Category: The Conversation – Canada

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Lianne M Lefsrud, Professor and Risk, Innovation & Sustainability Chair (RISC), University of Alberta

Psychological safety — the belief that it is safe to speak up with concerns, questions or mistakes — is widely recognized as essential for organizational learning, innovation and workplace safety.

Yet its absence — interpersonal fear — is rarely examined in investigations of serious workplace incidents. My new research on workplace fatalities, conducted with several co-researchers, suggests this missing factor may help explain why hazards so often go unidentified or unreported.

We surveyed more than 4,600 workers and analyzed thousands of incident reports across five mine sites and over 100 mining and contractor companies. We asked workers: “Why aren’t hazards identified or reported?”

We found that interpersonal fear — the perception that speaking up or challenging the status quo will lead to humiliation or punishment — was one of the strongest predictors of silence. Workers who were more likely to be fearful were also more likely to withhold information.

A pattern we’ve seen before

Our recent findings echo earlier research I conducted following a fatal mining accident near Fort McMurray, Alta., in 2017, when a Suncor employee fell through ground softened by a leaking tailings pipeline and was unable to free himself.

I led a team analyzing geohazards associated with working around oilsands tailings ponds. During a safety workshop that concluded the two-year investigation, my co-researchers and I asked the attendees to answer the same question — “Why are hazards not identified or reported?”

We expected technical responses, but instead, they focused overwhelmingly on human and organizational factors: lack of training, fear, inappropriate risk tolerances, external pressures, cultural inaction and complacency.

The predominance of fear shocked us. Workers described being more afraid of the social consequences of reporting hazards than of the hazards themselves. As a result, they were putting their own lives at risk.

Our newer, larger study confirms this pattern at scale. Using machine-learning techniques, we were better able to identify where fear was most likely to flourish, its organizational causes and consequences and how it undermines companies.

We found management dismissiveness, a lack of managerial action or follow-up and a lack of training were more likely to cause fear — especially among contractors — and suppress hazard identification and reporting.

Fear isn’t limited to the frontline

Employees lower in company hierarchies tend to experience less psychological safety. But senior leaders are not immune to it either. They can encounter situations where raising concerns feels risky, particularly in executive settings where disagreement can be interpreted as “too political,” disloyal or a sign of weakness.

Leadership scholar Amy Edmondson’s research helps explain this dynamic. Her psychological safety matrix shows that fear flourishes when high performance standards are combined with low psychological safety.

In teams with high levels of psychological safety and highly challenging tasks and standards, she found employees are curious and engaged problem-solvers. However, when the same high standards exist without psychological safety (where people believe that they might be punished or humiliated for speaking up), anxiety prevails.

The goal is to have your team experience the first scenario. Because psychological safety operates at the team level, organizations can have multiple teams doing similar high-risk work with dramatically different outcomes, depending on whether people feel safe enough to speak up.

Creating safer systems starts with leadership

Since interpersonal fear is shaped by perception, it doesn’t matter whether leaders believe they are approachable; what matters is whether their teams think they are. If employees are spending more time worrying about managing impressions than operations, hazards go unreported and people are unknowingly put at risk.

Creating safer workplaces requires cultures where speaking up is not punished, dismissed or discouraged. Leaders can start by asking themselves questions: who is least likely to challenge me at work? What information might I not be hearing as a result?

---

Read more:
Silence speaks volumes: How mental health influences employee silence at work

---

Often, the employees with the most job security, such as union reps or those nearing retirement, are the most honest sources of insight. Listening to these voices is often a good place to start.

Research shows that organizations can improve psychological safety through practical leadership changes. Supervisors who listen, seek feedback, share reasoning behind decisions and are team-oriented instead of self-serving are more likely to create and maintain psychological safety.

Leaders should also pay attention to variations across teams. Useful questions to ask include:

• Which teams are feeling fearful?

• Which teams are feeling curious and engaged?

• How can you create more high-performance teams?

Understanding why some teams feel safer than others can reveal opportunities for improvement.

For leaders, the greatest worry should be whether your employees are afraid to speak up. Be suspicious of “good news only” green dashboards, obsequious agreement or stony silences. Do not punish messengers — rather, embrace their candour as a gift and a sign that your organization is preventing harm.

Lianne M Lefsrud receives funding from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Alberta Justice, WorkSafeBC, Mitacs, Alberta Innovates, and the Lynch School of Engineering Safety and Risk Management endowed funds.

– ref. Fear at work is a hidden safety risk — and it helps explain why hazards go unreported – https://theconversation.com/fear-at-work-is-a-hidden-safety-risk-and-it-helps-explain-why-hazards-go-unreported-272886

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Joshua Gonzales, PhD Student in Management at the Lang School of Business and Economics, University of Guelph

It is a stereotype that Canadians apologize for everything. We say sorry when you bump into us. We say sorry for the weather. But as we trudge through the grey days of winter, that national instinct for politeness hits a wall of fatigue.

The temptation is obvious. With a single click, Gmail’s “Help me write” or ChatGPT can draft a polite decline to an invitation or a heartfelt thank you for a holiday sweater you’ll never wear.

It’s efficient. It’s polite. It’s grammatically perfect.

It’s also a trap.

New research suggests that when we outsource our social interactions to AI, we are trading away our reputation. Using AI to manage your social life makes you seem less warm, less moral and significantly less trustworthy.

---

Learning a language is hard, but even native speakers get confused by pronunciation, connotations, definitions and etymology. The lexicon is constantly evolving, especially in the social media era, where new memes, catchphrases, slang, jargon and idioms are introduced at a rapid clip.
Slanguage, The Conversation Canada’s new series, dives into how language shapes the way we see the world and what it reveals about culture, power and belonging. Welcome to the wild and wonderful world of linguistics.

---

The trap of efficiency

In our consumer economy, we love automation. When I order a package, I don’t need a human to type the shipping notification; I just want the box on my doorstep. We accept — even demand — efficiency from brands.

But our friends are not brands, and our relationships are not transactions.

The new study published in Computers in Human Behavior — entitled “Negative Perceptions of Outsourcing to Artificial Intelligence” by British academic Scott Claessens and other researchers — suggests that emotional dynamics follow different rules than those shaping more practical situations. The researchers found that, while we tolerate AI assistance for technical tasks like writing code or planning a daily schedule, we punish it severely in social contexts.

