenstein offers audiences a chance to reconsider how we regard “the monster,” not just in horror cinema, but in stories that reflect attitudes about difference — especially difference in embodiment.

Depictions of bodily difference

The tendency for film to punish difference has long persisted. From the silent era onward, films have used bodily difference as shorthand for inner corruption: the scarred face, the twisted body, the corrupt mind.

Disability studies scholar Angela Smith argues that the horror genre’s visual and narrative conventions were shaped by eugenic beliefs about bodily wholeness.

Another disability studies scholar, Rosemarie Garland-Thomson has noted that disabled figures are often trapped as spectacles: seen but not heard, as well as pitied or feared.

By giving The Creature an interior life, del Toro insists on humanity where cinema once imposed monstrosity.

Shift is more than aesthetic

The shift matters for how popular culture links monstrosity and disability. For nearly a century, films like the 1931 Frankenstein, directed by James Whale, encoded the monster as “deformed,” “broken,” or pathologically violent.

Whale’s Frankenstein is a landmark of horror cinema, but it also cemented some of the most troubling tropes about disability on screen.

The Creature (played by Boris Karloff) was made grotesque through design choices: a flat head, sunken eyes, heavy gait. These features mark him as visibly other, a body built for the audience to recoil from.

The film doubles down with plot devices: instead of receiving a “normal” brain, the monster is mistakenly given a “criminal brain.” Violence, the story suggests, is not the result of isolation or trauma but the natural consequence of defective biology. The message is clear: difference equals danger.

Difference as innate fault

From a disability studies perspective, this is called pathologization — the act of treating difference as if it were a medical defect that explains everything about a person. Whale’s Creature’s strangeness is presented as something built into his body. His scars, his staggered walk, his inability to communicate in words — all of these are framed as signs of an innate fault.

This is what theorists mean when they talk about “otherness.” Otherness refers to the way societies define who counts as normal, human or acceptable by pushing certain groups outside those boundaries. The Creature’s stitched, scarred body signals that he is not simply different but a threatening body to fear and control.

Over time, these representations cemented a cultural shorthand: to be visibly different, to bear scars, to move awkwardly or speak strangely, was to embody danger. The monster on screen taught viewers to associate disability with deviance and fear.

Looking ‘wrong’ and being ‘dangerous’

The story tells us if someone looks or moves “wrong,” then violence or danger must be lurking inside them.

That way of thinking didn’t come out of nowhere. It echoes early 20th-century ideas of eugenics, which tried to link disability and criminality. When you watch Whale’s Frankenstein through this lens, The Creature is a cautionary tale about why difference itself must be feared, controlled or even eliminated.

Mary Shelley’s original 1818 novel tells a much more complicated story. Her Creature is eloquent, self-aware and painfully conscious of how he is rejected by every human being he meets.

As noted by literary critic Harold Bloom, Shelley’s narrative insists humans “can live only through communion with others; solitude, for her, represents death.” Shelley shows us the social roots of monstrosity: rejection and isolation, not biological fate.

---

Read more:
Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’ legacy lives through women’s prison poetry project

---

But the 1931 film stripped that complexity away. Over time, audiences learned to read disability-coded traits — a limp, a scarred face, halting speech — as cinematic signs of danger.

A Creature with soul

Del Toro’s narrative follows Shelley more closely than the 1931 film. The Creature learns to speak, contemplates justice and articulates the pain of being abandoned. His violence, when it occurs, is not framed as the inevitable product of a defective brain but as the consequence of rejection, loneliness and abuse.

Del Toro’s version feels like a correction. Rather than leaning into horror, the film prioritizes tenderness, existentialism, love and understanding.

The design of The Creature reflects a shift in perspective. While his stitched body is unmistakably scarred, the makeup emphasizes vulnerability as much as grotesquerie. The Creature is unsettling because he is both human and not — beautiful, wounded and deeply present. The stitching and scars become traces of experience, history and survival.

From monstrosity to humanity

Movingly, the question becomes not “what is wrong with him?” but “why does society fail him?” This reorientation:

• Rejects the idea of defect as destiny. The Creature’s tragedy comes from rejection, not innate flaw.

• Restores voice and agency. In del Toro’s hands, The Creature is eloquent, thoughtful and capable of moral reasoning. That matters for audiences used to seeing disability-coded figures as voiceless.

