Category: The Conversation – Canada

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Martin Danahay, Professor, English Language and Literature, Brock University

The Donald Trump administration in the United States has authorized killing people in boats on the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific, claiming they’re transporting illegal drugs.

Maritime and international law experts have raised concerns about the legality of the attacks. And based on a maritime court case from 1884, this use of force may well be illegal.

The Trump administration argues its actions are part of a war against what it has termed “narco-terrorists.” Killing the people manning these boats, it has said, will save the lives of Americans who might otherwise die of drug overdoses from the substances that are allegedly being transported by these boats.

The rationale that the U.S. is justified to kill people at sea in order to save people is similar to what used to be called the “custom of the sea”, which excused “survival cannibalism” if the consumption of one shipwrecked sailor helped the others survive. This custom, which basically excused “murder by necessity,” was essentially outlawed in a landmark case in 1884.

The story of The Mignonette

The case involved an incident of cannibalism after the yacht The Mignonette sank off the west coast of Africa and its four crew members escaped in a small dinghy with no time to gather food and water.

After three weeks at sea, their situation became so dire that two of the men decided that the ailing youngest member of the crew, a 17-year-old boy named Richard Parker, should be sacrificed so the rest of them could survive. They killed Parker and used his body for food and drink; the third crew member later said he opposed their actions, though feasted on Parker anyway.

Four days after they killed the boy, the three survivors were rescued.

Two of them, Tom Dudley and Edwin Stephens, were arrested for murder and cannibalism. They were brought to trial in the case R v Dudley and Stephens. The trial opened in Exeter, England after Dudley and Stephens pleaded not guilty.

A panel of judges found them both guilty of murder and they were initially sentenced to death. This judgment was later commuted to six months imprisonment due to errors in trial conduct. Nonetheless, the case did establish that their actions constituted murder and that necessity was not a valid defence for cannibalism.

Justifying murder

Like the crew members of The Mignonette, U.S. President Donald Trump has claimed that killing people at sea is justified because it will preserve the lives of others.

This is the same reasoning behind the now discredited “custom of the sea.”

Rather than “survival cannibalism,” this amounts to “survival killing” based on the argument that other people will live if those on the boats die.

The Dudley and Stephens precedent means that if anyone ever goes to trial for the boat strikes, they could potentially be convicted of murder following the landmark 19th century ruling that killing and eating people is wrong.

The case is taught in law classes because of the difficult issues it raises:

• When, if ever, is murder justified?
• If it is justified, in what circumstances would it be viewed as the only viable option?

While ongoing American attacks on boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific don’t involve cannibalism, but instead military attacks that have resulted in the deaths of the people manning those boats, the case of The Mignonette may still be relevant.

Either international norms turn back to the era of the “custom of the sea” and regard murder for the greater good as legal, or they uphold the verdict in R v Dudley and Stephens and view the actions in the Caribbean Sea as unjustified acts of murder.

Martin Danahay 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’s aggression in the Caribbean could violate a Victorian-era court ruling on cannibalism at sea – https://theconversation.com/trumps-aggression-in-the-caribbean-could-violate-a-victorian-era-court-ruling-on-cannibalism-at-sea-270012

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jamie Anderson, PhD Candidate, Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary

The Supreme Court of Canada recently released its ruling that mandatory minimum sentences for access or possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation material — previously called child pornography — may be unconstitutional in some cases.

The court found that these crimes are uniquely damaging and deserve severe sentences, but faulted how the Criminal Code applies mandatory minimums to “a very wide range of circumstances.”

Certain Canadian politicians have publicly criticized the decision, prompting some legal experts to warn them not to mislead the public by attacking the legal system.

Gender-based violence (GBV) prevention research shows it’s more effective to address the social conditions that enable people to cause harm than to intervene after the harm has been caused.

While Alberta Premier Danielle Smith stoked outrage about the Supreme Court decision, a closer look at her legislative record reveals a suite of policies that are damaging GBV prevention in the province.

Anti-trans policies in health, education and sport will normalize gender-based inequality for transgender Albertans, girls and women.