When you use AI to write a love letter, an apology or a wedding vow, the recipient sees a lack of effort instead of a well-written text. In relationships, effort is a strong currency of care.

Less warm, less authentic

You might think you can hack this system by being honest. Perhaps you tell your friend: “I used ChatGPT to help me find the right words, but I edited it myself.”

Unfortunately, the data doesn’t indicate this is much of a solution.

Claessens’ work investigated a “best-case” scenario, where a user treated AI as a collaborative tool, employing it for ideas and feedback rather than verbatim copying, and was fully transparent about the process.

The researchers found that the social consequences of this approach are highly task-dependent: for socio-relational tasks like writing love letters, wedding vows or apology notes, participants still rated the sender as significantly less moral, less warm and less authentic than someone who didn’t use AI.

However, for instrumental or non-social tasks like writing computer code or dinner recipes, this collaborative and honest use of AI didn’t lead to negative perceptions of moral character or warmth, even if the user was still perceived as having expended less effort.

This creates a uniquely modern anxiety for the polite Canadian. We apologize to maintain social bonds. But if we use AI to craft that apology, we sever the very bond we are trying to hold onto. An apology generated by an algorithm, no matter how polished, signals that the relationship wasn’t worth the 20 minutes it would have taken to write it yourself.

Authentic inefficiency

This friction isn’t limited to text messages.

I’ve observed a similar pattern in my own preliminary research on consumer behaviour and AI-generated art. This work was conducted with Associate Prof. Ying Zhu at the University of British Columbian, Okanagan and will be presented at the American Marketing Association’s Winter Conference.

Consumers often reject excellent AI creations in creative arts fields because they lack the moral weight of human intent.

I believe we’re entering an era where inefficiency and imperfection will become premium products. Just as a flawed hand-knit scarf means more than a mass-produced, factory-made one, a clunky, typo-ridden text message from a friend is becoming more valuable than a sonnet written by a random internet language model.

The renowned “Canadian Sorry” is only meaningful because it represents a moment of humility, a pang of guilt, the effort used to find the right words. When we outsource this type of labour, we outsource the meaning too.

So as you tackle your inbox this winter, resist the urge to let the robot take the wheel for every case. Your clients might need the perfect email, but your friends and family certainly don’t. They want to know you cared enough to find the words yourself.

Joshua Gonzales 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. Slanguage: How the use of AI for apologies could cause the ‘Canadian Sorry’ to lose its soul – https://theconversation.com/slanguage-how-the-use-of-ai-for-apologies-could-cause-the-canadian-sorry-to-lose-its-soul-273046

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Mitchell L. Hammond, Assistant Professor of History, Western University

Hours after Donald Trump began his second term as United States president on Jan. 20, 2024, he signed an executive order to end American membership in the World Health Organization (WHO) after one year. This restarted a process that the first Trump administration initiated in July 2020 but was reversed by Joe Biden.

The withdrawal is set to take effect this week, although WHO officials may not officially accept it because the U.S. has unpaid dues from the last two years. No matter how events play out, the rift signals the start of an uncertain new era in global public health.

In the withdrawal announcement, the Trump administration cited the WHO’s “mishandling” of the COVID-19 pandemic and its inability to remain independent from the political influence of member states. This reflected Trump’s belief that the WHO leadership favoured China in early 2020 by praising its initial COVID response while faulting the U.S. for closing its border to Chinese travellers.

Other observers acknowledged the need for reform of the WHO’s cumbersome bureaucratic structure and criticized its inability to translate scientific research about COVID into useful guidance about masking and social distancing.

Such criticisms should not obscure the WHO’s enormous contribution to global health or how U.S. interests have been intertwined with its successes. Viewed historically, its great strength lies in sustained collaboration rather than short-term emergency response.

Vaccine diplomacy

In my research for Epidemics and the Modern World and its forthcoming revision, I have explored how the U.S. conducted “vaccine diplomacy” in developing countries. After the Second World War, the U.S. discerned an alignment between its strategic objectives and the soft power it gained from campaigns against epidemic diseases and childhood immunization programs.

For example, in 1967, American funding and leadership encouraged the start of the WHO’s Intensified Smallpox Eradication Program (ISEP) in African countries. This work involved collaboration with global rivals such as the Soviet Union, which contributed large quantities of freeze-dried smallpox vaccine.

When the ISEP began, at least 1.5 million people worldwide died from smallpox annually. Only 13 years later, the WHO declared the disease eradicated from nature in 1980. This success encouraged efforts to eradicate polio, which accelerated after 1988 when the WHO launched the Global Polio Eradication Initiative with support from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other partners.

Another important collaboration began in 1974 when the WHO and international partners launched the Expanded Program on Immunization to help prevent six childhood diseases (polio, diphtheria, pertussis, tuberculosis, measles and tetanus).

After 1985, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) invested billions of dollars in the program. Global childhood immunization levels reached 80 per cent by the early 1990s and continued to pay health dividends thereafter.

An analysis published last year in the Lancet estimated that, in the last 20 years, USAID-funded programs had helped prevent over 90 million deaths globally, including 30 million deaths among children.

Dismantling global influence

In public health, as in other arenas, the Trump administration has discarded participation in global alliances and instead sought bilateral agreements with other countries.

By July 2025, the Trump administration had formally dismantled USAID and cancelled funding for more than 80 per cent of its programs. Modelling conducted by Boston University epidemiologist Brooke Nichols suggests the lapsed programs have already caused roughly 750,000 deaths, mostly among children.

---

Read more:
International aid groups are dealing with the pain of slashed USAID funding by cutting staff, localizing and coordinating better

---

The U.S. has also already begun to cede influence over the objectives of global health programs. At the World Health Assembly in May 2025, the U.S. did not sign the WHO Pandemic Agreement intended to foster collaboration among governments, international agencies and philanthropies after the COVID-19 pandemic.

At that same meeting, China pledged to increase its voluntary contributions to the WHO to US$500 million over the next five years. Practically overnight, China will replace the U.S. as the WHO’s largest national contributor and undoubtedly steer priorities in global health programs towards its interests.

Disease monitoring and global threats

A more immediate concern is the disruption to surveillance for ongoing disease challenges and emergent threats.