• Shifts monstrosity onto society. The true horror is Victor Frankenstein’s hubris and refusal to care for what he made. The violence arises from abandonment, not deformity.

This is a disability-affirming move. Rather than imagining disability as pathology, or the monster as metaphor for disability, the film asks audiences to look at the structures of exclusion. Representations shape perception. If difference is always framed as frightening or tragic, those ideas seep into how we treat real people.

The Creature becomes legible as disabled because he shows us what it is like to live in a body that others cannot accept. His tragedy mirrors the lived reality of many disabled people: not inherent brokenness, but the pain of exclusion.

Monsters, disability and empathy

Frankenstein stories endure because they dramatize the question: What do we owe each other?

Whale’s 1931 version presented the monster as proof that boundaries must be enforced because the abnormal body is a threat.

Del Toro answers differently. His Creature reveals that what makes us monstrous is not our difference but our refusal to accept others as fully human. We are asked to fear the consequences of our own failure to care.

Billie Anderson 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. In Guillermo Del Toro’s ‘Frankenstein,’ what makes us monstrous is refusing to care – https://theconversation.com/in-guillermo-del-toros-frankenstein-what-makes-us-monstrous-is-refusing-to-care-265829

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James Horncastle, Assistant Professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney Professor in International Relations, Simon Fraser University

There’s recently been a significant uptick in Russian incursions into Europe. They started in mid-September with Russian drones violating Polish airspace, resulting in Poland being forced to deploy its air force to protect its sovereignty.

Subsequently, a Russian drone violated Romanian airspace. Perhaps most disconcerting, three Russian MiG-31s deliberately violated Estonian airspace in a clearly provocative act.

But these known Russian incursions are being overtaken by a troubling phenomenon. Airports in Europe, including but not limited to Copenhagen and Munich, have seen their operations disrupted by unknown drones.

Analysts increasingly believe these mysterious drones are operated by Russian agents to sow fear and tension in Europe. Whether that’s true remains to be seen.

Russian offensive weakening

While these incidents may appear designed to escalate the conflict by threatening to draw the European Union and NATO into the conflict, they instead reflect Russian strategic weakness as winter approaches.

Throughout 2025, Russia had several advantages over Ukraine. Russian superiority in arms production and mobilization, supplemented by direct and indirect aid from states like North Korea and China put it in a favourable strategic position compared to Ukraine.

---

Read more:
Amid the West’s wavering aid to Ukraine, North Korea backs Russia in a mutually beneficial move

---

Russia has hit Ukraine on multiple fronts.

While Russian frontline forces advance against Ukrainian positions, Russia increased the tempo and volume of its drone and missile strikes against Ukrainian cities. Nonetheless, even though Russian drones and missiles have inflicted considerable destruction and casualties on Ukraine in 2025, Ukrainians have yet to lose their will to resist.

Russian forces took advantage of this strategic imbalance against Ukraine to seize Ukrainian territory. Critically, however, while Russian forces have made gains, they have not achieved a decisive breakthrough against Ukraine. Russia’s minimal gains in September, furthermore, indicate that its offensive is stalling.

The fall weather and resulting cold and rain will further stall Russian offensive operations in Ukraine. The year 2025, initially looking like it would favour Russia, has resulted in Putin having little to show for it.

What’s more, Ukraine has not been passive during this period.

Exploiting Russian vulnerabilities

From a numbers and material standpoint, Ukraine is at a considerable disadvantage against Russia. But Putin’s government has two interrelated points that Ukraine seeks to undermine: domestic support for Putin and the Russian economy.

The extent of domestic support for Putin is a subject of debate among scholars and analysts. But Putin’s actions suggest he’s nervous enough about it that he’s seeking to insulate his support base against the effects of the war. To do so, he’s maintaining the illusion of a strong Russian economy.

But Elvira Nabiullina, Russia’s central bank governor, has warned the Russian economy is in trouble. Putin has ignored her warnings and has instead offered pithy retorts to criticisms of the Russian economy.

Despite Putin’s nonchalant reaction to the weakness of the Russian economy, Ukraine recognizes the fragility of his stance. In fact, Ukraine is now repeatedly striking the resource at the heart of Russia’s precarious prosperity: oil.

