Category: The Conversation – Canada

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Luna Vives, Associate Professor of Geography and Migration, Université de Montréal

Over the last decade, European governments have invested heavily to militarize their sea borders and outsource control responsibilities to partners in Africa and the Middle East.

But despite exponentially growing border budgets, people continue to take to the sea to reach EU territory, encountering violence and death. It’s time to admit that this repressive strategy has failed and to ask what should come next.

In late 2013, shortly after the Lampedusa shipwrecks off the coast of Italy that claimed more than 400 lives, the Italian government deployed Operation Mare Nostrum in the central Mediterranean. More than 150,000 people were rescued in the following 12 months.

But with a monthly cost of nine million euros, the operation was deemed economically unsustainable.

A year later, in November 2015, Frontex (the EU’s Border and Coast Guard) deployed Operation Triton to replace Mare Nostrum. The shift in names reflected a parallel shift in logic. Mare Nostrum (“our sea” in Latin, a nod to its role in sustaining life and bringing people together) was designed as a search-and-rescue mission. Meanwhile, Operation Triton (named after the mighty Greek god) focused on dismantling smuggling networks.

Turning point

The operation marked a turning point in the EU’s approach to migration control at sea. Frontex’s legitimacy, mandate and resources expanded dramatically post-2015. At the same time, European governments ramped up militarization and accelerated the delegation of border control to countries of departure.

In the central Mediterranean, Italy transferred 270 million euros to Libya’s ruling elites by 2021, mainly to bolster the country’s capacity to intercept migrant boats — often detected by Frontex drones surveilling the disputed Libyan rescue zone.

Meanwhile, the EU allocated 465 million euros from its Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (also created in 2015) to bolster migration and border control efforts by the Libyan government.

To this day, those “rescued” by Libyan forces are put in EU-funded detention centres where abuses are well documented and African migrants are allegedly sold as slaves.

Leaving migrants adrift

To the east, the EU agreed to pay Turkey nine billion euros between 2016 and 2023 to prevent people from Syria, Afghanistan and other war-torn countries from crossing into Greece in search of safety.

Boats crowded with entire families were — and are, to this day — pushed back to Turkey or left adrift under the very eyes of Frontex.

The same tactics soon spread westward. In 2019, Spain and the EU transferred more than 460 million euros to Morocco, plus additional funds for training and assets. Much of these transfers were, again, earmarked to develop the country’s capacity to patrol the seas and intercept migrant boats. More recently, the EU and Spain reached similar agreements with Mauritania worth over 500 million euros.

Drastic cuts to public spending have become mainstream in the EU, yet governments do not hesitate to foot hefty bills for border enforcement. Frontex’s projected budget for the 2021-2027 period is a whopping 11 billion euros. Additionally, an unknown amount is allocated to contracts with private companies that provide border technology.

The European Commission has proposed tripling this level of investment for its 2028-2034 Migration, Borders and Security initiative for a total investment of 81 billion euros.

Deaths at sea on the rise

All evidence suggests that these investments over the course of the last decade have failed to result in a safer sea or a more secure border.

The main objective of post-2015 maritime border policy was to dismantle criminal networks and prevent drownings. Instead, it has pushed people into the hands of professional smugglers, who have seen their profits soar as they exploit the lives of people on the move. Death has increased as a direct result of externalization.

The EU’s efforts to manage maritime migration also sought to stop illegal border crossings. Yet safe and legal pathways to the EU remain extremely scarce. People fleeing persecution who have the right to seek international protection and workers responding to the labour demands of an aging Europe continue to leave their communities in search of a hope only the sea offers.

Deaths at sea, violence against migrants and government investment are increasing simultaneously along the EU’s external maritime border. Over the last decade, the Mediterranean has become not only a graveyard, but also a bottomless money pit.

Looking ahead

What are the options? The most obvious is to create a functioning system for the selection and recruitment of workers and refugees at origin.

There is also room for more ambitious programs: a recent study found that most people in the EU would favour large-scale regularization for people without status already in the territory.

The United Nations-endorsed Global Compact for Migration designed to improve co-operation on global migration issues offers an even more daring road map for a strategy that taps into the potential of government-managed mobility.

There are many possibilities. Whatever the choice, once thing is clear: militarization and delegation of border control are not only expensive but also ineffective.

Luna Vives receives funding from SSHRC.

– ref. The Mediterranean: Both a graveyard and a bottomless money pit due to EU border policies – https://theconversation.com/the-mediterranean-both-a-graveyard-and-a-bottomless-money-pit-due-to-eu-border-policies-264756

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Daniel Romm, PhD Candidate, Geography, McGill University

Montréal is often hailed as the most “biking-friendly” city in North America. But our research has found that only 2.3 per cent of the city’s roadways are allocated to bike infrastructure, with car infrastructure occupying the remaining 97.7 per cent of road space.

We measured the street space allocated to transport infrastructures across Montréal, and contrasted it with traveller counts by travel mode. We found a wide discrepancy: comparing bike travellers with car travellers, bikes represent 4.9 per cent of trips to 95.1 per cent for cars.

Proposals for new or expanded bike lanes are often met with fierce backlash, in a phenomenon dubbed “bikelash,” with car drivers reluctant to lose any street space.

Yet our study finds that the current imbalance of spatial allocation is so overwhelmingly in favour of cars that it’s possible to make substantial improvements to bike infrastructure without significantly decreasing the space allocated per driver.

After all, a key advantage of bicycles is their incredible space-efficiency. Even if all the bike infrastructure space in the city were to double, the proportion of roadway given to cars would not fall below 90 per cent in any borough.

Sharing space

Our research, with a focus on improving communication about street space use, presents several measures of spatial allocation. The first, and simplest measure, is the space allocated to a specific transport infrastructure.

We found that 97.7 per cent of road space was dedicated to cars, and 2.3 per cent to bicycles. When we included sidewalks, 79.6 per cent of space was taken up by cars, 18.8 per cent to sidewalks and just 1.6 per cent for bikes.

Boroughs typically associated with cycling tended to have the greatest proportion of space given to bike infrastructure. In Montréal, Le Plateau-Mont-Royal, a neighbourhood viewed as trendy and bike-friendly, leads with 4.7 per cent.

Proportions allocated

The second measure we used in our research is space per traveller per mode of travel.