Additionally, limits on sexual health education and resources mean that fewer students in Alberta will receive sexual violence prevention education.

Online child exploitation

Online child exploitation describes a number of criminal behaviours. In 2022, there were 9,131 online child sexual abuse material offences, which increased to 16,892 in 2023.

This number includes incidents reported to police, which does not demonstrate the full scope of the problem. Unfortunately, the criminal legal system is not very effective in responding to most forms of sexual violence.

Advocates argue for more legal interventions that focus on prevention and not only prosecution, with a focus on greater accountability for technology platforms.

They also call for alternative forms of justice that centre survivors.

Advocates have been calling on federal and provincial governments to do more to prevent sexual and gender-based violence in all forms.

Understanding gender-based violence

Gender-based violence includes any form of violence based on someone’s gender, gender expression, gender identity or perceived gender.

This includes sexual violence, like child sexual abuse and exploitation materials, as well as hate-motivated violence. If we consider the Alberta government’s definition of GBV, homophobia and transphobia would be included.

It is widely accepted that GBV is rooted in forms of structural violence like racism, sexism and colonialism.

Primary prevention strategies address gender-based violence through education and programs that decrease inequality and address its root causes.

Prevention efforts target the beliefs that normalize violence and address risk factors for offender behaviours — to stop victimization before it begins.

Things like traditional gender norms, homophobic teasing and victim-blaming are examples of attitudes and behaviours that contribute to sexualized violence.

School-based programs

Prevention education includes public awareness, training and school programs. School-based comprehensive sexual health education, child sexual abuse prevention education and even gay-straight and queer-straight alliances (GSAs/QSAs) help prevent violence.

Beyond producing positive health outcomes, comprehensive sex-ed teaches human rights, bystander intervention, digital literacy, healthy relationships and more. When sexuality education is comprehensive, it reduces sexual violence. Programs that use queer and trans joy as a framework affirm identities, prioritize care and challenge norms that perpetuate homophobia and transphobia.

Eroding prevention strategies

Despite the evidence supporting primary prevention in schools, Smith’s legislative agenda has thoroughly weakened GBV prevention in schools.

The Alberta government announced a 10-year strategy to end GBV in May, but gender-based violence can not be eradicated when the governing United Conservative Party’s policies are based on harmful myths.

Teaching about gender inequality and diversity is an important aspect of primary prevention, but Alberta’s curriculum scores the lowest in Canada on 2SLGBTQIA+ inclusion.

In Alberta, students between kindergarten to Grades 6 only have one opportunity to learn about 2SLGBTQIA+ identities. During Grade 3 physical education and wellness classes, students learn that families can have two mothers or two fathers — but under Alberta legislation, these lessons aren’t universally taught: families must opt their children in.

Alberta has become the only province that requires parent permission for lessons on puberty, hygiene and consent. Experts worry that this means fewer students will have access to sex ed.

In addition to the opt-in policies, Smith’s government now requires prior minister approval for all resources and third-party organizations that support human sexuality education.

Despite being separate from human sexuality, these regulations also apply to sexual assault centres that teach abuse prevention.

As of November, only four organizations have been approved, leaving significant programming and expertise gaps in schools across the province, especially in rural communities that have higher rates of gender-based violence.

Policy harms

As well, under Smith’s leadership, parent permission and notification is now required for trans youth to use a different name or pronouns at school. This policy denies access to a very reasonable accommodation when it is requested for “trans” reasons.

One study shows that being able to use a preferred name in various contexts — like school — reduces suicidal behaviour by nearly 60 per cent in trans youth.

Saskatchewan’s top court ruled that their province’s name and pronoun policy — which Alberta copied — creates the risk of irreparable harm to youth, including the increased risk of family violence.

Still, the government has legislated that teachers must participate in the harm of their trans students or face disciplinary action.

Smith’s government has also moved to limit gender-affirming health care for trans youth. First introduced in a video titled “protecting future choices of children” Smith’s policy bans a number of gender-affirming procedures that are already unavailable under the age of 18.