Oil and natural gas account for at least 30 per cent of the federal Russian budget. Ukrainian innovations in drone and missile technology has allowed Ukraine to repeatedly strike Russian oil and natural gas refining and logistical facilities.

This has resulted in Russia declaring a full moratorium on gasoline exports for the rest of the year. Furthermore, Russia was recently forced to partially extend an export ban to diesel as well.

Fuel shortages will only become more pronounced as energy demands increase over the cold Russian winter. Putin’s base, in short, could finally be forced to confront the consequences of his policies.

Escalate to de-escalate

Russian strategic failures in 2025, along with increased Ukrainian pressure, help explain Russia’s subversive efforts in Europe.

A misunderstood element of Russian strategic doctrine is the concept of escalating to de-escalate. Although this tactic is most commonly applied to nuclear strategy, it applies to all aspects of Russia’s strategic doctrine.

Russian politicians and generals are calculating that Europe is simultaneously unprepared and unwilling to wage war against Russia. Furthermore, Russian leaders are relying on the belief that European leaders, despite their rhetoric, will do whatever possible to eliminate the root cause of Russia’s recent incursions into European airspace: the Russia-Ukraine war.

Putin, after seemingly pushing Europeans to the brink of war, will likely pivot to a policy that encourages a diplomatic solution to Ukraine. Putin has followed a similar strategy of appearing to be more diplomatically inclined in the winters of 2024 and early 2025. World leaders, desperate for the war to end, have treated such proposals more seriously than warranted.

---

Read more:
Trump-Putin ceasefire conversation shows no initial signs of bringing peace to Ukraine

---

Russian drones and missiles may have proven devastating for Ukraine, but they haven’t altered the strategic balance.

Ukraine’s strikes, on the other hand, appear to be bearing strategic fruit at a critical moment of Russian vulnerability, forcing Putin to use unconventional means to try to secure victory against Ukraine.

James Horncastle 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. Why Russia’s provocations in Europe actually signal a weakened strategic position – https://theconversation.com/why-russias-provocations-in-europe-actually-signal-a-weakened-strategic-position-266883

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Fatma Ozdogan, PhD Candidate & Researcher, Université de Montréal

In December 1989, the United Nations declared Oct. 13 International Day for Disaster Risk Reduction. At the time, the aim was to make disaster-risk reduction part of everyday thinking worldwide.

Today, this mission is more urgent than ever as disasters strike more often and with greater force.

And although substantial progress has been made, there is still much to achieve in reducing disaster risks and their impacts.

One of the main culprits for overlooking certain disasters is the way we talk about them. We tend to focus more on the narratives surrounding rapid-onset events — wildfires, earthquakes, hurricanes — versus long-term crises like climate change.

Punishment from the gods

Historically, people saw disasters as unpredictable forces beyond human control.

Earthquakes, floods and famines were often explained as punishment from the gods. Communities believed these events reflected moral failings or divine judgment, rooted in cultural and religious traditions.

For instance, the Epic of Gilgamesh tells of a great flood sent to cleanse humanity of its sins. Early Islamic traditions interpreted disasters as tests of faith or signs of divine displeasure, with references in the Qur’an. Other major religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism have similar divine-based interpretations.

The Lisbon earthquake of 1755, however, marked a turning point, prompting a shift towards human-centred explanations of disasters.

Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire, Rousseau and Kant challenged purely religious interpretations, advocating rational and scientific reasoning and a better understanding of nature, ushering in a new view of disasters as acts of nature.

Disasters as human-induced

This intellectual shift marked the beginning of a more secular and scientific understanding of disasters. It suggested that disasters could be studied, anticipated and potentially prevented through human action.

Building on this foundation, the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century introduced new risks associated directly with human activities, such as factory accidents and railway crashes. By statistically analyzing these incidents, experts identified predictable patterns, prompting the creation of specialized institutions to manage and mitigate these emerging hazards.

As the understanding of human influence on disasters evolved further in the early 20th century, scholars began exploring how social behaviours, industrial practices and preparedness levels shaped disaster outcomes.

This expanded perspective underscored the crucial role of societal structures and human decisions, demonstrating that disasters were not just natural events but deeply intertwined with human factors. Although religious interpretations still exist in some communities, the consensus has shifted toward viewing disasters as human-induced.

