The Conversation – Canada – Page 13

October 9, 2025

OpenAI’s newly launched Sora 2 makes AI’s environmental impact impossible to ignore

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Robert Diab, Professor, Faculty of Law, Thompson Rivers University

OpenAI’s recent rollout of its new video generator Sora 2 marks a watershed moment in AI. Its ability to generate minutes of hyper-realistic footage from a few lines of text is astonishing, and has raised immediate concerns about truth in politics and journalism.

But Sora 2 is rolling out slowly because of its enormous computational demands, which point to an equally pressing question about generative AI itself: What are its true environmental costs? Will video generation make them much worse?

The recent launch of the Stargate Project — a US$500 billion joint venture between OpenAI, Oracle, SoftBank and MGX — to build massive AI data centres in the United States underscores what’s at stake. As companies race to expand computing capacity on this scale, AI’s energy use is set to soar.

The debate over AI’s environment impact remains one of the most fraught in tech policy. Depending on what we read, AI is either an ecological crisis in the making or a rounding error in global energy use. As AI moves rapidly into video, clarity on its footprint is more urgent than ever.

OpenAI showcases Sora 2’s capabilities.

Two competing narratives

From one perspective, AI is rapidly becoming a major strain on the world’s energy and water systems.

Alex de Vries-Gao, a researcher who has long tracked the electricity use of bitcoin mining, noted in mid-2025 that AI was on track to surpass it. He estimated that AI already accounted for about 20 per cent of global data-center power consumption; this is likely to double by year’s end.

According to the International Energy Agency, data centres used up to 1.5 per cent of global electricity consumption last year, with consumption growing four times faster than total global demand. The IEA predicts that data centres will more than double their use by 2030, with AI processing the leading driver of growth.

Research cited by MIT’s Technology Review concurs, estimating that by 2028, AI’s power draw could exceed “all electricity currently used by US data centers” — enough to power 22 per cent of U.S. households each year.

‘Huge’ quantities

AI’s water use is also striking. Data centres rely on ultra-pure water to keep servers cool and free of impurities. Researchers estimated that training GPT-3 would have used up 700,000 litres of freshwater at Microsoft’s American facilities. They predict that global AI demand could reach four to six billion cubic metres annually by 2027.

Hardware turnover adds further strain. A 2023 study found that chip fabrication requires “huge quantities” of ultra-pure water, energy-intensive chemical processes and rare minerals such as cobalt and tantalum. Manufacturing the high-end graphics processing units — the engines that drive AI boom — has a much larger carbon footprint than most consumer electronics.

Generating an image uses the electricity of a microwave running for five seconds, while making a five-second video clip takes up as much as a microwave running for over an hour.

The next leap from text and image to high-definition video could dramatically increase AI’s impact. Early testing bears this out — finding that energy use for text-to-video models quadruples when video length doubles.

The case for perspective

Others see the alarm as overstated. Analysts at the Center for Data Innovation, a technology and policy think tank, argue that many estimates about AI energy use rely on faulty extrapolations. GPU hardware is becoming more efficient each year, and much of the electricity in new data centres will come from renewables.

Recent benchmarking puts AI’s footprint in context. Producing a typical chatbot Q&A consumes about 2.9 watt-hours (Wh) — roughly 10 times a Google search. Google recently claimed that a typical Gemini prompt uses only 0.24 Wh and 0.25 mL of water, though independent experts note those numbers omit indirect energy and water used in power generation.

Context is key. An hour of high-definition video streaming on Netflix uses roughly 100 times more energy than generating a text response. An AI query’s footprint is tiny, yet data centres now process billions daily, and more demanding video queries are on the horizon.

Jevons paradox

It helps to distinguish between training and use of AI. Training frontier models such as GPT-4 or Claude Opus 3 required thousands of graphics chips running for months, consuming gigawatt-hours of power.

Using a model takes up a tiny amount of energy per query, but this happens billions of times a day. Eventually, energy from using AI will likely surpass training.

The least visible cost may come from hardware production. Each new generation of chips demands new fabrication lines, heavy mineral inputs and advanced cooling. Italian economist Marcello Ruberti observes that “each upgrade cycle effectively resets the carbon clock” as fabs rebuild highly purified equipment from scratch.

And even if AI models become more efficient, total energy keeps climbing. In economics, this is known as the Jevons paradox: in 19th-century Britain, the consumption of coal increased as the cost of extracting it decreased. As AI researchers have noted, as costs per-query fall, developers are incentivized to find new ways to embed AI into every product. The result is more data centres, chips and total resource use.

A problem of scale

Is AI an ecological menace or a manageable risk? The truth lies somewhere in between.

A single prompt uses negligible energy, but the systems enabling it — vast data centres, constant chip manufacturing, round-the-clock cooling — are reshaping global energy and water patterns.

The International Energy Agency’s latest outlook projects that data-centre power demand could reach 1,400 terawatt-hours by 2030. This is the equivalent of adding several mid-sized countries to the world’s grid. AI will count for a quarter of that growth.

Transparency is vital

Many of the figures circulating about AI energy use are unreliable because AI firms disclose so little. The limited data they release often employ inconsistent metrics or offset accounting that obscures real impacts.

One obvious fix would be to mandate disclosure rules: standardized, location-based reporting of the energy and water used to train and operate models. Europe’s Artificial Intelligence Act requires developers of “high-impact” systems to document computation and energy use.

Similar measures elsewhere could guide where new data centres are built, favouring regions with abundant renewables and water — this could encourage longer hardware lifecycles instead of annual chip refreshes.

Balancing creativity and cost

Generative AI can help unlock extraordinary creativity and provide real utility. But each “free” image, paragraph or video has hidden material and energy costs.