Since 1952, the WHO’s Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System has provided a platform for monitoring of cases and the sharing of data and viral samples. Information from institutions in 131 countries contributes to recommendations for the composition of seasonal influenza virus vaccines. The U.S. may be left out of this global system, which will hamper efforts to match vaccines to the circulating strains of flu.

The WHO also dispatches response teams around the world for outbreaks of numerous diseases such as mpox, dengue, Ebola virus disease or Middle East respiratory syndrome. The exclusion of American scientists will hamper these efforts and diminish the nation’s capacity to protect itself.

The policy shift in the U.S. poses challenges for Canada both as its northern neighbour and as a strong financial supporter of the WHO. The recent spread of measles within Canada, which resulted in loss of the country’s elimination status, reminds us that disease outbreaks are inevitable but progress in public health is not.

Renewed support of the WHO and other multilateral efforts, although desirable, should be matched by expanded investment in programs for disease surveillance and research, vaccine procurement and public health communication. Federal and provincial governments and the Public Health Agency of Canada will all have roles to play as Canada faces disease threats in a rapidly changing world.

Mitchell L. Hammond 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. How the U.S. withdrawal from WHO could affect global health powers and disease threats – https://theconversation.com/how-the-u-s-withdrawal-from-who-could-affect-global-health-powers-and-disease-threats-273768

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Addisu Lashitew, Associate professor, Business, McMaster University

Canada has announced an agreement to reduce its 100 per cent tariff on electric vehicle (EV) imports from China to 6.1 per cent. The tariffs will be replaced by an annual import quota of 49,000 EVs in 2026, rising gradually to 70,000 by 2030.

This phased opening is designed to help Canada diversify its supply chain and accelerate EV adoption without relying on subsidies. In return, China will lower tariffs on Canadian canola to 15 per cent by March and remove tariffs on a few other Canadian goods.

The rollback of Canada’s EV tariff wall marks a significant shift in the Canadian trade relationship with China. It also represents a notable de-escalation of trade tensions during a period of intense economic uncertainty, driven largely by protectionist American policy.

It will not, however, reshape Canada’s auto market overnight.

A modest opening with outsized effects

The initial 2026 quota amounts to about 2.5 per cent of total new vehicle sales in Canada, which was just below two million vehicles in 2025. In global terms, it’s also a modest amount, equivalent to only 2.2 per cent of BYD’s estimated 2025 EV sales (2.26 million vehicles) and three per cent of Tesla’s estimated 2025 EV sales (1.65 million vehicles).

For Canada’s struggling EV market, however, the policy change could provide a meaningful boost. The end of the federal Incentives for Zero-Emission Vehicles program in 2025 increased EV prices by roughly eight to 12 per cent. Higher upfront costs slowed demand, and EVs now account for about nine per cent of new vehicle sales, down from 15 per cent in 2024.

By opening the market to innovative EVs from China, the new policy should expand access to lower-cost models and help revive demand. China’s EV market includes more than 100 EV brands, including BYD, which recently overtook Tesla as the world’s largest EV maker.

The new policy also features other major brands like Geely, SAIC Group, Nio and XPeng, with several models priced within at about $30,000. Increased price competition could narrow the affordability gap that has slowed adoption since incentives were withdrawn.

Pivoting to China for diversification

The quota system likely reflects concern within Ottawa that unrestricted access for Chinese EVs could flood the Canadian market and disrupt local manufacturing. A phased opening gives automakers time to adjust and helps consumers become familiar with new Chinese brands.

It may also encourage foreign manufacturers to expand local assembly or partnerships to cater to growing EV demand. The government expects the deal to catalyze Chinese joint-venture investment that will deepen and diversify Canada’s EV supply chain.

The agreement also signals an effort to reduce Canada’s dependence on the United States, which is the destination for about 92 per cent of Canada’s auto and auto parts exports. This shift, however, starts from a very low base.

While China is Canada’s second-largest trading partner, merchandise exports to China were only $29.9 billion in 2024, or about 7.3 per cent of exports to the U.S.

For that reason, the seemingly ambitious target of increasing merchandise exports to China by 50 per cent by 2030 will not materially change Canada’s reliance on the U.S.

It is better understood as one element of a broader strategy to reduce exposure to an increasingly inward-looking and unpredictable partner.

The deal could also complicate Canada’s position ahead of future renegotiations of the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement. Prime Minister Mark Carney can reasonably argue that import volumes are small relative to total auto sales in Canada and the U.S. At the same time, deeper engagement with China signals alternatives and may modestly strengthen Canada’s leverage.

More EV adoption at lower government cost

The trade opening could support EV adoption at lower fiscal cost. The Incentives for Zero-Emission Vehicles program, which stalled after its funding was exhausted, cost the government $2.6 billion and supported approximately 546,000 EV purchases.

When rebates lapsed, annual EV sales declined by more than one-quarter, falling from 264,000 in 2024 to 191,000 in 2025.

As Canada contends with a growing fiscal deficit, expanding consumer choice through trade may prove more durable than relying on subsidies.

It not only reduces the need for public spending but also reduces the future cost of adoption by putting pressure on incumbents such as Tesla and GM to cut prices to compete with new entrants like BYD.

A wider set of affordable models should lift demand and, as the customer base expands, strengthen the case for faster charging network expansion. This could help Canada return to its mandate of 50 per cent EV sales by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2035, which was recently paused.

Why the quota needs a hard end date

Tariffs and quotas are often framed as temporary protections that give domestic producers breathing room amid competitive pressure. In practice, they can be difficult to unwind because beneficiaries lobby to preserve them.

Canada’s rollback of its tariff wall on Chinese EVs is unusual, precipitated by trade tensions with the U.S. and punishing reciprocal tariffs by China on its canola imports.

Absent similar pressure, the newly introduced quotas could outlive the intended five-year window. Automakers and their political allies will defend them, just as they defended the blanket EV tariffs that denied Canadians of access to affordable EVs.

Canada should explicitly commit to eliminating the quota by 2030. Moving to an open market regime will benefits consumers, strengthens competitiveness and supports environmental goals.

Addisu Lashitew 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. Lower tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles could boost adoption and diversify Canada’s trade – https://theconversation.com/lower-tariffs-on-chinese-electric-vehicles-could-boost-adoption-and-diversify-canadas-trade-273769

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Daphne Rena Idiz, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Arts, Culture and Media, University of Toronto

In late December 2025, it seemed like everyone went to “the cottage.” This is a reference to the steamy Crave megahit Heated Rivalry. Even The Guggenheim Museum of New York and Ottawa Tourism has jumped on the Heated Rivalry bandwagon.