By the 1960s, research turned to the social, political and economic roots of disasters. Scholars showed that poverty, weak governance, poor infrastructure and inequality made communities far more vulnerable.

As a result, attention shifted from reacting after disasters to tackling their root causes in advance. This regarded disasters as acts of social systems and structures.

Politics and equity meet

More recently, vulnerability and resilience have become core concepts in disaster management practice and policy-making.

International frameworks such as the Hyogo Framework (2005–2015) and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030) reflect this shift. These frameworks define disasters as a global issue requiring international collaboration, systematic risk management and proactive strategies.

Today, scholars widely recognize disasters not as purely natural events but as results of human actions, including negligence, poor planning and inadequate governance.

Defining what exactly constitutes a disaster, however, remains contested: Who decides what qualifies as a disaster, and according to which criteria? Which ones are more important and deserve more attention?

This distinction is especially clear in media and political discussions, which tend to highlight rapid-onset events like earthquakes, floods or hurricanes. In contrast, slower, long-term crises related to climate change or environmental degradation often receive far less attention

What media coverage misses

Our understanding and management of disasters is biased.

A recent analysis of Canadian media highlights a significant imbalance in the attention given to sudden and slow-onset disasters.

Sudden disasters like wildfires consistently receive far greater media coverage in comparison to slower-developing events like droughts or environmental degradation.

For example, CBC devoted up to eight hours in a single day to covering the immediate aftermath of the 2010 Haiti earthquake. In contrast, the 2011 Horn of Africa drought typically received less than two minutes of daily coverage. Yet the cumulative impacts of these slow-onset crises are substantial, often surpassing the effects of rapid-onset disasters.

According to a report by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, although droughts accounted for only 15 per cent of natural hazard-induced disasters from 1970 to 2019, they exacted the highest human toll, causing approximately 650,000 deaths globally.

During this period, weather-, climate- and water-related hazards comprised half of all disasters and 45 per cent of disaster-related deaths, disproportionately affecting developing countries. Additionally, between 1998 and 2017 alone, droughts led to economic losses roughly US$124 billion.

The World Bank further underscores this critical issue, estimating that climate-related, slow-onset disasters could displace about 216 million people globally by 2050. Such displacement carries extensive humanitarian and geopolitical consequences.

Recent events highlight the serious consequences of slow-onset disasters. Global soil degradation, for example, currently affects nearly 3.2 billion people. Between 2015 and 2019, 100 million hectares of land were lost each year, cutting food production and worsening hunger.

Rising sea levels threaten nearly 900 million people globally in low-lying coastal areas. Flooding, saltwater intrusion and soil salinization are damaging homes, farmland and public health.

Building a better future

Addressing what we pay attention to requires a fundamental shift in approaches to disasters.

This involves critically recognizing human accountability in exacerbating hazards and scrutinizing structural vulnerabilities — poverty, inadequate infrastructure, ineffective governance — which increase disaster impacts.

As a society, we need to re-evaluate our priorities and adopt a holistic perspective that equally acknowledges all disaster forms.

With sustained investment in prevention, stronger infrastructure and greater social equity, communities in Canada and around the world can strengthen their capacity to face the future.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The disasters we talk about shape our priorities and determine our preparedness – https://theconversation.com/the-disasters-we-talk-about-shape-our-priorities-and-determine-our-preparedness-266200

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James Horncastle, Assistant Professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney Professor in International Relations, Simon Fraser University

The Nobel Committee has ended months of speculation over the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner in selecting Venezuelan politician and activist María Corina Machado. With no obvious candidate this year, analysts spent months debating who should win the prestigious award.

In the end, however, the committee signalled its efforts to uphold the increasingly threatened liberal international order by selecting Machado, one of Venezuela’s key opposition figures and a proponent of democracy.

The politics of the prize

The Nobel Peace Prize, like most international awards, is highly subjective. In some years the winners may appear obvious, such as in 1994 when Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres shared the award for the Oslo Accord, but in other years, it’s not so clear; 2025 is one such year.

This ambiguity has given rise to many people and organizations angling for the award.

In 2025, United States President Donald Trump made a concerted and high-profile push for the award to cement his dubious legacy. Although many people found his demands for the award laughable, there is precedent for politics overstepping the reality of an individual’s contribution.