Acknowledging those costs doesn’t mean we need to halt innovation. It means we should demand transparency about how great the environmental cost is, and who pays it, in order to address AI’s environmental impacts.

As Sora 2 begins to fill social feeds with highly realistic visuals, the question won’t be whether AI uses more energy than Netflix, but whether we can expand our digital infrastructure responsibly enough to make room for both.

Robert Diab 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. OpenAI’s newly launched Sora 2 makes AI’s environmental impact impossible to ignore – https://theconversation.com/openais-newly-launched-sora-2-makes-ais-environmental-impact-impossible-to-ignore-266867

October 9, 2025

The evidence is clear: National pharmacare for contraception can’t wait

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Elizabeth Nethery, Postdoctoral research fellow, University of British Columbia

Why should women in British Columbia, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and the Yukon have access to free contraception while the rest of Canadians do not? Our new research, published in the British Medical Journal and JAMA Pediatrics, underscores the urgent need for universal prescription contraception coverage nationwide. Spoiler alert: cost matters.

When B.C. launched universal coverage for prescription contraception in April 2023, more people used contraceptives, and importantly, more chose the most effective methods. When Ontario introduced universal coverage for those younger than age 25 in January 2017, we found a similar jump in the most effective contraceptive methods.

In October 2024, the National Pharmacare Act received royal assent, establishing a framework for a national, universal, single-payer pharmacare program, beginning with free access to contraception and diabetes medications. Now, almost a year later, only four provinces and territories (B.C., Manitoba, P.E.I. and the Yukon) have bilateral agreements to implement this legislation on the ground.

On Sept. 10, Prime Minister Mark Carney said the federal government is “committed to signing pharmacare deals with all provinces and territories.” This is welcome news given previous statements in July by Health Minister Marjorie Michel indicating wavering commitment or that “all options are on the table” for implementing Bill C-64 nationally.

Why affordable birth control is essential

As reproductive health policy researchers (including two health-care providers), we know that universal coverage for contraception is essential to uphold reproductive population health and to achieve gender equity in Canada. We have recently published evidence demonstrating the effect of universal contraception funding policies on contraception use, which reaffirm how critical this policy is in the Canadian context.

Everyone in Canada, regardless of income or postal code, deserves access to the contraception that is right for them, without cost standing in the way. As former Federal Health Minister Mark Holland stated when announcing national pharmacare on Feb. 29, 2024: “Waking up in a country where every single woman has access to the contraception she needs to control her future is an absolutely critical part of having a just society.” He added: “This is about health equity.”

When women can’t afford contraception, the risk of unplanned pregnancy increases. When contraception is accessible without financial or logistical barriers, women are more likely to plan pregnancies around their health, education, career and family goals. This benefits not only the individual but also children, families and society overall by improving gender equity in education and workforce participation, reducing poverty and supporting better health outcomes.

Beyond this, free contraception is a cost-effective policy, expected to save our health systems money in the long term by reducing health-care costs linked with unplanned pregnancies.

Private and public drug plans

Some critics argue that many Canadians already have drug insurance and plans that cover contraceptive costs. But that doesn’t tell the whole story.

Most private and public plans do not cover 100 per cent of prescription drug costs. Deductibles and co-pays leave patients paying at least a portion out-of-pocket, and some private plans exclude contraception altogether. The most effective contraceptives (intrauterine devices (IUDs) and subdermal implants) can cost up to $450 up front, even with coverage.

Many young people or those working in seasonal or temporary jobs don’t have drug insurance at all. Others choose to pay out-of-pocket to avoid having birth control charges show up on a shared plan with a partner, spouse or parent — to preserve privacy. That is why first-dollar, universal coverage for contraception — as outlined in federal pharmacare — is essential. It guarantees access free from financial strain, coercion, loss of privacy or compromise.

If Canada’s pre-existing mix of public and private insurance provided sufficient access to contraception, we would have seen little or no change when contraception became free in B.C. But we did see change. Our research showed a 49 per cent increase in the use of the most effective contraceptive methods when they were available at no cost.

Clear evidence for pharmacare

This provides clear evidence that cost has been a barrier for individuals in B.C. and highlights a critical point: without universal coverage, many Canadians simply cannot afford their preferred method of birth control. When costs are taken out of the equation, more people choose the most effective contraception methods.

Similarly, when Ontario provided universal prescription coverage for youth 24 years old or younger in 2018, we found that prescriptions for IUDs and oral contraceptive pills jumped, with the greatest increases for those in low-income areas.

When this coverage was revised to exclude those with private insurance, use declined. This shows us that private insurance is inadequate to cover gaps in contraception needs, especially for youth.

All Canadians seeking to manage their reproductive futures deserve equitable access to safe, effective and affordable contraception. Our new findings show just how strongly cost influences these choices.

The federal government has promised to implement national pharmacare, starting with contraception (and diabetes medication). On Sept. 2, Michel said “we are tracking those [agreements] that have already been done to see how it works.”

The evidence is now available and is clear: pharmacare works. Our analysis of B.C.’s policy shows the clear public health benefits that could result from expanding pharmacare and making no-cost contraception a reality for all Canadians. Further, our analysis of Ontario’s experience show that a watered-down version of pharmacare policy (like Ontario’s policy for youth since 2019) does not suffice.

All Canadians, regardless of where they live, deserve access to the contraception that they need to control and plan their reproductive health futures. Now is the time to implement universal, first-payer coverage for contraception for all Canadians.

Elizabeth Nethery receives funding from Health Research BC.

Amanda Black has received research funding from CIHR. She sits on the Board of Directors of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. She has been on advisory boards for Bayer, Organon, Searchlight, and Pfizer.

Amanda K Downey works for Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. The company had no role in the development of this article. She receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Heath Research.