Heated Rivalry has launched the careers of Texas native Connor Storrie and Hudson Williams, from British Columbia. The actors play hockey rivals-turned-lovers Ilya Rozanov and Shane Hollander.

---

Read more:
_Heated Rivalry_ scores for queer visibility — but also exposes the limits of representation

---

The Heated Rivalry obsession is widespread, having topped Crave’s No. 1 most-watched spot for weeks and taken global audiences, TV networks and online algorithms by storm.

Storrie and Williams have appeared at the Golden Globes, on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon and on Late Night with Seth Meyers.

In an era where data-crunching increasingly offers predictions about market-driven success, all this might make viewers wonder if Heated Rivalry has cracked the algorithmic code.

Risk-taking gone right

Was the show a bet on #booktok fans? Heated Rivalry is based on a book that is part of the popular Game Changers series by Canadian author Rachel Reid.

However, as scholars who have examined contemporary TV production, we agree with acting coach Anna Lamadrid that Heated Rivalry would never have been made if left solely to algorithmic analysis.

The standard algorithm-driven approach designed to entice the widest possible audience — typical of U.S. streaming giants like Netflix — would argue the series had limited appeal, no star power and a niche audience.

More likely, as creator Jacob Tierney told Myles McNutt, a professor of media studies, Crave trusted him and his vision. Tierney previously made the popular and award-winning shows Shoresy and Letterkenny.

As Tierney told McNutt, Heated Rivalry was greenlit by Crave but needed additional financing. Tierney approached several studios, but received notes “that would fundamentally change the story, or fundamentally change the tone.”

In a recent CBS interview with Montréal-born actor François Arnaud, who plays older gay hockey player Scott Hunter, Arnaud said he “didn’t think the show could have been made in the U.S.” He said Heated Rivalry was “at a big streamer before” that wanted changes, including “no kissing until Episode 5.”

Heated Rivalry is an example of risk-taking gone right at a time when there are calls to cancel international streamers in favour of investing in homegrown film and TV. Its success is also the result of a confluence of industry-level transformations in Canadian production and streaming.

A confluence of conditions

In the 1950s, only a few Canadian broadcasters made content entirely “in-house.” Production and distribution companies were operated by government-funded agencies, including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Film Board of Canada.

Creative content consisted mostly of news and filmed theatre or dance productions. In the 1960s, pay TV emerged and appetite built for racier variety TV, game shows and talk shows.

By the 1970s, the baby boomer bubble — combined with arts funding and more affordable video and editing equipment — changed everything. Low-cost content for niche audiences proliferated on cable TV.

The Canadian media system moved toward independent production. Production companies were separated from broadcasters, owned and run by different people. But the ability to green-light Canadian-scripted TV shows still depended on acquiring distribution licences from a few major broadcasters.

This triggered funding from the Canada Media Fund and provincial or territorial tax credits, which still finance most productions. To spread financial risk, many dramas were co-productions between Canada and other countries.

By 2005, in the wake of broadband and the growth of more audacious content produced for smaller audiences, Canadian broadcasters shifted to reality (“unscripted”) TV as a relatively inexpensive genre that could draw big audiences.

Still, breakthrough dramatic programs — like Corner Gas (2004-09), Little Mosque on the Prairie (2007-12), Kim’s Convenience (2016-21) and Schitt’s Creek (2015-20) — dealt with the complexity and specificity of Canadian society.

Steamy streaming

Today, several key policy changes and corporate consolidations have brought smaller, riskier and explicitly Canadian projects to the screen.

The Online Streaming Act and the recently updated definition of Canadian content have targeted streaming services like Netflix and Crave to incentivize the production and discoverability of Canadian shows.

Shifts in policy have supported Canadian content, including funding for underrepresented voices. Heated Rivalry’s development ran parallel to recent policy and industry shifts.

---

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

---

Bell Media, the largest Canadian media company, owns CTV and Crave. In March 2025, it acquired a majority stake of United Kingdom-based global distributor Sphere Abacus. This played a key role in Heated Rivalry’s development.

The Canada Media Fund contributed $3.1 million to Heated Rivalry. Culture Minister Marc Miller has also noted in addition to the federal funding, the series received tax credits. Eligible Canadian film or video productions can receive a refundable tax credit.

Bell Media committed to the show budget in March 2025, including a contribution from recently acquired Sphere Abacus.

Sean Cohan, Bell Media CEO, has said the company saw Heated Rivalry as a show that could move the conglomerate “from being seen as a legacy broadcaster to a digital-media content player with global impact.”

The series was shot in just over a month at a budget of less than CDN$5 million per episode and before long, stars Williams and Storrie were whisked away to the Golden Globes.

What’s next for Canadian productions?

Crave is already promoting Slo Pitch starring Schitt’s Creek actor Emily Hampshire and featuring Heated Rivalry’s Nadine Bhaba.

Set to premiere in 2026, this 10-episode mockumentary series follows a queer, underdog softball team. While the show is also about gay sports, it’s in a league all its own — promising “beer, lesbians and baseball.”

Is Crave a beacon of hope for Canadian content? Maybe Canadian producers and distributors can leverage the Heated Rivalry effect to galvanize Canadian and international audiences onto more Canadian-produced intellectual property (IP).

The issue of IP is now a key sticking point in multiple unresolved lawsuits by Netflix, Amazon and Spotify that have been brought to the federal government.

The looming Warner Bros Discovery (Warner Bros, HBO) acquisition by Netflix will directly impact Crave. As HBO Max’s sole Canadian distributor, there’s some worry about what could happen to this lucrative content for the Canadian streamer should Netflix gobble up all of the IP — a major issue for distribution deals and Canadian creatives.

---

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

---

Not to stretch the hockey metaphor too tight, but policy sets the rules of the game. Corporate and government funding bring the players to the rink. Producers and writers aspire to be winning coaches. Audiences want to be on the edge of their seats.

They also want more choices: exploring riskier storylines, meeting new talent and seeing their own lives — and Canadian content — on screen. With Heated Rivalry’s success, they seem to have it all this season.