In Le Plateau Mont-Royal, where 21.9 per cent of trips started in that borough are by bicycle, we find that drivers are given 3.4 square metres per traveller, while bike travellers are allocated 1.5 square metres per traveller. This measure can be used to understand the relationship between infrastructure space and traveller counts.

We can also present this as the difference between the space allocated to bike infrastructure and the percentage of cyclists, which shows the discrepancy between space and travel across the city.

We developed the Equal Infrastructure Allocation (EIA) score to understand how the space per traveller for one mode compares to that for another. We used the EIA to compare the bike space per traveller to the space per traveller for those in cars: when the EIA is zero, car and bike travellers are allocated the same amount of space per traveller. When the EIA falls below zero, space is biased in favour of the automobile.

Using the EIA, we found that nine of Montréal’s 19 boroughs present spatial inequality in favour of cars; Le Plateau had the worst score at -0.55.

Doubling lanes

These measures can also be modelled for prospective changes to infrastructure, such as installing a new series of bike lanes, to better communicate about how such projects would affect the space.

In April 2024, Montréal’s BIXI bikeshare system had more than 11,000 bikes at over 900 stations. That’s a lot of bikes, but because they’re so space-efficient, the total space used by BIXI in Montréal is just 0.021 square kilometres. If BIXI were to double the number of bikes and stations, the amount of car space per traveller would decrease by 0.003 square metres.

We modelled what would happen if we were to double all the bike infrastructure in Montréal. We found that space would increase for bikes by 4.4 square metres per traveller; meanwhile, the space for someone travelling by car would decrease by 0.2 square metres.

In Le Plateau, drivers would lose just 0.15 square metres per traveller, and across the city, all but two boroughs would have positive EIA scores.

The current imbalance of space per traveller is so far in favour of cars that bike infrastructure projects improve the spatial picture for cyclists to a far greater extent than they worsen spatial allocation for drivers.

There are many well-established reasons for improving bike infrastructure and encouraging sustainable travel modes, including reducing reducing car fatalities.

Our findings corroborate this, finding a strong correlation between more bike infrastructure with decreased collision rates of cars with bikes.

Addressing opposition

Bike infrastructure projects often face intense, entrenched opposition. Our research provides tools for planners, policymakers, advocates and researchers to evaluate the current spatial picture, and to illustrate what the effects of alternative infrastructure would look like.

In our study of Montréal’s streets, we found that even with bike infrastructure improvements at a scale dramatically larger than anything proposed today, street space still remains biased in favour of cars.

Daniel Romm receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

– ref. Montréal’s bike infrastructure hardly takes up any space from cars on city roads – https://theconversation.com/montreals-bike-infrastructure-hardly-takes-up-any-space-from-cars-on-city-roads-264675

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Daniel Skerritt, Affiliated Researcher, Fisheries Economics Research Unit, University of British Columbia

After nearly 25 years of negotiations, the World Trade Organization (WTO) finally has its first legally binding agreement to tackle government fisheries subsidies. After two-thirds of WTO members ratified the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, the deal has entered into force. It marks a long-overdue step toward addressing the role harmful fisheries subsidies play in overfishing.

Fisheries subsidies can cause harm by distorting markets and creating unequal competition — so-called “trade injuries.” In addition, they can cause ecological harm by increasing the capacity of fishing vessels and fleets. The result is overcapacity: too many boats chasing too few fish, which often leads to overfishing.

When WTO talks on fisheries subsidies began in 2001, fish populations were already in decline. Today, 38 per cent of fish stocks are overfished, and a further 50 per cent are fully exploited. That means most of the world’s fisheries are being fished at or beyond their biological limits.

For decades, government subsidies have helped industrial fishing fleets expand, often with little regard for sustainability. These subsidies have distorted access to fish and seafood, fuelled overfishing and harmed coastal communities — especially in low-income countries where fish are critical to food security and livelihoods.

This agreement is a major milestone, but it’s only the beginning. Here’s what the agreement covers, why it matters and what needs to happen next to protect ocean health and ensure an equitable ocean economy for coastal communities.

---

Read more:
We have a deal. Can we now talk about some not-so-harmful fisheries subsidies?

---

What the agreement covers and why it matters

WTO members first raised the issue of harmful fisheries subsidies at the Fourth Ministerial Conference in Doha in 2001. For years, talks made little headway — until the adoption of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015.

Target 14.6 of the SDGs explicitly called on the WTO to:

“Prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies.”

This helped re-energize negotiations, culminating in the adoption of the subsidies agreement at the WTO’s 12th Ministerial Conference in 2022.

The agreement includes three key prohibitions targeting the worst kinds of subsidies. First, ratifying WTO members must stop subsidizing illegal,
unreported and unregulated fishing (Article 3).

Second, they must end subsidies for vessels targeting overfished stocks unless they can demonstrate that effective management measures are in place to rebuild those stocks (Article 4). Third, subsidies for fishing on the unregulated high seas are banned (Article 5).

While these measures don’t address all subsidies that contribute to overcapacity, they target some of the most egregious forms of financial support.

Another critical part of the agreement is Article 8, which strengthens transparency and accountability. Members must now provide detailed information annually, including information on fish stocks, conservation and management measures, fleet capacity and the names of subsidized vessels.

---

Read more:
Illuminating dark seas: Why fisheries management must be more transparent

---

Historically, fisheries subsidies data has been patchy and incomplete. Better data will help identify who benefits from public financial support and whether it aligns with sustainability goals.

The agreement also introduces more equitable expectations for developing and least developed countries. These members are granted an extra two years before they must implement subsidy prohibitions and, crucially, can access the WTO Fish Fund — a funding mechanism that helps countries implement the agreement through technical assistance and partnerships.

While the agreement does not fully level the playing field, it establishes that major subsidizers must carry the greatest burden.

Challenges, Gaps and Next Steps

Despite its strengths on paper, the agreement only covers a fraction of the estimated $22 billion in harmful fisheries subsidies provided by governments each year. The most prevalent of all the harmful subsidies, fuel subsidies, remain largely untouched.

Another major limitation is that it only applies to countries that have ratified the agreement. As of now, some major subsidizers — including Indonesia and Thailand, two of the world’s top 10 subsidy providers — have yet to ratify.