Laura Schummers receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the BC Ministry of Health, and the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. She consults for Canada’s Drug Agency.

Wendy V. Norman receives funding from the Canada Research Chairs program, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Health Canada, and The Public Health Agency of Canada. Professor Norman is affiliated with the Society of Family Planning Research Committee, and the board of directors for FIAPAC, a not for profit association of family planning professionals, based in Europe.

– ref. The evidence is clear: National pharmacare for contraception can’t wait – https://theconversation.com/the-evidence-is-clear-national-pharmacare-for-contraception-cant-wait-264967

October 9, 2025

Mark Carney’s climate inaction is at odds with his awareness of climate change’s existential threat

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Bruce Campbell, Senior Fellow, Centre for Free Expression, Toronto Metropolitan University; York University, Canada

Mark Carney has long been recognized as an authority on climate change. In 2015, as the governor of the Bank of England, he gave his famous “tragedy of the horizon” speech that introduced climate change to bankers as a threat to international financial stability.

In an interview shortly after he was appointed UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance in 2019, Carney described climate change as “the world’s greatest existential threat.”

Carney’s efforts to deal with the American-driven upheaval of the international order are critically important: strengthening the domestic economy by building international trade and security relationships. But climate doesn’t seem to be a priority for the prime minister.

His first actions cast seeds of doubt, including repealing the consumer carbon tax, delaying the implementation of the electric vehicle mandate on auto producers and the possible removal of the federal government’s emissions cap on petroleum producers.

‘Decarbonized’ oilsands?

The Carney government’s first five “nation-building” projects under review by its Major Projects Office included the doubling of production of a liquified natural gas facility in Kitimat, B.C.

It also included building small modular reactors (SMRs) at the Darlington, Ont., nuclear power generating plant. Apart from risks associated with its construction, it can take many years before SMRs can become fully operational, meaning they’re unlikely to play a significant role in reducing carbon emissions.

Under consideration for a second round of projects is carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) proposal from Pathways Alliance, a consortium of oilsands companies. The industry claims the project will allow the continued expansion of so-called decarbonized oilsands bitumen and natural gas.

But an Oxford University study concluded that regarding CCUS “as a way to compensate for ongoing fossil fuel burning is economically illiterate.”

In fact, the very term “decarbonized oil and gas” has been denounced as a falsehood by the co-chair of the federal Net-Zero Advisory Body (NZAB), climate scientist Simon Donner.

Canada’s GHG emissions reductions

Canada is the world’s 11th largest emitter of CO2 and the second largest emitter on a per capita basis.

Canada’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) represent its commitment under the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions by 45 to 50 per cent below 2005 levels by 2035, building on its emissions’ reduction plan of 40 to 45 per cent by 2030.

A report from Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development found emissions have declined by just 7.1 per cent since 2005.

The fossil fuel industry has essentially guaranteed that Canada’s 2030 reduction targets will not be met due mainly to continued increases in oilsands production, now accounting for 31 per cent of the total Canadian emissions.

The 2025 climate change performance index ranks Canada among the worst — 62nd out of 67 countries — for its overall climate change performance, which involves a combination of emissions, renewable energy, energy use and policy.

Legal consequences

Canada’s commitment to reach net-zero by 2050 is codified by the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. The federal government could be held liable for failing to meet the 2050 net-zero target. But the act doesn’t include a legal commitment to meet its interim targets.

Numerous climate litigation cases against governments and corporations are underway in Canada.

In Ontario, a lawsuit brought by seven young applicants is claiming the provincial government’s weakened carbon emissions reduction targets are forcing them to bear the brunt of future climate impacts. They argue their rights to life and security of the person under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are under threat.

In response to a case initiated by climate-vulnerable small Pacific island states, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion in July on state obligations on climate change. It ruled that the 1.5C Paris Agreement target is legally binding on states.

It ruled that failure to take appropriate measures to prevent foreseeable harm — including through allowing new fossil fuel production projects, granting fossil fuel subsidies or inadequate regulation — can constitute a breach of international law.

The ICJ also confirmed that states violating their international obligations can face a full range of legal consequences under the law of state responsibility.

Where is Carney?

Heatwaves, hurricanes, floods, droughts, wildfires, rising sea levels, growing ocean acidity and biodiversity loss are ravaging the planet, causing starvation, sickness and death.

The world is on track to exceed the 1.5C Paris Agreement warming limit with temperatures set to rise by more than 3C beyond the pre-industrial average. Canada’s climate is warming at twice the global average.

Yet Carney is avoiding answering whether Canada will meet its 2030 Paris Agreement target. His attendance at the upcoming COP30 Climate Summit in Brazil has not been confirmed, and he unexpectedly withdrew from the UN Secretary General’s recent climate summit — all of which suggests he’s not prioritizing climate action.

In this disturbing development, it’s worth noting the late Jane Goodall’s remarks about hope in her The Book of Hope: A Survival Guide for Trying Times:

“People tend to think that hope is simply passive wishful thinking: ‘I hope something will happen but I’m not going to do anything about it.’ This is indeed the opposite of real hope, which requires action and engagement.”

Bruce Campbell 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. Mark Carney’s climate inaction is at odds with his awareness of climate change’s existential threat – https://theconversation.com/mark-carneys-climate-inaction-is-at-odds-with-his-awareness-of-climate-changes-existential-threat-266526

October 9, 2025

‘Polite racism’ is the subtle form of racial exclusion — here’s how to move beyond it

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Karine Coen-Sanchez, PhD candidate, Sociological and Anthropological Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

In Canadian society, the narrative of multiculturalism can lean toward a “colour-blind” ideology — a comforting idea that race doesn’t matter and everyone is treated the same — even though such narratives mask persistent inequalities. They may also undermine efforts to address structural racism.