Daphne Rena Idiz receives funding from the Creative Labour and Critical Futures (CLCF) project.

Claudia Sicondolfo receives funding from SSHRC for Archives in Action and Platforming Leisure and is a Board Member for the Toronto Queer Film Festival.

MaryElizabeth Luka receives funding from University of Toronto Cluster of Scholarly Prominence program (Creative Labour Critical Futures) as well as from periodic competitive, peer-adjudicated Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council funding programs for research in their areas of expertise.

– ref. Heated Rivalry: How investment in Canadian content can pay off at home and abroad – https://theconversation.com/heated-rivalry-how-investment-in-canadian-content-can-pay-off-at-home-and-abroad-272982

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Guillermo Candiz, Assistant Professor, Human Plurality, Université de l’Ontario français

Since February 2025, thousands of Venezuelan asylum-seekers have been turned away from the United States-Mexico border and denied the right to apply for protection in the U.S. Along with other Venezuelans who were living in the U.S. and have been deported, they’ve been forced to head south, either back to Venezuela or to other countries in Central and South America.

This phenomenon — commonly described as reverse migration — raises important questions about the capacity or willingness of countries in the region to ensure the safety and security of these migrants.

As part of ongoing research, we talked to asylum-seekers and collected their insights during our field work in Costa Rica in November and December 2025. Our interviews revealed that those who abandoned the hope of crossing into the U.S. made the decision for many reasons.

Expecting a better life in Venezuela was not among them. Instead, many faced repeated obstacles along the way, which accumulated over time into what can be described as journey fatigue.

Exhaustion

The migrants we interviewed experienced physical exhaustion from long periods of waiting, economic hardship, fear and incidents of violence in Mexico, as well as fraud and theft, while access to institutional or humanitarian support steadily declined.

The final blow for most of them came from changes in the U.S. asylum and temporary protection policies. These included the termination of the two‑year humanitarian parole program, the freezing of asylum application processing for Venezuelans and nationals of 18 other countries and the inclusion of Venezuelans in travel bans restricting entry for citizens of 39 countries.

These policy shifts were combined with the abrupt cancellation of what was known as the CBP One mobile application and all previously approved appointments made using the app.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s app allowed asylum-seekers to submit biographic information to set up an appointment prior to their scheduled arrival at a port of entry. This sudden change dashed the hopes of thousands who had been waiting for an opportunity to request asylum at the U.S. border.

Decisions to head back south rather than continue pursuing entry into the U.S. are made under conditions of high uncertainty. Migration regimes, support infrastructure and facilitation networks change rapidly — some disappearing as others emerge — and often without clear mechanisms for sharing information among migrants or those trying to help them.

In this environment, many people remain trapped for months in waiting spaces, with no real possibility of moving forward and no means of survival while waiting, resorting to begging or informal work.

A Venezuelan couple we interviewed at the Costa Rica–Panama border described how they often sang in restaurants or begged to feed their family, pay for bus travel between countries, and, at times, secure a roof over their heads when shelters run by religious organizations were unavailable.

Not safe to return

For international organizations and receiving countries, “voluntary return” is often presented as a preferred solution.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) administers the Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration (AVRR) Program. As we learned during our Costa Rican field work, the IOM facilitates the return of Venezuelans to their home country when they reach Panama.

But whether a return is feasibile depends directly on conditions in the country of origin. Most Venezuelan migrants we interviewed didn’t think it was safe for them to return home.

U.S. intervention creates more uncertainty

The recent U.S. intervention in Venezuela and the capture of President Nicolás Maduro did nothing to change this political scenario.

Instead, it has injected regional uncertainty that transcends Venezuela’s borders. After Maduro’s capture, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez assumed the role of interim president, suggesting the country’s authoritarian regime can survive the U.S. intervention.

---

Read more:
The Colombian border is one of the biggest obstacles to building a new Venezuela

---

The Trump administration says it will oversee Venezuela during an unspecified transition period, but the implications are unclear.

The post-invasion situation does not include the transition of power to opposition leaders like González Urrutia or Corina Machado, even though Machado just handed over her Nobel Peace Prize to Trump.

Settling elsewhere

Within this tense and uncertain climate, many displaced Venezuelans heading south consider settling in Chile, Colombia or Costa Rica as alternative destinations.

That’s despite the fact that these countries lack the institutional capacity and infrastructure to absorb sustained reverse migration and are showing growing signs of rejecting Venezuelans.

This is evident with the recent election of Jose Antonio Kast in Chile, whose campaign focused on controlling “irregular immigration,” threatening mass deportations of migrants — mostly Venezuelans — and fuelling a climate of social hostility.

As we found during our research in Costa Rica, the country’s asylum system is stretched to the limit and appointments to put in a refugee claim can take more than two years to be scheduled, not counting the adjudication process.

These delays and the uncertainty of outcomes for migrants cause anxiety among displaced people and discourage them from attempting to seek protection in Costa Rica.

Research on transit migration to the U.S. or Europe has shown that these movements are fragmented, multi-directional and often circular. Policy changes — both in countries of destination and transit — new opportunities for social support or jobs, new intimate relationships or new information on possibilities of border crossing reshape migration trajectories.

Venezuelan reverse migration reflects similar dynamics, but unfolds in even more uncertain and precarious ways because the capacity of various states to meet the needs of displaced people is severely limited. This leads to even more severely fragmented routes for return migrants than for those travelling north.

Global North must step up

In light of these dynamics, it’s crucial to reaffirm the international protection regime and to recognize the historical responsibility of northern countries — including the United States, Canada and EU member states — to ensure effective access to asylum for people displaced by violence, conflict and persecution.

Any reform of regional migration governance must begin from this core principle.

We therefore call on governments, international organizations, humanitarian groups and civil society to uphold international protection regimes and to design responses that reflect the complex realities of shifting migration flows and the rights of people on the move.

Guillermo Candiz receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Tanya Basok receives funding from Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada

– ref. American border crackdown forces Venezuelan migrants on a perilous journey back south – https://theconversation.com/american-border-crackdown-forces-venezuelan-migrants-on-a-perilous-journey-back-south-272974

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Andrea DeKeseredy, PhD student, Sociology, University of Alberta

The death of Prashant Sreekumar made headlines across Canada when the 43-year-old father of three died in the emergency room of Edmonton’s Grey Nuns hospital after waiting for eight hours with chest pains.