In a 2021 report we wrote for ocean conservation group Oceana, we found that just 10 countries are responsible for 64 per cent of global harmful subsidies. Even with this agreement in force, without their participation, large gaps will remain.

Another challenge is ensuring transparency and data disclosure. While the agreement includes stronger notification requirements, it lacks detailed reporting guidelines. Much of the implementation will depend on self-reporting and peer accountability between members.

Without clear standards or enforcement mechanisms, many subsidy programs could remain opaque or under-reported. To have real impact, the WTO must develop robust and standardized reporting frameworks.

Whether this agreement will save fish, or merely save face, will come down to how it’s implemented. Success will hinge on whether WTO members hold each other accountable and whether industry, civil society and researchers can push their governments toward genuine compliance.

Importantly, the subsidies agreement was never meant to be the end of the conversation. Its entry into force triggers a four-year countdown to negotiate the next phase.

They must address the most damaging subsidies of all, those that fund fishing by rich foreign fleets in the waters of other nations, and those that drive overcapacity, to achieve a comprehensive agreement. These policies have the greatest potential ecological and equity impact but are the hardest to reach consensus on.

Fortunately, we’re now closer to that goal. The entry into force of this agreement provides the ideal platform from which SDG Target 14.6 can be fully achieved. Putting an end to billions in fishing subsidies would restore fish stocks, support coastal communities, and improve ocean health for all. The job is not yet done.

Daniel Skerritt is Senior Manager of Oceana’s Transparent Oceans Initiative, affiliated with the Fisheries Economics Research Unit at the University of British Columbia, School of Natural & Environmental Sciences at Newcastle University, and an International Board Member of the Fisheries Transparency Initiative.

Rashid Sumaila receives funding from SSHRC, NSERC and the World Bank. He is affiliated with Oceana, Stockholm University, the University of Cape Coast, Pew Charitable Trusts, Tyler Prize Foundation as a board member.

– ref. What the WTO’s deal to curb fisheries subsidies means and what it could achieve – https://theconversation.com/what-the-wtos-deal-to-curb-fisheries-subsidies-means-and-what-it-could-achieve-265185

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ronald W. Pruessen, Emeritus Professor of History, University of Toronto

Explaining his move to rename the United States Department of Defense the Department of War, as it was known prior to 1949, President Donald Trump explained it had “a stronger sound.”

It offered better messaging too. “Defense is too defensive; we want to be offensive too,” he said.

The once and future Department of War would revive the spirit of the years when “we won everything.”

Trump’s language — and the logic behind it — demonstrates how little America’s current leaders have learned from the clear failures of their predecessors across 70 years.

American policies after the Second World War achieved great things: substantially aiding the reconstruction of devastated Europe and Japan, for instance, while spearheading the building of an integrated global economy that fostered unparalleled growth.

There were also grave flaws in American designs and actions, of course, though they rarely if ever stemmed from a lack of aggressive assertiveness and an appetite for winning. Trump’s failure to diagnose the real roots of real problems portends a worsening of already terrible costs and consequences.

Perpetual preparedness

A key source of Trump’s weaknesses is his shallow or distorted grasp of history. His failure here is understanding that the Department of Defense saw “offence” thoroughly embedded into its conception of defence.

Think “the best defence is a good offence” on steroids. George Kennan’s famous “containment policy,” for example, included calls for “unceasing pressure for penetration.”

The American military establishment created in the 1940s turbocharged earlier approaches to national security, moving limited spending and retrenchment between conflicts to proactive and perpetual preparedness. Because the world continued to be seen as a dangerous place even after 1945’s victories, expanding military power was prescribed to deter aggressors or to prevail over them if push came to war.

Emphasis on “the world” helps to explain the scale of power. Air power and other technological advances (in communications, for example) created the integrated international arena in which American leaders acted after the defeat of the Axis powers in the Second World War.

There was a rapid and dramatic growth in the policy agenda. For the new Department of Defense, this meant unparalleled budgets: US$997 billion by 2024 compared to China’s US$314 billion (greater than any other countries in the 1940s and ever since).

It also produced global reach greater than any empire in history: there are almost three million members of the U.S. armed forces today, based in 70 countries.

American power

Trump fails to grasp (or chooses to ignore) the fact that this vast power was used regularly and aggressively:

• There were large-scale interventions from Korea and Indochina to Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

• There were massive transfusions of equipment, training and personnel into NATO and other countries on every continent, including Israel, Pakistan, Brazil and Australia.

• There was Pentagon co-operation with other agencies engaged in all-of-government efforts — overt and covert operations that ranged from intelligence gathering (including espionage), destabilization and coups (for example in Iran, Guatemala, Chile) and assassinations (including repeated attempts on Cuban leader Fidel Castro and the frequently assumed association with the deaths of Congolese independence leader Patrice Lumumba, Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo and South Vietnam’s Ngô Đình Diệm.

“Defence” served both as the foundation and the justification for the evolution of many elements of this repertoire over the decades.

Failures

A cost accounting of aggressive/offensive defence in the past is disturbing. The tabulation of a 75-year record has filled countless volumes, but two striking examples attest to some major failures:

• A lack of “winning” in large-scale military operations: A “truce” in the Korean peninsula in 1953, giving way to failures in Indochina, Iraq and Afghanistan. (Success in Kuwait in 1990-91 does not significantly alter this problematic balance.)

• Continued independence and resistance from states once thought weak enough to be managed, in particular Cuba and Iran.

Dubious results also had staggering price tags. There were 36,000 American deaths in Korea; 58,000 in Vietnam; 7,000 deaths and 53,000 wounded military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trillions of dollars were devoted to defence spending at the expense of economic and social programs on the home front.

Trump seems to believe that, with the Department of War, he’s replacing post-1945 defence policies rather than doubling down on them, meaning he is intensifying the offensive/aggressive approaches without grappling with their flaws. In particular, he has no apparent grasp of what bedevilled the post-1945 American drive for global domination.

American arrogance

Democratic Sen. J. William Fulbright famously critiqued the “arrogance of power” in the 1960s, countering the U.S. presumption of a right to impose values on distant corners of the world like Southeast Asia.

Other critics of the Vietnam War further questioned whether the U.S. had sufficient manpower and intellectual or economic resources to achieve its goals. Wasn’t the world too large and complex, with too many rival players and independent allies, and too many ever-evolving challenges, for one country to imagine holding global management capacities in its hands?