Yet race is always present, regardless of whether it’s consciously acknowledged. It surfaces in questions like “Where are you really from?” or in the invitation to “represent diversity” that comes with no real influence.

This is polite racism: a form of exclusion hidden behind civility.

Polite racism doesn’t make headlines, but its message is clear — you are present, yet not fully accepted.

My recent peer-reviewed study explores how first- and second-generation Haitian and Jamaican Canadians navigate these exclusions.

What polite racism looks like

The study involved conducting interview focus groups with first- and second-generation Haitian and Jamaican Canadians (ages 25–45) in Ottawa, and Gatineau, Que.

Findings from my study show that polite racism manifests in academic and professional settings. Haitian and Jamaican participants recounted instances where their research interests were minimized, their accents scrutinized or their presence tokenized in “diversity” spaces without corresponding influence.

For example, participants described:

• A project on immigrant experiences dismissed as “more advocacy than scholarship.”

• An accent scrutinized while expertise is ignored.

• A racialized employee invited to every diversity panel, but passed over for promotion.

Resonance with broader patterns

These examples are grounded in participant narratives from my study, but they also resonate with broader patterns identified in research on race and exclusion. As interdisiplinary Black studies scholar Rinaldo Walcott argues in Black Like Who?, Canada’s multiculturalism often tolerates difference while simultaneously pushing racialized people to the margins.

Work on perception by psychologist and neurophysiologist Jacobo Grinberg
helps explain why polite racism endures. He argued that reality is filtered through “perceptual fields” shaped by cultural narratives and collective belief.

In Canada, these fields have been conditioned by false histories and omissions, training society to see racialized difference as threat rather than connection. Polite racism survives not only through institutions but also through these internalized ways of seeing, which make exclusion feel natural, even polite.

The unseen toll

One of the most corrosive effects of polite racism on Black and racialized people is what I call duplicity of consciousness, drawing on the work of sociologist and historian W.E.B. Du Bois. Du Bois wrote about the concept of double consciousness — the tension of seeing oneself through both Black and white lenses.

Duplicity of consciousness captures the rupture that occurs when the promise of belonging collides with the reality of exclusion dressed in civility. It is the burden of entering spaces that promise inclusion but only on conditional terms — acceptance often requires minimizing or reshaping one’s identity to conform to whiteness as the dominant norm.

The constant demand of code-switching, suppressing frustration and remaining silent to avoid backlash, exposes the painful divide between the illusion of belonging and the lived reality of exclusion.

Polite racism is real — and harmful

Until the fear that underpins polite racism is dismantled, inclusion will remain conditional and incomplete. For example, a 2024 KPMG survey of 1,000 Black professionals in Canada found that 81 per cent had experienced racism or microaggressions at work, with women disproportionately affected.

Research also shows that perceived discrimination — even when subtle or ambiguous — creates chronic stress that harms both mental and physical health.

Why this matters for Canada

The exclusions enacted through polite racism wastes talent Canada cannot afford to lose. It also erodes faith in our democratic and social systems, leaving all of us more divided and less able to live up to the Canadian ideals we hold dear.

As Black studies professor Andrea A. Davis reminds us in Horizon, Sea, Sound: Caribbean and African Women’s Cultural Critiques of Nation, Caribbean women’s intellectual and cultural work has long shaped Canada, yet it is routinely overlooked even as institutions profit from it.

This is not just about fairness. It’s about whether Canada is willing to recognize and harness the full contributions of all its people.

Turning acknowledgement into action

Based on my academic findings, together with broader Canadian research, and my work as a consultant, here are five priorities to dismantle polite racism:

1. Increasing awareness and reducing fear: Training must move beyond theory to practice, helping managers (or faculty) and peers recognize subtle forms of exclusion and aversive racism as well as confronting the programmed fear of the “other” that underpins exclusion.

2. Reforming policy: Updating curricula and hiring practices to address embedded inequities and implicit barriers is not about special treatment. It ensures Canadian institutions benefit from the best ideas and the full range of talent, rather than silencing valuable perspectives.

3. Inclusive representation: Integrating the histories and voices of racialized communities into education and public discourse strengthens Canada’s story. It allows our multiculturalism to becomes a true reflection of the people who built this country and continue to shape it.

4. Data and accountability: Just as Canadians expect transparency in economic or health data, we should also expect accountability in how inclusive our institutions truly are.

5. Well-being support: Mental health services attuned to the stress of polite racism support not only individuals but also organizational health. When people can thrive without carrying the extra burden of silent exclusion, institutions perform better, communities are stronger and society benefits.

These priorities are not “asks” from racialized communities — they are investments in Canada’s future.

Toward authentic inclusion

Polite racism persists because it is comfortable for those who benefit from it, and it allows institutions to maintain appearances while avoiding change.

Action begins with self-reflection — for everyone. For white Canadians, it means confronting the inherited assumptions and comforts of whiteness that sustain inequality. For racialized people, it involves acknowledging the exhaustion and internal conflicts that arise from navigating exclusion within spaces that claim inclusion.

For teachers, it means teaching in a way that is culturally responsive and that works to dismantle systemic barriers, including polite racism.

When inclusion makes us uncomfortable, that discomfort reveals our shared wounds — the psychic scars produced by living within a racial hierarchy. For some, these wounds stem from privilege unacknowledged; for others, from exclusion endured. Both must be faced if we are to build genuine connection and trust.

Until we face these fears, Canada’s multiculturalism will remain polite on the surface, but exclusionary at its core. The opposite of polite racism isn’t impolite confrontation — it’s courageous honesty. It’s choosing truth over comfort, unity over silence.