Recently, there have been other reports of preventable deaths in Alberta ERs. Alberta doctors have called the emergency room situation a disaster, citing a tsunami of seasonal respiratory illnesses that have overwhelmed hospitals and led to crowded emergency departments.

Widespread vaccination for common respiratory illnesses, including COVID-19 and the flu, would help to relieve the pressure on hospitals. Yet vaccination rates for seasonal illness are falling across Canada. Our research shows that conflicting messages across levels of government and skepticism about whether the vaccines work may be helping to fuel the emergency-room surge.

This winter is not the first bad virus season in Alberta, nor is it the first time we’ve seen patients die waiting for care. During the 2022-23 viral illness season, a “tripledemic” of viruses rolled across the country, as COVID-19, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) circulated simultaneously.

Our research showed how this tripledemic also slammed working parents trying to maintain their jobs while they and their children were infected over and over again.

This year could prove even worse. The 2025-26 season marks a new height in influenza cases, rising above a three-season high. Hospitals across the country have been flooded with patients, and burnt-out health-care workers have been putting in extra shifts.

Despite all of this — and the overwhelming research that shows influenza vaccines keep people out of the hospital — fewer Canadians are getting vaccinated. With declining seasonal vaccination rates each year, Canada now falls far short of the vaccination coverage needed to protect at-risk groups such as seniors or people with chronic illness, which is 80 per cent.

Who do Canadians trust on health care?

Our research explored parental decision-making in Alberta during the tripledemic to understand why, or why not, people get themselves and their kids vaccinated for COVID-19 and influenza. Using Viewpoint Alberta survey data, we found that who parents trust and the messages governments provide around vaccination strongly influence whether they and their kids get shots.

During the pandemic, parents in Alberta faced conflicting messages from governments. Despite the promotion of vaccination by the federal government and public health agencies, the provincial United Conservative Party government took a strong stance against enforcing COVID-19 protective measures. For those who trusted the provincial government, this essentially negated any pro-vaccination messaging provided by other institutions.

Our study found that those who trusted the federal government as a source of health information were more likely to have vaccinated their children for COVID-19 than those who supported the Alberta government’s messaging. The same was true for those who trusted Alberta Health Services and the Chief Medical Officer of Health. Those who placed their trust in the elected UCP government had much lower vaccination rates.

Trust is important, but it’s not the only factor keeping seasonal vaccination rates low. The question of who is perceived to benefit from vaccination also shaped parents’ decisions.

Are seasonal vaccines worth the trouble?

In addition to looking at survey data, we also interviewed parents to better understand how they made their decisions regarding seasonal vaccination for themselves and their children.

We were surprised to learn that after repeated viral illness infections, parents were actually less likely to vaccinate their children. Persistent illness contributed to a sense that infection was both inevitable and mild, often not even worth preventing. Some parents were also skeptical of the novelty of the COVID-19 vaccine compared to more established vaccinations, despite assurances from health-care professionals.

These parents did not hold “anti-vaxxer” beliefs; instead they believed that viral illness season was inevitable, and of little risk to themselves and their children. On top of this, the struggle to balance work and child care already made it difficult for many families to get vaccinated. Because the vaccine didn’t prevent infections altogether, many parents believed it was not worth the added effort.

Canada needs a new approach

Canada does not have the resources to continue this yearly severe illness cycle. Without better uptake of seasonal vaccines, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes year after year, resulting in more needless deaths and health system crises.

Clear and consistent messaging is key, and the messages of provincial leaders must match those of the federal government. Our research shows that all levels of government have a role to play in building public trust in seasonal vaccines, and in making sure those shots are accessible to everyone. Vaccines must be available freely, widely and early, without pre-booking and payment requirements.

The tragedy of patients dying while waiting for care in a busy emergency room illustrates the dangers of overcrowded facilities. Higher vaccination rates could help prevent respiratory illnesses from overwhelming hospitals. Our governments need to step up and step forward to build public trust and accessibility for seasonal vaccines.

Andrea DeKeseredy receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

Michelle Maroto receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

Amy Kaler 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. The flu is everywhere. So why aren’t Canadians getting vaccinated for viral illnesses? – https://theconversation.com/the-flu-is-everywhere-so-why-arent-canadians-getting-vaccinated-for-viral-illnesses-273354

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Wolfgang Alschner, Hyman Soloway Chair in Business and Trade Law, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

When United States President Trump imposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico in early 2025, the two countries reacted very differently. Canada led with an “elbows up” campaign involving counter-tariffs and boycotts of American alcohol.

Mexico, by contrast, struck a more conciliatory tone and cautiously started to align its trade policy with the U.S. As Canada prepares for a turbulent 2026, Mexico’s experience offers valuable lessons.

Both Mexico and Canada depend heavily on trade with the U.S: both send three-quarters of their exports there. The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) underpins tariff-free access to the U.S. for most North American goods. But the deal is in jeopardy.

The U.S. alleges Mexico and Canada are being used as trans-shipment hubs for Chinese goods. These tensions will come to a head in July 2026 when CUSMA is up for review.

Mexico’s calibrated response

To pre-empt American concerns, Mexico has begun cautiously aligning with U.S. trade policy. As early as 2023, it pledged to work with the U.S. on foreign investment screening to address security issues around rising Chinese investment.

In late December 2025, Mexico followed up by raising tariffs on 1,400 Chinese items to between 35 to 50 per cent, including in sectors like electric vehicles and steel.

It would be wrong to dismiss these measures as capitulations to American demands. Instead, Mexico has cleverly navigated trade tensions with the U.S. while protecting its own values and interests. Mexico’s latest duty increases aim to protect domestic industries and counteract trade imbalances with China.

By raising duties only in select sectors, Mexico avoided putting duties on everyday consumer goods, which have driven up prices in the U.S. In addition, while the U.S. is imposing tariffs on friends and foes alike, the Mexican tariffs explicitly exempt countries with which it has free-trade agreements, supporting its broader trade diversification agenda.

Unlike the U.S. tariffs, which violate international trade law, Mexico’s measures are also fully consistent with its international obligations. As a developing country, Mexico committed to higher tariff ceilings at the World Trade Organization (WTO) than the U.S. This allows it to unilaterally raise tariffs up to the maximum levels permitted under international trade law.