In recent years, former presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden began to apply a pragmatic calculus to conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, even if their core vision continued to exhibit historic “Manifest Destiny” concepts. One example is Obama’s attempt to determine an effective troop level in Iraq while simultaneously retaining his faith in American “exceptionalism.”

Trump’s determination to go on the offensive threatens to reverse even tentative adjustments to American aspirations of global domination. He is reviving attitudes like those of former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice early in the Afghanistan war, when she chided cautious generals by saying “I’m an American. Nothing is impossible.”

---

Read more:
Out of Afghanistan: Joe Biden and the future of America’s foreign policy

---

Trump’s threats

The magnitude of Trump’s ego (his “I alone” mentality) risks intensifying such a revival — with potentially serious consequences.

Attacks on Venezuelan boats said to be carrying drugs, a failure to rein in Israel’s expanding campaigns in Gaza and the deployment of National Guard forces to Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and Memphis are strong hints of what may be coming.

Recalling Trump’s speculations about military operations against Greenland and Canada just months ago makes it impossible to dismiss anxiety about his intentions.

Ronald W. Pruessen has received past research grants from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. ‘We want to be offensive too’ — Trump’s Department of War move shows his flimsy grasp of history – https://theconversation.com/we-want-to-be-offensive-too-trumps-department-of-war-move-shows-his-flimsy-grasp-of-history-265334

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jamaica Cass, Director, Queen’s-Weeneebayko Health Education Partnership, Queen’s University, Ontario

If Canada is serious about reconciliation, it must change how it trains health professionals. Right now, too few Indigenous doctors, nurses and other providers are working in communities that need them most. And too often, students learn about Indigenous health in ways that are optional, inconsistent or not led by Indigenous educators.

That’s where Indigenous-led health education comes in. When Indigenous communities shape how health professionals are trained, it supports a path toward trust, equity and a health system that finally reflects the people it serves.

---

Read more:
Indigenous community research partnerships can help address health inequities

---

As an Indigenous physician and medical educator practising in Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory, I know firsthand the challenges and the possibilities of this work. I am the first Indigenous woman in Canada to pursue both medicine and a PhD, a journey shaped as much by systemic barriers as by the support of my family and community.

Today, I practise primary care in my home community while helping to shape health education nationally, including via a new Queen’s University partnership program in Western James Bay, Ontario — the Queen’s–Weeneebayko Health Education Program on the traditional territory of the Moose Cree First Nation (Treaty 9).

Seeing the gaps in care in my own clinic, and working with students eager to change the system, informs my commitment to Indigenous-led education as the most direct path to reconciliation in health.

10 years after the TRC: promises vs. reality

It has been a decade since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) released its Final Report. The Assembly of First Nations reports that of the 94 Calls to Action, only 14 have been fully implemented.

Two of them, No. 23 and No. 24, speak directly to health care: train and retain more Indigenous health professionals, and make sure all students learn about Indigenous health and the legacy of residential schools.

These aren’t symbolic. They are practical steps that would improve care and save lives. But progress has been slow. Indigenous professionals remain underrepresented, and cultural safety training is too often patchy or optional.

Indigenous-focused health education

A new national report from the Conference Board of Canada confirms what Indigenous leaders have been saying: reconciliation won’t happen unless Indigenous Peoples lead — in education, governance and workforce planning. Token gestures aren’t enough.

The report, Answering the Call: Strategies to Increase the Number of Indigenous Physicians in Canada, notes that “Indigenous students, especially in rural and remote areas, often lack career guidance and a culturally relevant curriculum, leading to lower graduation rates and fewer pathways to medical education.”

While systemic challenges persist, there are powerful examples across Canada that share the common goal of making sure Indigenous students can succeed in health education, and ensuring communities benefit from culturally safe, long-term providers.

The Queen’s–Weeneebayko program I’m directing is building a new health sciences Campus in Moosonee, Ont. Students from the Hudson and James Bay region — including from Moosonee, Fort Albany, Attawapiskat, Moose Factory, Kashechewan and Peawanuck — will be recruited locally, trained in Moosonee and supported to stay serving their home communities.

This partnership, including the Weeneebayko Area Health Authority(WAHA), Queen’s University and the Mastercard Foundation, integrates local Indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing (for example, through Cree language, land-based learning and cultural safety) alongside biomedical science.

Indigenous leadership is embedded at every level — from community knowledge keepers and local education and health-care champions guiding what is taught and how to WAHA operating governance and mentorship frameworks rooted in local culture. I am the inaugural director.

Fostering culturally safe health care

Other programs across the country share the common goal of making sure Indigenous students can succeed in health education, and ensuring communities benefit from culturally safe, long-term providers.

For example:

• At the University of British Columbia, the Northern and Rural MD Pathway is a distinct admissions stream designed to attract applicants with rural, remote northern or Indigenous community connections — or those passionate about serving such communities — by incorporating a rural and remote suitability Score (RRSS) and early rural placements to support rural and remote training and practice.

• The University of Manitoba’s Mahkwa omushki kiim: Pathway to Indigenous Nursing Education (PINE) supports First Nations, Inuit and Métis students from start to finish. By combining academic help with cultural programming and community connection, it has the goal of boosting retention as it prepares more Indigenous nurses for practice.

Programs like these are concerned with helping whole communities gain consistent, trusted health care. And when trust grows, so does the likelihood that people will seek care early — improving outcomes for everyone.

Beyond such programs, system-wide change is needed to ensure Indigenous learners are supported at every stage, and to support viable pathways to medical training in rural and remote areas.

System-wide changes needed

Indigenous students face:

• Financial challenges that place professional programs out of reach.

• A lack of affordable housing when they move to cities for education.

• Underfunded K–12 schools that leave them less prepared for competitive admissions.

• Racism and isolation once they enter professional programs.

Location also matters. Research shows that students trained in rural or remote areas are far more likely to practise there after graduation.

For Indigenous students, viable pathways to practising medicine are even stronger when training is grounded in community values and led by Indigenous educators.

---

Read more:
Want to decolonize education? Where classes are held matters

---

Why this is reconciliation in action

Reconciliation is not just about apologies or ceremonies. It’s about real, structural change. In health care, that means:

• Who delivers the care: building a stronger Indigenous health workforce.

• Whose knowledge counts: recognizing Indigenous knowledge alongside Western medicine.