Karine Coen-Sanchez 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. ‘Polite racism’ is the subtle form of racial exclusion — here’s how to move beyond it – https://theconversation.com/polite-racism-is-the-subtle-form-of-racial-exclusion-heres-how-to-move-beyond-it-263585

October 9, 2025

Toronto Blue Jays: Amid Canada-U.S. tensions, ‘Canada’s team’ is excelling at America’s pastime

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Noah Eliot Vanderhoeven, PhD Candidate, Political Science, Western University

Amid threats from United States President Donald Trump to make Canada the 51st state, the Toronto Blue Jays’ season started with protocols aimed at avoiding booing during the American national anthem and the removal of someone wearing a “Canada is not for sale hat” at the ballpark.

Nonetheless, the Blue Jays are being heavily marketed as “Canada’s team” as they advance to the American League championship after beating the New York Yankees, America’s most storied baseball team.

Why do the Blue Jays frame themselves as not just Toronto’s team, but Canada’s? And is their current post-season run their biggest and most important opportunity in years to fully establish themselves as representing all of Canada?

Truly Canada’s team?

The Jays serving as Canada’s team may make sense since they’re the only Canadian team currently playing in Major League Baseball (MLB). But to some Canadians, positioning the Jays as the nation’s team may not sit well.

After all, for baseball fans in Québec, memories of the now-defunct Montreal Expos still loom large.

For fans closer to the Windsor-Detroit border, the Detroit Tigers are a more proximate and accessible team.

Finally, some British Columbia MLB enthusiasts — despite the trips Blue Jays fans make to take over T-Mobile Park when the Blue Jays play the Seattle Mariners — still opt to support the Mariners since the team is so much closer than the Blue Jays are in Toronto.

What all this means is that to some Canadian baseball fans, the Blue Jays aren’t really Canada’s team — they’re just Toronto’s.

Huge market

It’s unsurprising that the Toronto Blue Jays organization, owned by Rogers Communications — “proud owner of Canada’s team” — is intent on framing the squad this way because it provides a substantial financial boon. The Jays benefit greatly from being Canada’s team by compelling baseball fans from across the country to attend their games, and most importantly, to watch them on television.

Despite playing north of the border and earning revenues in the weaker Canadian dollar, the Jays operate in one of MLB’s largest markets — Toronto — and can also market to fans across the country. That gives them the largest geographical market in professional baseball — an entire nation.

This massive audience contributes to equally massive television ratings, even at a time when most MLB teams are struggling for regional television revenues. Being “Canada’s team” has also allowed the Blue Jays to spend competitively over the past 10 years and operate a Top 5 payroll, as they have in 2025, alongside other teams in huge markets like Los Angeles and New York.

Cross-border trash-talking

In the midst of the series against the Yankees, Prime Minister Mark Carney met with Trump to discuss trade, tariffs and security. Intitial reports suggested the meeting, held just days after Trump made yet another veiled annexation threat, went well.

But the ongoing backdrop of tense relations between the U.S. and Canada is perhaps echoed by some of the commentary about both teams.

Early in the season, the Yankees’ play-by-play man, Michael Kay, called Toronto “not a first-place team” despite the Blue Jays having just passed the Yankees for first place in the American League East.

In September, Jays colour-commentator and former catcher, Buck Martinez, said that the Yankees were “not a good team.”

Also in September, a Baltimore Orioles television analyst, Brian Roberts, questioned how well Canadians understood baseball, leading to the Blue Jays themselves defending the baseball intelligence of their fans.

There was even a popular hoax online about Trump not inviting the Blue Jays to the White House should they win the World Series — an invite he’s extended to many championship teams in American sports leagues.

Stoking Canadian nationalism

Ultimately, the Blue Jays bested the Yankees and are advancing to the American League championship series. Blue Jays players and their manager, John Schneider, have spoken of the intense atmosphere Blue Jays fans create for their opponents and how the team draws on the support of the entire nation of Canada.

The Jays’ success so far in the post-season in this current political moment — as Trump is once again making veiled threats about making Canada the 51st state during tense trade negotiations — presents the Blue Jays with perhaps their best opportunity to fulfil their role as Canada’s team.

In a season defined by rivalry, politics and national pride, the Blue Jays are proving that even America’s pastime can become a canvas for Canadian nationalism.

Noah Eliot Vanderhoeven 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. Toronto Blue Jays: Amid Canada-U.S. tensions, ‘Canada’s team’ is excelling at America’s pastime – https://theconversation.com/toronto-blue-jays-amid-canada-u-s-tensions-canadas-team-is-excelling-at-americas-pastime-266882

October 8, 2025

How employers can promote physical activity among workers: 3 messages based on research

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Aviroop Biswas, Assistant professor, University of Toronto

We all know about the benefits of physical activity — not just to reduce the risks of chronic disease and physical injuries but also to improve mental health and productivity at work. But many people just don’t get as much physical activity as they should.

The World Health Organization’s physical activity guidelines recommend adults strive for 150 to 300 minutes of moderately intense aerobic physical activity every week, or 75 to 150 minutes if the physical activity is vigorous.

Given the amount of time many people spend working, getting more physical activity at work and/or during commutes to and from work might make these goals more feasible for working people.

Evidence-based strategies for employers

My research conducted with colleagues at the Institute for Work and Health, an independent non-profit research institute, illustrates the many ways employers can play a role to encourage this part of a healthy lifestyle. Even small changes, such as encouraging workers to move more than they currently do, can yield meaningful heart health benefits.

Offering a range of physical activity options, from structured programs to pleasant walking spaces, can be motivating for a wide range of employees. Even fostering an environment that helps employees mentally disconnect from work for a short time can make it easier for them to engage in healthy behaviours.