Although China has criticized the move, Mexico’s non-discriminatory application of tariffs to all non-FTA partners avoids singling out any specific country and is legal.

Alignment without subordination

Mexico’s strategy offers a template for aligning with the U.S. without sacrificing sovereignty or respect for the rule of law. It is a far cry from a full North American customs union that some hope to achieve as part of the upcoming CUSMA review, which would unduly tie Mexican and Canadian trade policy to the whims of Washington, D.C.

It also demonstrates Mexico’s ability to walk the tight rope of seeking common ground with the U.S. while diversifying its trade and protecting its industry.

It is also superior to alternative ways of aligning with the U.S. Deals struck by the U.S. with Malaysia and Cambodia committed these countries to aligning with American import restrictions and export controls whenever it is in the U.S. national interest, effectively forcing them to forgo an autonomous trade policy altogether.

Canada also learned its lesson when it copied an illegal 100 per cent U.S. tariff on Chinese electric vehicles in 2024, only to face both U.S. auto tariffs and Chinese retaliation the following year.

Smartly, Ottawa has now partially reversed course by agreeing to allow 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles into the Canadian market at a tariff rate of 6.1 per cent. In return, China is expected to lower tariffs on Canadian canola to 15 per cent by March.

What Canada should do differently

In 2026, Canada will feel growing pressure to align with some U.S. trade-restrictive measures and, like Mexico, should do so smartly. Unlike Mexico, Canada has lower tariff bindings and cannot raise import duties without violating its commitments. Canada needs a bespoke approach, similar to Mexico’s, but implemented differently.

First, Canada should renegotiate its tariff bindings at the WTO in sectors critical to its industrial base. The European Union, for example, is preparing to increase its tariffs on imported steel by renegotiating its bindings at the WTO. This would provide a long-term solution offering predictability for both the affected Canadian sectors and trading partners and would be fully lawful.

In the steel sector, this route is preferable to the current Canadian tariff-rate quota regime, which is both WTO-illegal and hitting Canada’s closest free-trade agreement partners hard.

Second, Canada should actively pursue safeguard measures in sectors affected by trade diversion. U.S. tariffs have closed off the American market and diverted goods to Canada.

Safeguards are WTO-compliant trade defence instruments explicitly designed to counteract an unexpected surge of imports threatening serious injury to a domestic industry. That scenario has already played out in the Canadian lumber and downstream industry and will likely affect other sectors subject to U.S. tariffs.

Third, using the recent rapprochement with China as a blueprint, Canada should strive for similarly nuanced solutions in future partnerships. Rather than dropping electric vehicle tariffs altogether, Canada has negotiated a compromise that let some Chinese vehicles in, but not enough to endanger either its domestic auto-sector or relations with the U.S.

As U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer recently stated, the U.S. is not asking its trading partners to mirror its trade policy. Rather, it’s looking for “similar trade actions” with “equivalent restrictive effect.”

This pragmatic formulation allowed Mexico to have its cake and eat it too: selectively align with the U.S. in key sectors to preserve its market access, protect domestic industries from trade diversion and avoid upsetting key trading partners elsewhere through WTO-illegal actions. Canada would be wise to follow Mexico’s lead. The recent China deal is a step in the right direction.

Wolfgang Alschner has received research grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. What Canada can learn from Mexico’s approach to U.S. trade – https://theconversation.com/what-canada-can-learn-from-mexicos-approach-to-u-s-trade-273101

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Andrea DeKeseredy, PhD student, Sociology, University of Alberta

The death of Prashant Sreekumar made headlines across Canada when the 43-year-old father of three died in the emergency room of Edmonton’s Grey Nuns hospital after waiting for eight hours with chest pains.

Recently, there have been other reports of preventable deaths in Alberta ERs. Alberta doctors have called the emergency room situation a disaster, citing a tsunami of seasonal respiratory illnesses that have overwhelmed hospitals and led to crowded emergency departments.

Widespread vaccination for common respiratory illnesses, including COVID-19 and the flu, would help to relieve the pressure on hospitals. Yet vaccination rates for seasonal illness are falling across Canada. Our research shows that conflicting messages across levels of government and skepticism about whether the vaccines work may be helping to fuel the emergency-room surge.

This winter is not the first bad virus season in Alberta, nor is it the first time we’ve seen patients die waiting for care. During the 2022-23 viral illness season, a “tripledemic” of viruses rolled across the country, as COVID-19, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) circulated simultaneously.

Our research showed how this tripledemic also slammed working parents trying to maintain their jobs while they and their children were infected over and over again.

This year could prove even worse. The 2025-26 season marks a new height in influenza cases, rising above a three-season high. Hospitals across the country have been flooded with patients, and burnt-out health-care workers have been putting in extra shifts.

Despite all of this — and the overwhelming research that shows influenza vaccines keep people out of the hospital — fewer Canadians are getting vaccinated. With declining seasonal vaccination rates each year, Canada now falls far short of the vaccination coverage needed to protect at-risk groups such as seniors or people with chronic illness, which is 80 per cent.

Who do Canadians trust on health care?

Our research explored parental decision-making in Alberta during the tripledemic to understand why, or why not, people get themselves and their kids vaccinated for COVID-19 and influenza. Using Viewpoint Alberta survey data, we found that who parents trust and the messages governments provide around vaccination strongly influence whether they and their kids get shots.

During the pandemic, parents in Alberta faced conflicting messages from governments. Despite the promotion of vaccination by the federal government and public health agencies, the provincial United Conservative Party government took a strong stance against enforcing COVID-19 protective measures. For those who trusted the provincial government, this essentially negated any pro-vaccination messaging provided by other institutions.

Our study found that those who trusted the federal government as a source of health information were more likely to have vaccinated their children for COVID-19 than those who supported the Alberta government’s messaging. The same was true for those who trusted Alberta Health Services and the Chief Medical Officer of Health. Those who placed their trust in the elected UCP government had much lower vaccination rates.

Trust is important, but it’s not the only factor keeping seasonal vaccination rates low. The question of who is perceived to benefit from vaccination also shaped parents’ decisions.

Are seasonal vaccines worth the trouble?

In addition to looking at survey data, we also interviewed parents to better understand how they made their decisions regarding seasonal vaccination for themselves and their children.