Smith said her goal was to preserve the future fertility of children until they can make decisions as adults. In other words, Smith believes that someone’s ability to reproduce is a matter of state concern. This belief is rooted in misogyny, especially rigid gender roles that expect women to be mothers and exerts control over their reproductive autonomy. Misogyny is a key driver of gender-based violence.

Bodily autonomy is core to preventing gender-based violence and is strictly limited by the ban on gender affirming care for trans youth included in Bill 26.

Although the courts granted an early injunction that delayed its implementation, Smith intends to invoke the notwithstanding clause for all of her anti-trans bills, denying rights to trans Albertans.

Effective violence prevention needed

Without effective prevention, gender-based violence will continue to grow and strain the already underfunded and overburdened networks of support for survivors.

If Smith were invested in gender-based violence prevention, her legislative agenda — not just her X account — should reflect as much.

Jamie Anderson has previously received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the University of Calgary.

Hilary Jahelka 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. Alberta’s education legislation erodes gender-based violence prevention in K-12 schools – https://theconversation.com/albertas-education-legislation-erodes-gender-based-violence-prevention-in-k-12-schools-269366

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Nicolas Chartier-Edwards, PhD student, Politics, Science and Technology, Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS)

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberal government has tabled its first official budget, entitled Canada Strong. It frames itself as a road map of investments being made to strengthen national sovereignty via economic productivity and national defence. Central to those efforts is artificial intelligence.

AI-heavy technologies have been identified by eight federal agencies in the 2025 budget as a way to reduce operational expenditures while fuelling productivity.

Many of the investments in the budget are aimed at developing the defence industry through the creation and commercialization of what’s known as dual-use technology — goods, software and technology that can be used for both civilian and military applications — which can also include AI.

But is Canada Strong actually weak on AI?

Given the current legislative landscape and the new budget, we argue that Canada Strong’s AI plan downplays regulation and guardrail development, since funding is geared chiefly toward adoption. It overlooks the risks, impacts and potential weaknesses that come with an over-reliance on these technologies.

Past budgets

Indirectly, the Canadian government has consistently supported AI research through the Federal Granting Agency, the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.

Between 2006 and 2015, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government invested more than $13 billion in science, technology and innovation during its mandate.

Justin Trudeau’s government changed how AI was marketed to Canadians and how it was funded. The 2017 budget, entitled Building a Strong Middle Class, made the first explicit references to AI in a federal budget, describing it as representing a transformative force for the Canadian economy.

The government emphasized “Canada’s advantage in artificial intelligence,” which it said could translate into “a more innovative economy, stronger economic growth, and an improved quality of life for Canadians.”

Bill Morneau, the finance minister at the time, proposed funding AI superclusters and allocating $125 million to establish the first Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy.

This commitment to AI was reaffirmed in the 2021 budget, when the technology was presented as “one of the most significant technological transformations of our time.” The federal government’s investments in the sector were portrayed as essential to ensure the economy benefited, and that Canada’s position of strength enabled the “integration of Canadian values into global platforms.”

The government renewed the Pan-Canadian AI Strategy with another $368 million. An additional $2.4 billion was committed in the 2024 budget, which emphasized the “safe and responsible use” of AI, notably through the creation of new standards and the establishment of a Canadian AI Safety Institute

Sovereignty focus

The 2025 budget marks another substantial shift in Canada’s approach to AI. This third phase of funding focuses on adoption, productivity, sovereignty and the fundamental principle of dual use, both civilian and military.

But we don’t believe it fosters research and projects addressing the key issues tied to AI, and instead amplifies promotional language.

We believe the large-scale adoption of AI across federal departments and agencies (like the Canada Revenue Agency, Employment and Social Development Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Statistics Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Canadian Heritage) will actually reduce the capacity to pursue regulatory development, guardrail design, ethical deliberation and meaningful civil-society input because its widespread integration will permeate the entire bureaucracy.

AI presented as an economic driver through cost reduction and dual-use applications has become the new promotional narrative for the government.

---

Read more:
What are Canada’s governing Liberals going to do about AI?

---

The AI weakness in Canada Strong

What vulnerabilities arise when AI is aggressively deployed within the public service? Since the abandonment of the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act in 2025, Canada’s approach to AI governance has relied more on norms and standards than on the rule of law.