Below are strategies employers can use to promote physical activity among workers, based on IWH research studies.

1. Promoting physical activity throughout the day

Employers can encourage workers to make it part of their workday routine to head to the gym before going to work or go on a run during their lunch hour.

To reinforce that message, our research shows that workplaces can offer a range of programs and amenities. These include access to a pleasant place to walk, jog or bike; access to a field or open space for ball games or other sports; a nearby gym or fitness centre; organized fitness classes; organized recreational sports teams; showers and/or change rooms; and programs to improve health, fitness or nutrition.

In our large study based on data from about 60,000 people (a sample chosen to be representative of the makeup of the Canadian population), those who said that their workplaces offered all of the programs and amenities listed above were twice as likely to be active as those who were offered none. They were also 1.5 times as likely to be moderately active.

Although such a buffet of offerings may seem out of reach for employers, a large group of workers — 25 per cent of the study sample — reported having all these offerings at or near their workplaces. We also found that people were more likely to be physically active when they had access to any combination of the above, compared to having none of the above.

When highlighting the benefits of a rewards package to potential employees, workplaces might want to showcase environmental features such as nearby parks and gyms as well as programs and amenities. All have been found to promote physical activity.

2. Emphasizing that every bit of movement counts

Workplace wellness advocates know that some workers are already committed workout aficionados who need no convincing. In another study focused on how workers actually move throughout the day, we found that exercise buffs made up one in 10 workers in a sample of more than 8,000 individuals (a sample that was also representative of the Canadian working population).

As part of our research findings, compared to the sedentary workers who sit most of the day (and who make up about three in 10 Canadian workers), these exercisers have a 42 per cent lower risk of developing heart disease over 10 years.

But here’s the good news: we also found 50 per cent of the working population fall somewhere between these two extremes in how much they move throughout the workday.

Think of the sales associates who don’t sit still for long at work or the nurses who do a mix of desk duties and highly physical tasks. These workers all have lower heart disease risks compared to the deskbound workers.

We should note one important exception from our research study, which is the group of workers who do strenuous, physical work all through the workday — for example, construction workers. Workers in this group — about one in 10 of the labour force — have the same heart health risks as sedentary workers. That’s because heavy, continuous exertion can place stress on the body, potentially raising blood pressure and counteracting the typical benefits of physical activity.

But for everyone else, the message from our study is that every little bit of movement counts in terms of lowering workers’ odds of developing heart disease.

3. Tapping into internal champions

One of our ongoing studies at the Institute for Work and Health suggests that workplace wellness champions can be powerful motivators. These can be formally designated advocates like wellness leads or human resources staff, but they can also be informal proponents — individuals who are genuinely and spontaneously passionate about healthy living.

Our study suggests that the informal champions tend be more trusted by colleagues and therefore more effective as motivators, but because they typically do this champion work on the side, they can run the risk of burnout.

Our message to employers is they should identify and support champions within their organizations, both formal and informal, by recognizing the value they bring to building a healthier workplace and equipping them with resources they need.

The importance of upstream factors

No matter what or how many initiatives are put in place to promote wellness, employers also need to look beyond individual behaviour and motivation if they want to encourage a physically active lifestyle among their employees. They have to recognize that upstream factors play a role in shaping individuals’ exercise choices. These include factors related to people’s working conditions.

Employers need to ask themselves: do their employees feel they can disconnect from work for 20 minutes to go for a walk? Do only certain employees (for example, the managers and high-performers) have the flexibility to join the company ball team? If the organization highlights the gyms and fitness clubs in the neighbourhood as one of the appeals of working there, can everyone afford the membership fees?

In short, while everyone would agree a more physically active lifestyle is important, employers may need to take a hard look at how workload, work flexibility, supervisor support and other psychosocial work factors contribute to motivating or disincentivizing a physically active lifestyle among their employees.

The payoff is worth it. Active workers are less likely to develop chronic diseases, are more resilient to stress and more engaged in their work. This translates into fewer absences, better performance and higher job satisfaction. By making it easier for employees to move during the day, employers can support a healthier workforce.

Aviroop Biswas receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. The Institute for Work & Health is supported in part through funding from the Ontario Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development. He is also the President of the Canadian Association for Research on Work & Health.

– ref. How employers can promote physical activity among workers: 3 messages based on research – https://theconversation.com/how-employers-can-promote-physical-activity-among-workers-3-messages-based-on-research-259897

October 8, 2025

Small sample, big impact: How talking to just 5 people can improve startup success

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Xi Chen, Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship, University of Guelph

As Canada navigates an ongoing tariff dispute with the United States, small businesses and startups are emerging as a source of economic growth that could help Canada assert greater independence from its largest trading partner.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has warned that Canada cannot rely on the U.S. any longer and must instead achieve “economic autonomy.” Ottawa’s efforts to remove internal trade barriers and expand infrastructure projects are central to this objective, paving the foundation to revitalize the Canadian economy.

Another key part of this agenda is fostering entrepreneurship — the engine for new opportunities and economic growth.

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the backbone of the Canadian economy. As of December 2023, small businesses made up 98.1 per cent of all employer businesses in Canada, accounted for 63.7 per cent of the private labour force and 48 per cent of Canada’s GDP (gross domestic product) over the 2017-21 period. They also represented 38.2 per cent of the total value of exported goods.

Although exporting has traditionally been dominated by larger, innovation-intensive SMEs — particularly those with significant intellectual property — recent data shows an increase in exports from smaller, service-oriented firms, many of them immigrant-led.

These businesses are playing an increasingly important role in diversifying Canada’s export base and reducing dependence on any single market — particularly the U.S.