We were surprised to learn that after repeated viral illness infections, parents were actually less likely to vaccinate their children. Persistent illness contributed to a sense that infection was both inevitable and mild, often not even worth preventing. Some parents were also skeptical of the novelty of the COVID-19 vaccine compared to more established vaccinations, despite assurances from health-care professionals.

These parents did not hold “anti-vaxxer” beliefs; instead they believed that viral illness season was inevitable, and of little risk to themselves and their children. On top of this, the struggle to balance work and child care already made it difficult for many families to get vaccinated. Because the vaccine didn’t prevent infections altogether, many parents believed it was not worth the added effort.

Canada needs a new approach

Canada does not have the resources to continue this yearly severe illness cycle. Without better uptake of seasonal vaccines, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes year after year, resulting in more needless deaths and health system crises.

Clear and consistent messaging is key, and the messages of provincial leaders must match those of the federal government. Our research shows that all levels of government have a role to play in building public trust in seasonal vaccines, and in making sure those shots are accessible to everyone. Vaccines must be available freely, widely and early, without pre-booking and payment requirements.

The tragedy of patients dying while waiting for care in a busy emergency room illustrates the dangers of overcrowded facilities. Higher vaccination rates could help prevent respiratory illnesses from overwhelming hospitals. Our governments need to step up and step forward to build public trust and accessibility for seasonal vaccines.

Andrea DeKeseredy receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

Michelle Maroto receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

Amy Kaler 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. The flu is everywhere. So why aren’t Canadians getting vaccinated for viral illness? – https://theconversation.com/the-flu-is-everywhere-so-why-arent-canadians-getting-vaccinated-for-viral-illness-273354

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Andrew Stevens, Associate Professor, Faculty of Business Administration, University of Regina

In October 2025, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith invoked back-to-work legislation to end a strike by tens of thousands of the province’s teachers who had walked off the job over disputes around wages, class sizes and working conditions.

The legislation, known as the Back to School Act, forced the 51,000 striking teachers back to work and legislated a collective agreement that had been previously rejected by teachers during bargaining.

Smith also invoked the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The clause is a constitutional provision that allows legislatures to override certain Charter protections, including the right to the freedom of association, which underlies the ability to strike.

This move was the latest in a long history of anti-union legislation in Alberta. The election of the United Conservative Party (UCP), led by former Premier Jason Kenney in 2019, heralded a return to anti-labour policies under the guise of “restoring balance” to what Conservatives perceived to be the NDP’s excessively pro-labour and pro-union reforms.

Both Kenney and, later, Smith reversed several changes introduced by Rachel Notley’s NDP government. Under the NDP, basic workplace rights were extended to non-family farm workers, first contract arbitration was introduced, remedial certification measures enacted and the right to strike and bargaining collectively was formally extended to the post-secondary sector.

The UCP reversed these gains.

Despite these obstacles, organized labour continues to make important gains in Alberta, Canada’s most anti-union province. Our new report draws on Statistics Canada data to examine the economic impact of unionization in Alberta.

Why unions matter

The benefits of unionization are well established. Unions can decrease income inequality and push for policy changes that benefit all workers and people with a stake in their work and service environments, as in the case of teachers advocating for smaller class sizes.

Organized labour also contributes to the fabric of democratic societies in many ways, including by advancing sustainable development.

This role is particularly critical now, in a period defined by affordability crises and accusations of authoritarianism south of the border. Unions provide one of the few mechanisms through which workers can push back and secure fair treatment in the workplace.

Unionization also provides stronger outcomes for women, immigrant workers and young workers. While unionized men in Alberta earned four per cent more than their non-unionized counterparts, unionized women earn 19 per cent more than their non-unionized counterparts.

Collective bargaining stalls or even reverses gendered and immigration status-based pay inequities. Unionization helps shrink the gender wage gap from 19 to eight per cent, and the usual pay gap between Canadian-born workers and immigrants is either eliminated or reversed in some industries.

The material impact of unionization

Even in provinces like Alberta, where union density rates are relatively low, unions can deliver economic justice.

Our analysis of an unpublished dataset shows that unionized workers in Alberta earn $3.40 an hour more than non-unionized workers ($37.88 per hour compared to $34.48 an hour). This difference is slightly higher than the national average across Canada.

The average unionized worker earns $1,404 a week, compared with $1,296 for non-unionized colleagues working a similar number of hours. Unionized workers are also more likely to have supplementary benefits, which is especially important in lower-wage sectors like food services.

Outcomes, however, are mixed. Part-time unionized workers gain the most, earning 29 per cent more than non-unionized ($32.57 an hour compared to $22.91). Unionized full-time workers, on the other hand, only earn five per cent more — $38.83 an hour versus $36.86 an hour.

Considering that some 20 per cent of workers in Alberta are employed part-time, these differences represent a substantial economic boost for a significant portion of workers.

Variation by sector

Unionized workers in Alberta earn, on average, more than their non-unionized counterparts, but results are mixed across industries and sub-sectors. Take retail, for example. In that industry, unionized workers may appear to earn less on average, largely because a higher proportion of them work part time, which pulls down overall wages.

In Alberta’s oil and gas sector, there is near parity between unionized and non-unionized workers when it comes to wages.

Even in health care and education, where many workers are unionized, collective bargaining can yield different outcomes within sectors.

In construction, some sub-sectors with fewer unionized workers actually show stronger wage gains than areas where unions are more established. These differences are shaped by a combination of industry-specific economic conditions, how wages are set by unions and how employers respond to union activity. Other variables, such as age, sex, education and tenure, also matter.

Political implications

For young workers, unions deliver the strongest wage advantages, even when accounting for other human capital variables like education levels and work experience. This is especially notable given that young workers are less likely to be unionized overall.

In both Canada and the United States, young workers demonstrate stronger positive opinions of unionization than their older co-workers, offering potential for unions seeking to grow their ranks provided they organize.

Alberta’s unions face significant political obstacles, but the evidence shows their resilience pays off for working people. That resilience should serve as an inspiration and call to action for union leaders everywhere.

Andrew Stevens receives funding from the Parkland Institute and the Government of Canada (Social Science and Humanities Research Council).

Angèle Poirier received funding from the Parkland Institute for work related to this article.

– ref. Organized labour continues to make gains in Canada’s most anti-union province – https://theconversation.com/organized-labour-continues-to-make-gains-in-canadas-most-anti-union-province-273568