• Who makes decisions: ensuring Indigenous voices lead the design and governance of health programs.

Indigenous-led health education tackles all three. It brings reconciliation down from the level of promises and into the day-to-day realities of patients, providers and communities.

The way forward

Ten years after the TRC, Canadians are right to ask whether reconciliation is real. The answer depends on whether we support Indigenous-led programs — not as small pilots, but as long-term, fully resourced commitments.

The initiatives described here show what’s possible. They are different in scope, but each demonstrates that Indigenous self-determination in health education is not only achievable, it’s already happening.

The next step is clear: supporting Indigenous-led education so that reconciliation moves from promise to practice in communities nationwide.

Jamaica Cass works for Queen’s University. She receives funding from the National Circle on Indigenous Medical Education, the CPFC and the CMA. She is a board member of the Indigenous Physicians’ Association of Canada and the Medical Council of Canada.

– ref. How Indigenous-led health education in remote communities can make reconciliation real – https://theconversation.com/how-indigenous-led-health-education-in-remote-communities-can-make-reconciliation-real-264562

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Douglas A. Stuart, Assistant Teaching Professor of Accounting, Gustavson School of Business, University of Victoria

United States President Donald Trump is, once again, suggesting eliminating quarterly reporting for American public companies in favour of just two earnings reports per year. Trump made a similar proposal during his first presidential term in 2018.

Quarterly reporting is the practice by which publicly traded companies provide financial updates every three months. These reports are meant to give investors, regulators and other stakeholders information about a company’s financial performance.

In a social media post, Trump said such a move “will save money and allow managers to focus on properly running their companies.”

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is prioritizing Trump’s proposal. The SEC studied the issue in 2018 and held a roundtable but did not move forward with rule changes.

Canadian public companies also report quarterly, while other markets, including the European Union, have adopted a six-month reporting model.

Researchers have studied reporting frequency for decades, and the scientific evidence shows the thinking behind eliminating quarterly reports is not cut-and-dried.

Quarterly reporting as a monitoring tool

Quarterly reporting is expensive. Employees’ time, executive review, board oversight and investment in reporting systems add up. Cutting external quarterly reporting could free up a company’s internal resources and remove administrative red tape.

Even so, some companies report every three months without being required to. Preparation costs increase, but so does corporate accountability. In terms of agency theory, shareholders (the principals) can more closely monitor the behaviour of executives (the agents).

Executives are expected to represent shareholders, but their priorities do not always align. Corporate executives may, for example, reject profitable investments due to their risk tolerance or overspend on travel and leisure items.

With quarterly reporting gone, the potential for these “agency costs” may increase as misaligned managerial actions go unnoticed. Shareholders use accounting reports to check up on executive decisions and hold them accountable.

Importantly, even if semiannual reporting becomes the baseline for public companies, banks may still ask for more frequent results in loan agreements.

Quarterly reporting for investment decisions

If regulators drop quarterly reporting, investors and the public could lose out.

Many investors have a limited sense of how a business is performing. They may live half a globe away and never set foot in the company’s offices. Because of this, investors generally have access to less information than internal employees, managers and executives do. This is called “information asymmetry.”

Investors, regulators and the public depend on corporate financial reporting to fill in these information gaps. If quarterly reporting mandates were removed, they might be left in the dark. Investment decisions might be less informed, although news releases and disclosures online could still be found. Corporate transparency and accountability might be reduced.

On the other hand, quarterly reporting is not a cure-all. Analysts might under-react to earnings reports, leading to delays. Or they may overreact, causing unwarranted fluctuations in investment prices. Investors are human and are subject to shortcomings like overconfidence and the fear of missing out.

Short-term versus long-term decisions

While quarterly reporting can be seen as a compliance activity, like filing taxes or acquiring a business licence, it can also be framed as a structure for decision-making.

Quarterly reporting incentivizes executives to focus on short-term financial performance, potentially at the expense of long-term results. Researchers call this “short-termism.”

Researchers have found that short-termism is not limited to managers and might stem from investors looking for quick profits. Investors may, directly or indirectly, influence the kinds of projects managers invest in. Managers may get financial bonuses based on quarterly earnings to align their goals with shareholder aims.

Short-term decisions are frequently tactical rather than strategic, meaning they may prioritize current earnings over long-term corporate sustainability and resilience.

For example, managers might invest in carbon-intensive projects that pay back quickly, rejecting more sustainable projects with a longer return horizon, like energy efficiency. For this reason, some sustainability advocates support Trump’s initiative.

While some firms measure their performance along social and environmental lines, in addition to financial earnings, profits are often the focus of quarterly earnings calls.

Not one-size-fits-all

Quarterly reporting may affect small and large firms differently. Smaller firms may take a financial hit: on average, small firms in Singapore experienced a five per cent drop in market value when they were required to report quarterly in 2003.

However, larger firms may find that the benefits of prompt, high-quality information outweigh the costs of frequent reporting. Managers, executives and board members rely on accounting reports to show whether the firm is on track to meet its goals.

Furthermore, larger firms document industry conditions and future risks and opportunities in their accounting reports. Smaller firms in the same industry can look at this information for guidance. These are called “positive information spillovers.” Smaller firms may lose this information if larger firms file reports less often.

Information spillovers, however, can be a double-edged sword. Information may be taken out of context or applied to smaller firms incorrectly. At times, this may lead to temporarily poorly priced investments.

Treading carefully

We don’t know, yet, what the SEC will decide. If changes are to come, they should be made carefully and phased in. Pilot studies would give policymakers and researchers a chance to observe effects in real time.

Quarterly reporting mandates on the Vienna Stock Exchange were phased out between 2015 and 2019. Some companies continued to file quarterly financial results while others stopped. Firms used the increased flexibility to adjust the content of their reports, making them more relevant to their stakeholders.

Research shows corporate reporting frequency is a complicated topic. Switching from quarterly to semiannual reporting may have merit, but as with any decision affecting a wide range of stakeholders, a broader, global perspective highlights what some stand to lose and what others stand to gain.

Douglas A. Stuart 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. Trump renews push to end quarterly reporting — here’s what that would mean – https://theconversation.com/trump-renews-push-to-end-quarterly-reporting-heres-what-that-would-mean-265458

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kyle Rich, Associate Professor of Sport Management, Brock University

We are at a pivotal time for sport in Canada.