The lean startup model

For many aspiring entrepreneurs, one of the most popular frameworks for launching a business is the lean startup method, developed by Silicon Valley entrepreneur Eric Ries and expanded on in his 2011 book, The Lean Startup.

This practice has been widely adopted by incubators and accelerators, some of which require new ventures to meet hundreds of mentors and potential customers for consultation.

The Lean Startup provides a recipe for starting businesses with minimal cost, fast iteration and higher success rate. The philosophy behind it is for entrepreneurs to validate their market before investing tons of resources into building a product.

Since its publication, The Lean Startup has been used by millions of entrepreneurs around the world. The book advises entrepreneurs to “get out of the building” and talk to potential customers, but it doesn’t specify how much effort entrepreneurs should invest in market validation — how many people to consult or how often to do so.

Market validation is the process of testing a product or service idea with its target market to confirm if there’s real demand for it and whether it is viable for success. Although it’s central to the lean startup approach, many entrepreneurs shy away from it for different reasons.

Some entrepreneurs want to protect their business ideas from being stolen by others. In addition, new ventures have scarce resources that need to be allocated to multiple tasks, and market validation competes for the limited attention and resources of entrepreneurs.

The ‘sweet spot’ for market validation

In a recent study, my co-author Stephen X. Zhang and I set out to understand which entrepreneurs are more likely to invest in market validation, and how much investment is optimal for new venture performance. We conducted a three-wave survey with 210 entrepreneurs and their co-founders from Canada, Chile and China.

We measured the self-efficacy of entrepreneurs — how confident they felt about market and entrepreneurial success — and asked co-founders to report their ventures’ market validation frequency and hours. We found that entrepreneurs with moderate levels of confidence invested most resources into market validation. They sought feedback more frequently and invested more time in understanding potential customers.

Entrepreneurs with low confidence either didn’t think market validation was worthwhile or they found it too intimidating. Those with high confidence didn’t think it was necessary to validate their market because they were already convinced of their success.

More importantly, we found that a moderate level of market validation led to the strongest new venture performance. Checking in with about four to five people monthly was the most efficient. Interestingly, this number coincides with the most efficient size of social network, as well as the number needed for user testing.

The results suggest that effective market validation is more about quality and consistency than quantity. Talking to a small, diverse group of knowledgeable contacts on a regular basis is optimal for enhancing new venture performance.

Yet there is a precaution: we did not study the quality of informants. Five people may be enough for qualitative methods such as interviews, but it may not be enough for quantitative methods such as surveys.

What this means for new entrepreneurs

Our findings can make the task starting a new business less daunting for entrepreneurs. Instead of trying to interview hundreds of customers or skipping validation entirely, early-stage entrepreneurs can start small.

If you have an idea, find five people that are most knowledgeable and relevant for the idea, and ask their opinions about the product or service you envisioned. If they like the idea, develop a minimum viable product to test it out. If not, revise your idea or try a different one.

In addition, understanding the way confidence has an impact on how entrepreneurs seek feedback can help organizations and mentors improve their coaching methods.

Entrepreneurs with low confidence may benefit from support that builds self-efficacy through vicarious learning, such as observing and simulation, to make feedback less intimidating. Those with excessive confidence may need to be challenged to provide evidence for their assumptions and reminded of the value of customer feedback in challenging even deeply held convictions.

Xi Chen 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. Small sample, big impact: How talking to just 5 people can improve startup success – https://theconversation.com/small-sample-big-impact-how-talking-to-just-5-people-can-improve-startup-success-266661

October 8, 2025

Small sample, big impact: How talking to just five people can improve startup success

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Xi Chen, Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship, University of Guelph

Another key part of this agenda is fostering entrepreneurship — the engine for new opportunities and economic growth.

These businesses are playing an increasingly important role in diversifying Canada’s export base and reducing dependence on any single market — particularly the U.S.

The lean startup model

This practice has been widely adopted by incubators and accelerators, some of which require new ventures to meet hundreds of mentors and potential customers for consultation.

The ‘sweet spot’ for market validation

What this means for new entrepreneurs

In addition, understanding the way confidence has an impact on how entrepreneurs seek feedback can help organizations and mentors improve their coaching methods.

– ref. Small sample, big impact: How talking to just five people can improve startup success – https://theconversation.com/small-sample-big-impact-how-talking-to-just-five-people-can-improve-startup-success-266661

October 8, 2025

What AI-generated Tilly Norwood reveals about digital culture, ethics and the responsibilities of creators

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ramona Pringle, Director, Creative Innovation Studio; Associate Professor, RTA School of Media, Toronto Metropolitan University

Imagine an actor who never ages, never walks off set or demands a higher salary.

That’s the promise behind Tilly Norwood, a fully AI-generated “actress” currently being courted by Hollywood’s top talent agencies. Her synthetic presence has ignited a media firestorm, denounced as an existential threat to human performers by some and hailed as a breakthrough in digital creativity by others.

But beneath the headlines lies a deeper tension. The binaries used to debate Norwood — human versus machine, threat versus opportunity, good versus bad — flatten complex questions of art, justice and creative power into soundbites.

The question isn’t whether the future will be synthetic; it already is. Our challenge now is to ensure that it is also meaningfully human.

All agree Tilly isn’t human

Ironically, at the centre of this polarizing debate is a rare moment of agreement: all sides acknowledge that Tilly is not human.

Her creator, Eline Van der Velden, the CEO of AI production company Particle6, insists that Norwood was never meant to replace a real actor. Critics agree, albeit in protest. SAG-AFTRA, the union representing actors in the U.S., responded with:

“It’s a character generated by a computer program that was trained on the work of countless professional performers — without permission or compensation. It has no life experience to draw from, no emotion, and from what we’ve seen, audiences aren’t interested in watching computer-generated content untethered from the human experience.”