U.S. President Barack Obama received the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples.” But in reality, Obama had accomplished little to justify the award at that point of his political career just a year into his historic presidency.

Instead, the best justification that the committee chairman could offer was “we want to embrace the message that he stands for.”

In the case of Machado, the Nobel Committee chose to endorse both a message as well as actions.

Declining democracy in Venezuela

Democratic rights in Venezuela have declined significantly over the last two decades. Initially, people greeted the election of Hugo Chávez in 1998 as a significant break from the corruption and economic crisis that defined Venezuelan politics in the 1990s. They were wrong.

Once Chávez rose to power, his regime became increasingly authoritarian over time. The complete pivot to authoritarianism in Venezuela, however, happened after Chavez’s death under his successor, Nicolás Maduro, who assumed the presidency in 2013.

By 2016, outside observers argued that Maduro’s efforts to centralize power for himself constituted a “full-on dictatorship.” Despite several nominal elections since that time, Maduro has used a variety of tactics in order to guarantee he and his regime remain in power.

The Maduro regime’s tactics range from digital censorship to threats in the face of protests and outright violence. The people of Venezuela, in short, are far from free.

A champion for democracy

The tactics used by Maduro’s government to suppress the opposition means it requires considerable personal bravery and integrity to challenge the regime. Machado possesses such traits.

She’s faced considerable threats to her life throughout her political career. Starting in 2011, Machado was physically attacked by Chavez supporters. These attacks have escalated since Maduro assumed power.

While many of her fellow politicians have fled the country fearing such threats of violence, Machado has remained in the country and become a symbol of defiance and democracy for the opposition. Even though her centre-right views are not in alignment with much of the Venezuelan opposition’s political stances, she was nevertheless chosen to be the unity candidate in the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election.

Maduro’s government, fearing her appeal as a candidate, ultimately barred her from holding office.

Champion of a failing order

Machado’s personal bravery in the face of threats from the Maduro regime also highlights another matter the Nobel Prize committee seeks to highlight: the declining state of democracy at an international level.

Democracy is regarded by many as a foundational pillar for peace. The Nobel Prize committee is among them.

In awarding the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, the committee noted:

“Democracy is a precondition for lasting peace. However, we live in a world where democracy is in retreat, where more and more authoritarian regimes are challenging norms and resorting to violence. The Venezuelan regime’s rigid hold on power and its repression of the population are not unique in the world.”

Most analyses suggest that liberal democracy is in decline at an international level. Whether through the development of hybrid regimes or outright authoritarian governments, democracy as both a concept and a practice is under threat.

Trump’s second stint in the Oval Office seems to vividly illustrate this decline. The U.S. president and his supporters have been quite explicit that their priority is “America First.” The U.S., which previously served as a champion of the liberal international order on the global stage, is anything but at the moment.

Furthermore, Trump’s domestic actions domestically that threaten the basis of democratic governance will undoubtedly embolden other politicians to pursue similar policies.

With the world’s traditional champion of democratic governance in retrenchment, other pro-democracy forces are stepping into the breach — including the Nobel Committee and its selection of Machado for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize.

James Horncastle 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. A pro-democracy Venezuelan politician wins this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. Is it a rebuke to Trump? – https://theconversation.com/a-pro-democracy-venezuelan-politician-wins-this-years-nobel-peace-prize-is-it-a-rebuke-to-trump-267189

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Frédéric Dimanche, Professor and former Director (2015-2025), Ted Rogers School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Toronto Metropolitan University

A shutdown of the United States federal government started on Oct. 1 after President Donald Trump and Congress failed to reach an agreement on the funding legislation required to finance the government.

Tens of thousands of government employees will continue working without pay, and some may be furloughed, affecting many public services with interruptions or delays, depending on how long the shutdown lasts.

Politics and travel are very closely connected, and the current situation is likely to have a strong ripple effect far beyond Washington, D.C.

Although essential services such as border security and air traffic control continue to operate, the shutdown can still create disruptions, uncertainty and reduced service quality for travellers, while also causing significant economic stress for travel businesses.

For Canadians, the shutdown presents risks that could affect travel experiences, safety and trip values to the U.S.

Border delays and processing challenges

The Canada-U.S. border, the world’s longest international boundary, is administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, an agency whose employees are considered essential. This means ports of entry remain open. However, essential does not necessarily mean fully staffed.