In August, Sport Canada released a National Sport Policy to guide sport in the country for the next decade. Through language such as “barrier-free sport” and recognition of “spaces and places” required to participate, the federal government signalled a broader approach to addressing sport participation that will impact more than just the sport clubs that have traditionally delivered sport programs.

Since 2020, a series of high-profile cases of harassment and abuse in hockey, swimming, gymnastics and other sports raised questions about safety. This was epitomized by Hockey Canada’s sexual assault scandal.

In 2023, advocates called on the federal government to launch a public inquiry into sport. Instead, the government chose to investigate through a Future of Sport in Canada Commission.

That commission recently released preliminary findings and recommendations. Importantly, the commission took a broad scope, considering not only abuse and harassment but also the broader structures and politics that shape the Canadian sport delivery system. Last week, the commission held a summit in Ottawa to discuss its findings and recommendations with survivors and stakeholders from across the country.

The decisions made by policymakers in the coming months and years could change the landscape of sport in important ways. But the sport system is shaped by long-standing rules, traditions and organizations that are deeply entrenched, making meaningful change difficult.

Collectively, our research has examined sport policy and governance in different parts of Canada since the formalization of federal sport policy in 2002. Some of us were also consulted by the Future of Sport Commission and participated in the summit.

In our current work, we are mapping the role of provincial and territorial governments in sport policy. Through this work, we’ve observed changes in sport policy across Canada, and we have thought a lot about what works and what doesn’t in different jurisdictions.

Key challenges in sport

The Future of Sport Commission highlighted some key issues within Canadian sport and made sweeping recommendations. These include a need for a new funding model for sport, alignment of policy across all levels of government, amalgamating sport organizations and the creation of a new centralized sport entity to oversee sport governance.

Many of these, however, have been noted by scholars and advocates for some time. While the goal of changing the sport system for the better is well-intentioned, it will not be an easy task. Here are a few reasons why.

Amateur sport programs and organizations in Canada remain largely volunteer run. These organizations have ingrained social and political practices and low capacity for change. In this context, governments and national and provincial/territorial sport organizations can lay out an amazing suite of policies and programs, but those delivering sport in communities may not take them up.

Simultaneously, public infrastructure for sport is aging, and municipalities and school boards are unable or unwilling to support increased demand. This has a negative impact on sport clubs that rely on this support.

Without meaningful changes to the environments that support clubs, they simply won’t be able to adapt initiatives to create safe environments or more welcoming spaces for new and existing members. In order to improve access to safe and healthy sport participation opportunities, provincial and municipal governments also need to be invested in these policy goals.

A rise of private equity investment is also impacting the Canadian sport landscape. We are in danger of losing youth sport to large commercial conglomerates, which could change how sports are accessed.

While commercial clubs can excel at offering high-performance training experiences, they are costly for participants and can segregate access to training and facilities based on an athlete’s income rather than their talent or potential.

Furthermore, commercial clubs can be unsanctioned and operate outside of established governance systems. If sport continues to be commercialized, it will only be accessible for those who can afford to pay, which will exacerbate existing inequities. And a rise in unsanctioned clubs will prevent attempts to foster safe sport environments through governance reforms from working.

Why change is difficult

As highlighted by the commission, change will be difficult, and requires time, investment and concerted effort. Change is particularly complicated in sport, as organizations at all levels work under the auspices of international organizations that operate with an unusual amount of autonomy.

This means that sport organizations in Canada may be faced with multiple and competing ideas about how they should operate, and what they can afford, now and in the future.

Change will not be easy. It will require buy-in and alignment of policy from all orders of government. Change will be particularly difficult for organizations that are struggling to recruit and retain volunteer coaches and board members. In those cases, it’s easier to focus on the status quo than to change.

Furthermore, public opinion and social norms about sport needs to keep pace with change. Canadians across the country need to think about what they want sport to do for their communities and themselves, and how they want sport to achieve those goals.

The Canadian government has repeatedly used sports imagery like “elbows up” recently in light of tariffs from the United States. Based on the commission’s recommendations, the federal government has an opportunity to show that kind of leadership by investing in change so the sport system works for all Canadians.

Kyle Rich receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Audrey R. Giles receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Jonathon Edwards receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Larena Hoeber receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. The Canadian government must take action following future of sport commission – https://theconversation.com/the-canadian-government-must-take-action-following-future-of-sport-commission-264103

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Aya Aboelenien, Associate Professor of Marketing, HEC Montréal

When we think about morality, we usually focus on actions: is this act morally right or wrong? But increasingly, these kinds of debates involve the morality of everyday objects, like plastic bottles, smartphones or even the the food on our plates.

Our research shows that objects themselves can not only carry moral weight, but that these judgments can change over time. Take tattoos, for instance. Have you ever considered if having tattoos is considered moral, immoral or simply amoral?

In our recent research, we demonstrate how mainstream societal sentiments for tattoos have changed throughout history. We conducted a meta-synthesis of existing studies to develop a framework for understanding how moral attributions in markets are shaped.

Our findings show that shared moral sentiments toward objects, products or services are neither fixed nor are universally shared. By “objects,” we mean products and services that people might use, consume or embody due to moral associations, like plastic bags, tattoos, fur clothing or diamond jewellery.

The shifting moral landscape of tattoos

In early societies, tattoos were not stigmatized, but they were used to mark identity, social belonging or spiritual protection. This is still an ongoing sentiment in some cultures, including Kurds, Inuit and some Indigenous groups in the Philippines.

In the 19th century, tattoos started to have divergent moral meanings, including negative ones, depending on the context. For sailors, they were a mark of their sea adventures or the lands they conquered. For people in the periphery of the Global North, they were symbols of non-conformity.

Since then, the moral judgments of tattoos have fluctuated between being seen moral or immoral across time and place. Tattoos were seen as signs of bravery and remembrance for Second World War soldiers, yet in other contexts, they were associated with criminality or gang affiliation.

These changes happen through complex social processes that involve social entities with differing capacities: individuals, groups (like unions or consumer collectives) and organizations (like churches or governments). We call this process “marketplace moralization,” which produces what we call “marketplace moral sentiments.”

Not always black-and-white

Marketplace moral sentiments are not always black-and-white, but also can be in-between, debated and negotiated, such as in the case of meat consumption. While vegans consider it immoral to consume meat, other groups might consider it morally neutral or even necessary for cultural or health reasons.