Their position is rooted in recent history: In 2023, actors went on strike over AI. The resulting agreement secured protections around consent and compensation.

So if both sides insist Tilly isn’t human, the controversy, then, isn’t just about what Tilly is, it’s about what she represents.

Complexity as a starting point

Norwood represents more than novelty. She’s emblematic of a larger reckoning with how rapidly artificial intelligence is reshaping our lives and the creative sector. The velocity of change is dizzying, and now the question is how do we shape the hybrid world we’ve already entered?

It can feel disorienting trying to parse ethics, rights and responsibilities while being bombarded by newness. Especially when that “newness” comes in a form that unnerves us: a near-human likeness that triggers long-standing cultural discomfort.

Indeed, Norwood may be a textbook case of the “uncanny valley,” a term coined by Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori to describe the unease people feel when something looks almost human, but not quite.

But if all sides agree that Tilly isn’t human, what happens when audiences still feel something real while watching her on screen? If emotional resonance and storytelling are considered uniquely human traits, maybe the threat posed by synthetic actors has been overstated. On the other hand, who hasn’t teared up in a Pixar film? A character doesn’t have to feel emotion to evoke it.

Still, the public conversation remains polarized. As my colleague Owais Lightwala, assistant professor in the School of Performance at Toronto Metropolitan University, puts it: “The conversation around AI right now is so binary that it limits our capacity for real thinking. What we need is to be obsessed with complexity.”

Synthetic actors aren’t inherently villains or saviours, Lightwala tells me, they’re a tool, a new medium. The challenge lies in how we build the infrastructures around them, such as rights, ownership and distribution.

He points out that while some celebrities see synthetic actors as job threats, most actors already struggle for consistent work. “We ask the one per cent how they feel about losing power, but what about the 99 per cent who never had access to that power in the first place?”

Too often missing from this debate is what these tools might make possible for the creators we rarely hear from. The current media landscape is already deeply inequitable. As Lightwala notes, most people never get the chance to realize their creative potential — not for lack of talent, but due to barriers like access, capital, mentorship and time.

Now, some of those barriers might finally lower. With AI tools, more people may get the opportunity to create.

Of course, that doesn’t mean AI will automatically democratize creativity. While tools are more available, attention and influence remain scarce.

Sarah Watling, co-founder and CEO of JaLi Research, a Toronto-based AI facial animation company, offers a more cautionary perspective. She argues that as AI becomes more common, we risk treating it like a utility, essential yet invisible.

In her view, the inevitable AI economy won’t be a creator economy, it will be a utility commodity. And “when things become utilities,” she warns, “they usually become monopolized.”

Where do we go from here?

We need to pivot away from reactionary fear narratives, like Lightwala suggests.

Instead of shutting down innovation, we need to continue to experiment. We need to use this moment, when public attention is focused on the rights of actors and the shape of culture, to rethink what was already broken in the industry and allow space for new creative modalities to emerge.

Platforms and studios must take the lead in setting transparent, fair policies for how synthetic content is developed, attributed and distributed. In parallel, we need to push creative institutions, unions and agencies to collaborate in the co-design of ethical and contractual guardrails now, before precedents get set in stone, putting consent, fair attribution and compensation at the centre.

And creators, for their part, must use these tools not just to replicate what came before, but to imagine what hasn’t been possible until now. That responsibility is as much creative as it is technical.

The future will be synthetic. Our task now is to build pathways, train talent, fuel imagination, and have nuanced, if difficult, conversations.
Because while technology shapes what’s possible, creators and storytellers have the power to shape what matters.

Ramona Pringle 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. What AI-generated Tilly Norwood reveals about digital culture, ethics and the responsibilities of creators – https://theconversation.com/what-ai-generated-tilly-norwood-reveals-about-digital-culture-ethics-and-the-responsibilities-of-creators-266564

October 8, 2025

Toronto Blue Jays: Amid Canada-U.S. tensions, ‘Canada’s team’ takes a run at America’s pastime

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Noah Eliot Vanderhoeven, PhD Candidate, Political Science, Western University

Nonetheless, the Blue Jays are still being heavily marketed as “Canada’s team” as they square off against the New York Yankees, America’s most storied baseball team.

Truly Canada’s team?

After all, for baseball fans in Québec, memories of the now-defunct Montreal Expos still loom large.

For fans closer to the Windsor-Detroit border, the Detroit Tigers are a more proximate and accessible team.

What all this means is that to some Canadian baseball fans, the Blue Jays aren’t really Canada’s team — they’re just Toronto’s.

Huge market

Cross-border trash-talking

As the series with the Yankees continues, Prime Minister Mark Carney met with Trump to discuss trade, tariffs and security. The meeting, held just days after Trump made yet another veiled annexation threat, reportedly went well.

But the ongoing backdrop of tense relations between the U.S. and Canada is perhaps echoed by some of the commentary about both teams.

In September, Jays colour-commentator and former catcher, Buck Martinez, said that the Yankees were “not a good team.”

Stoking Canadian nationalism

Ultimately, the Blue Jays ended up winning the American League East, guaranteeing the Jays a home-field advantage against the Yankees. Blue Jays players and their manager, John Schneider, have spoken of the intense atmosphere Blue Jays fans create for their opponents and how the team draws on the support of the entire nation of Canada.

In a season defined by rivalry, politics and national pride, the Blue Jays are proving that even America’s pastime can become a canvas for Canadian nationalism.

– ref. Toronto Blue Jays: Amid Canada-U.S. tensions, ‘Canada’s team’ takes a run at America’s pastime – https://theconversation.com/toronto-blue-jays-amid-canada-u-s-tensions-canadas-team-takes-a-run-at-americas-pastime-266882