During past shutdowns, U.S. Customs officers were required to work without pay until government funding resumed, leading to increased absenteeism, low morale and slower processing times. This turns into longer and more stressful travel experiences.

For Canadians travelling on the road, this can translate into longer waits at land crossings, particularly during weekends and holiday periods. Even air travellers face such risks.

At Canadian airports offering U.S. pre-clearance, U.S. customs officers perform entry inspections before departure. Any staff shortage or delay in pay could result in longer queues or flight delays at pre-clearance facilities. A further long-term risk could be the closure of pre-clearance at some airports.

Air travel disruptions

Airports are another critical pressure point. Both air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents continue to work during a shutdown, yet without pay.

As seen in previous government shutdowns, absenteeism tends to rise when employees struggle with financial uncertainty. The result can be longer security lines, flight delays and even cancellations.

The Federal Aviation Administration also halts non-essential activities, such as training new controllers or performing certain maintenance and safety inspections. The U.S. already faces a significant shortage of air traffic controllers. A shutdown freezes recruitment and training, worsening the shortage and magnifying safety risks.

Disruptions at U.S. airports typically begin to appear after about a week, but the longer the shutdown continues, the more likely these disruptions become.

For travellers, this means a greater likelihood of delayed flights at major U.S. hubs like New York, Chicago or Los Angeles, which serve as major gateways for connecting flights. A shutdown may also disrupt smaller regional airports, which have less staffing flexibility.

People flying to the U.S. should build extra buffer time into their itineraries and avoid tight connecting flights. The safety of air travel will only be assured through further ground delays at airports and flight cancellations.

Federal attractions closed but private ones open

Canadians visiting the U.S. for leisure could face disappointment when federal attractions and parks close. The National Park Service, Smithsonian museums and numerous monuments depend on federal funding and staffing.

In past shutdowns, parks like Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon closed their visitor centres, limited maintenance and suspended ranger programs. Although some parks may initially use “carry-over” funds to stay open, those reserves will run out. Visitors might find roads unmaintained, restrooms locked and emergency services unavailable.

Even if the gates remain open, safety and cleanliness often deteriorate, making the experience less enjoyable and potentially hazardous. In addition, National Park websites and social media accounts will not be maintained, and updates will not be provided to visitors.

Although the public sector shutdown affects travel to and within the U.S., the good news for travellers is that private operators in the tourism sector are less directly impacted. Hotels, private museums, restaurants and tour operators will continue to operate, but they may also suffer from delays, cancellations or border frictions.

The economic impact of a shutdown

The shutdown adds to the woes of the U.S. travel and tourism sector, which continues to suffer from a drop in the number of visitors from Canada — its largest international market — and other countries.

The US Travel and Tourism Association has warned that inbound visits are projected to decrease by 6.3 per cent, from 72.4 million in 2024 to 67.9 million in 2025 — a decline not seen since COVID-19. The association also estimates that the travel economy is at risk of losing US$1 billion a week due to the disruptions.

Additional financial pressures may further deter travellers. The cost of the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) rose from US$21 to US$40 on Sept. 30, and a new US$250 “visa integrity fee” for visitors from non–visa waiver countries like Mexico, China and India could contribute to fewer international visits.

For Canadians, the shutdown is yet another reason to avoid travelling to the U.S. Business travellers may delay a trip, and leisure tourists may also defer or cancel a trip across the border. This situation may continue to negatively impact the economy of border towns that depend on unrestricted mobility of travellers.

Know your risks before you travel

The concerns are growing, and likely will continue to grow if the shutdown extends for several weeks, as it did in 2018-19. The year 2025 has not been a good year for U.S. tourism and the Canadian market, and travellers continue to rethink travel plans.

In addition to the risks that travel to the U.S. presents for Canadians, there is now the added possibility of disrupted travel, closed national attractions like parks and museums and a general decline in service quality.

The U.S. government shutdown is just the latest in a series of crises that have impacted U.S.-Canada tourism since 9/11. Response and recovery are not enough when it comes to risk and disasters; businesses, but also travellers, must engage in contingency planning and risk and crisis management to avoid negative consequences.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Travelling to the U.S.? How the government shutdown will impact tourism – https://theconversation.com/travelling-to-the-u-s-how-the-government-shutdown-will-impact-tourism-266650