To understand how these moral debates unfold, we used actor-network-theory — which involves the translation stages of problematization, enrolment, interessement and mobilization — to map the stages of marketplace moralization. In plain terms, these stages include raising an issue, persuading others and organizing support.

If successful, a new collective moral sentiment forms. For example, a new consensus about the necessity of eating animal protein can shift nutrition guidelines to advocate for more plant-based protein.

If unsuccessful, however, the old sentiment remains dominant. This means the object’s moral status remains contested and subject to further negotiation.

Outcomes of marketplace moralization

Our research found marketplace moralization can produce one of four outcomes. Sometimes an object can achieve “harmonized moral sentiment,” where nearly everyone agrees it is moral or immoral. Donating to charity, for example, is widely recognized as morally good. It is supported by your social network, and rewarded by government policies such as tax deductions.

Other times, an object can have a “divided moral sentiment,” with different groups holding opposing views. Some Hummer owners, for instance, moralize the purchase of their vehicles by arguing that it is an expression of individual freedom and rights or that it is a necessity for safer trips, while others condemn them as wasteful or environmentally harmful.

In some cases, moral sentiments are dispersed: a few people may challenge a widely held view but lack broad support. Early critics of bullfighting in Spain, for instance, spoke out against a deeply cherished cultural practice.

Finally, organizations can impose moral views on people through regulations or policies. In this case, individuals and groups are forced to conform even if they privately disagree, such as mask and vaccine mandates during COVID-19.

Why does this matter?

Markets are not just settings for economic exchange; they are also about values and moralized emotions. Large-scale issues like climate change, racism, animal rights or gender equality show how morality and markets are tied together.

Brands often leverage existing moral sentiments by supporting social movements or by promoting eco-friendly products. By doing this, they are also inserting themselves into moralized debates and negotiations.

For example, cosmetics retailer Lush closed its United Kingdom stores on Sept. 3, and shops in the Republic of Ireland on Sept. 4, as a gesture of solidarity with Palestine. The company is also selling watermelon-shaped soap to raise money for medical services in Gaza as part of its Giving Products collection.

More recently, concerns about environmental, cognitive and other ethical issues surrounding generative artificial intelligence have prompted criticism of companies seeking to integrate AI into their products or processes.

These examples illustrate why it is crucial to understand the fluidity of moral judgments about objects, rather than assuming objects have inherent or immutable moral value.

For individuals, this understanding can help contextualize moral disputes and allow them to see that disagreements over objects are not always rooted in absolute moral truths, but often in differing cultural, social and historical perspectives.

For managers and business leaders, it allows a more deliberate application of moral claims — like sustainable, green or cruelty-free — to their products or services while contextualizing them.

And lastly, for policymakers, it allows them to create better policies by monitoring public sentiments on complex issues such as gun ownership, food policy and technology.

Aya Aboelenien receives funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada.

Zeynep Arsel receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)

– ref. From tattoos to plastic bottles, here’s how society assigns moral values to everyday things – https://theconversation.com/from-tattoos-to-plastic-bottles-heres-how-society-assigns-moral-values-to-everyday-things-264657

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By David Welch, Professor, Political Science; Research Chair, University of Waterloo

An independent international commission of inquiry appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council has released a report saying that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

Daniel Meron, Israel’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva, immediately dismissed the report for “promot[ing] a narrative serving Hamas and its supporters in attempting to delegitimize and demonize the state of Israel.” The report, he said, “falsely accuses Israel of genocidal intent, an allegation it cannot substantiate.”

Let’s imagine that there was no such thing as the legal definition of the crime of genocide. What would be left of the report? A gruesome, horrifying, utterly damning catalogue of Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity.

According to the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

“Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

The prohibition of genocide is what is known in public international law as a peremptory (jus cogens) norm, meaning that it allows for no exceptions. It is one of a handful of jus cogens norms that include prohibitions on slavery, torture, war crimes and crimes against humanity. These are the worst of the worst, legally speaking, none lesser or greater than another.

How genocide is distinct

The crime of genocide stands out from other jus cogens violations in two ways, however — one legal and one sociological.

The legal difference is that genocide is the only jus cogens violation that requires proof of intent (mens rea, “guilty mind”). All the rest require nothing more than proof of a deed (actus reus, “guilty act”).

The sociological difference is that public opinion has come to regard genocide as somehow particularly important. If a state commits atrocities, it is for some reason unsatisfying today to call them crimes against humanity. There is seemingly a palpable urge to label it genocide.

In addition, the public understanding of genocide is much less restrictive than the legal one. The public feels that intent can be presumed and need not be proven, and that members of almost any group can qualify as victims. Sexual and gender minorities are not a protected group under the 1948 convention, for example, and yet it is not unusual to hear about the “genocide of gay people.”

Inviting quibbles and deflection

The UN report will be welcomed by all who understand Israel as guilty of the sociological version of the crime of genocide, because it concludes that Israel is also guilty of the legal version.

But a careful reading of the report will show that it often leaps to conclusions about intentions, drawing from statements or actions that might actually have explanations other than genuinely genocidal intent.

Alternative possible explanations the report does not entertain include overly emotional language or rhetorical hyperbole by Israeli leaders in the immediate wake of Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7, 2023; actions undertaken in the fog of war; a misplaced sense of military necessity; or even callous or reckless indifference to Palestinian suffering.

Such explanations, if true, would not be excuses. But they are not the same as an intention to destroy the Palestinian people.

Does this mean that the report is wrong to conclude that Israel is guilty of the legal crime of genocide? Not necessarily. It means only that it left room to quibble and deflect attention from unquestionable crimes.

It also gave Meron an opportunity to try to change the channel and make the conversation about “a narrative serving Hamas” or an attempt to “delegitimize and demonize the state of Israel,” rather than children starving or being shot in the head.

A high bar

None of this would be the case if the crime of genocide had not been defined so narrowly in the first place.

To some extent, its narrowness was the result of its inspiration. The evidence of genocidal intent was clear and overwhelming in Nazi Germany. One reason why there have been so few convictions is that the specific case of the Holocaust both spurred the definition of the crime and set the evidentiary bar so high.

---

Read more:
Why have so few atrocities ever been recognised as genocide?

---

However, its narrowness is also the result of political manoeuvring during the negotiation of the convention itself.

Was there any good reason why sexual orientation or gender identity were not included as protected categories? None whatsoever, unless you just so happened to be a state that wanted to be left in peace to persecute sexual and gender minorities.

Why was the convention silent on cultural genocide, or on forced relocations of Indigenous Peoples to reservations? Perhaps because certain powerful countries had embarrassing histories that they did not want to see criminalized.

---

Read more:
Ignore debaters and denialists, Canada’s treatment of Indigenous Peoples fits the definition of genocide

---

Conduct vs. intent

Perhaps the biggest error was insisting upon “intent to destroy.” Why not simply go with targeting, or disproportionately impacting, members of a particular group?

As the UN report demonstrates, it’s easy to show conduct (actus reus), but typically very difficult to prove intent (mens rea). Removing intent would have made genocide a subset of crimes against humanity rather than a separate crime. But so what?

Ultimately, none of this should matter. We should not need the word “genocide” to galvanize action to stop the horrors unfolding in Gaza. They are crimes enough in and of themselves — as were the horrors in Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and so many other places — and they should be the sole focus of our attention.

David Welch 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. Imagine a world without genocide – https://theconversation.com/imagine-a-world-without-genocide-265535

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By David Philpott, Professor, Special Education, Memorial University of Newfoundland

In 2025, the rapid rise of artificial intelligence access for the public at large also means growing concern about the mental health impact of screen time on children and their AI engagement.

Concerns encompass the harvesting of children’s personal data and children’s and teens’ vulnerability in dialogue with AI chatbots — some now in cuddly stuffed animals.

There are also risks that the promise of AI for learning and companionship could deprive children of the essential human relationships and hands-on play experiences that are foundational for their well-being and cognitive development.

AI is entering classrooms quickly, whether through children’s own AI use or lesson plans. The New York Times recently reported on an AI school in Texas that replaced teachers with “guides,” and AI-led lessons. Many apps, meanwhile, promise to diagnose, assess and “optimize” children’s learning.

As a researcher with expertise in how early education shapes children’s learning and developmental trajectories, and a retired practising psychotherapist, I amplify educator calls for caution. We need to regulate technologies and safeguard children’s privacy, especially considering the rapid rate that children adapt to technology.

72 million data points by age 13

In the transition back to fall routines, educators and parents concerned with the benefits of children’s active outdoor play for their well-being struggle to balance such play with the return to more sedentary and online routines.

A recent Organization for Economic Development Report entitled “How’s Life for Children in the Digital Age?” outlines the importance of a “four-pillar” approach to enhancing child well-being that involves parents and guardians, a legal and policy framework, teachers and schools and the voices of children themselves.

Concern over children’s mental health in the digital world is hardly new. Advocacy groups such as FairPlay for Kids and their 5 Rights Foundation have long pushed for stronger monitoring and regulation, urging tech companies to put children’s needs ahead of corporate profit.

They have amassed “overwhelming evidence” that child-targeted marketing, and the excessive screen time it fuels, undermines healthy development. By the time a child turns 13, technology companies may have already amassed up to 72 million data points on them — and there is virtually no regulation governing how that information is used.

OECD data shows that 70 per cent of 10-year-olds in developed countries own a smartphone, and by age 15, at least half of them spend 30 or more hours a week on their devices.

Called “persuasive design,” techniques like infinite scroll, autoplay, intermittent rewards and eye-catching design are used to hook children and keep them glued to screens, reshaping childhood.

From cognitive off-loading to emotional mining

AI, with its growing ability to “think” for us, is accelerating cognitive off-loading, outsourcing mental effort to machines. For young children whose neural pathways for reasoning are still forming, this is especially troubling. If for adults this sounds abstract, ask yourself how many phone numbers you can remember without your device.

What researchers call “emotional AI” goes even further, mining facial expressions, tone of voice, body language, text sentiment and even heart rate to engage children more deeply. The technology is increasingly built into smart toys, wearables and, perhaps most concerning, AI chatbots that children or teens turn to for comfort.

The stakes are high: without deliberate safeguards, we risk not just outsourcing children’s memory and reasoning, but compromising their opportunities to develop empathy and emotional resilience.

Policymakers’ lag on digital regulation

Researchers are increasingly recognizing the risk to student mental health, and there are growing calls for stronger oversight and regulation. In law, and with regulation and guidance in schools and in the home, student mental health and privacy protection should be prioritized.

---

Read more:
Youth social media: Why proposed Ontario and federal legislation won’t fix harms related to data exploitation

---

But policy experts note regulatory efforts in Canada related to youth and data exploitation are wanting.

The Liberal government’s proposed Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, died with Parliament’s prorogation in 2025, and with it the promise of a Digital Safety Commission with the power to audit and penalize companies.

Calls have grown for the federal government to revisit the act again.

Privacy commissioner consultations

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada recently held consultations on the need for Canada to follow international trends in digital regulation, with the consultation window closing in mid-August.

Forty-one leading civil organizations, academic institutions and experts endorsed a joint statement outlining 15 principles for effective oversight, inspired by the United Kingdom’s age-appropriate design code. The top principle: the best interests of the child.

Some voices of children

But never underestimate a child. When social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, author of The Anxious Generation, and a team of researchers collaborated on a Harris Poll of more than 500 children between the ages of eight and 12 in the United States, they found something striking.

While most children said they weren’t allowed out in public alone, and more than half had never walked down a grocery aisle unaccompanied or used a sharp knife, their online use was remarkably unsupervised.

But when asked how they prefer to spend their leisure time, only a quarter mentioned their devices, favouring free play with their friends. Eighty-seven per cent of surveyed children said they wished they could spend more time with their friends in person outside of school.

---

Read more:
Raising independent and resilient children: Lessons from TVO’s ‘Old Enough!’ and the science of love

---

Parents and educators are navigating a world where screens, algorithms and AI companions compete for children’s attention and shape their development.

In this context, the humble call from kids for more unstructured play with friends is not nostalgia; it’s a health intervention. Protecting that space may do more to safeguard their cognitive and emotional growth than any app, program or device ever could.

David Philpott 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. Children’s best interests should anchor Canada’s approach to their online privacy – https://theconversation.com/childrens-best-interests-should-anchor-canadas-approach-to-their-online-privacy-264963