This environment could risk overturning a perceived AI advantage into one of weakness. This is especially true given an over-reliance by the government on foreign software (such as Microsoft CoPilot) and hardware (NVIDIA chips needed for super computers), a lack of comprehensive understanding of the technologies already in use by different agencies and no guidelines on lethal autonomous weapons — weapons systems that can independently search for, identify and attack targets without direct human intervention.

---

Read more:
How Russian and Iranian drone strikes further dehumanize warfare

---

Promoting rapid regulatory design and AI adoption within a budget focused on stimulating dual-use research, development, commercialization and implementation risks overlooking many of AI’s pitfalls, including:

• Reduced administrative transparency
• Embedded discrimination
• Models unsuited to administrative or military standards
• Mass surveillance, unethical use and unintended collateral damage.

Promotion AI as an economic boon — through public administration automation and military dual use — within an unregulated environment, and without dedicated funding for oversight, risks disrupting key sectors and services that sustain Canadian democracy, the very foundation of “Canada Strong.”

Nicolas Chartier-Edwards receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

François-Olivier Picard 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. Federal budget 2025: Is Canada Strong actually weak on AI? – https://theconversation.com/federal-budget-2025-is-canada-strong-actually-weak-on-ai-269230

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Scott Schieman, Professor of Sociology and Canada Research Chair, University of Toronto

Since 2023, there has been a steady increase in media stories about the potential for automation by artificial intelligence (AI) to displace workers. As sociologists who study what people think and feel about work, we wondered if these narratives were gaining any traction among workers.

Understanding worker attitudes toward automation is a crucial part of studying AI’s broader impact on work and society. If large segments of the workforce feel threatened or left behind by AI, we risk not just economic disruption but a loss of trust in institutions and technological progress.

To explore these attitudes, we fielded a nationally representative survey of 2,519 working Canadians from Sept. 8 to 18 with the support of the Angus Reid Forum. The survey was designed to assess public attitudes and perceptions about the AI-related threat of job displacement.

We found Canadians’ responses were far from uniform, reflecting a mix of concern, skepticism and cautious optimism.

Mixed reactions to job loss

We asked respondents:

“A CEO of a major AI company recently made this statement: ‘AI could wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs and spike unemployment to 10 to 20 per cent in the next one to five years.’ How likely do you think this is?”

The quote came from Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, who was interviewed in an Axios article in May. The central thrust of the article was the imminent AI-related turbulence in the world of work.

In our survey, however, Canadian workers expressed mixed reactions to that dismal scenario: 16 per cent felt it was “very likely,” while another 48 per cent said it was only “somewhat likely.” The remaining 36 per cent said it was “not too likely” or “not at all likely.”

We then asked open-ended followup questions to gather qualitative insights about the ways that people are thinking and feeling about the AI threat. Most respondents expressed a pessimistic outlook, but a significant minority contrasted their view with optimism.

Concerns about corporate greed and job loss

A common thread among pessimistic responses was concern over corporate greed and profit. “Companies are greedy,” a 63-year-old writer said. “They want to get rid of as many jobs as possible.”

A 66-year-old clinical manager echoed the sentiment: “Companies are always looking to reduce cost and improve efficacies, so there is a strong probability this is going to happen in many organizations over the next 5 to 10 years as AI continues to be used.”

Some respondents felt these trends were happening already. “The trends and increases in speed of which AI has begun dominating the business world,” a 30-year-old engineer said. “I believe that whether or not society approves, companies will attempt to replace their entry level-jobs with AI.”

A 32-year-old real estate legal assistant said: “AI has already advanced so much in a short space of time. Combined with our society’s prioritization of profit, I doubt many companies will have any scruples about replacing people with machines.”

Others were concerned about the looming loss of dignity and respect for workers. “Executives do not see the value of the human mind compared to a machine,” a 53-year-old senior government policy analyst told us. “It shows they have no concern for employees, just profits.”

A 70-year-old civil construction inspector similarly said: “Worker productivity is low, immigration has overwhelmed services and housing, corporations have no respect for workers no matter where or what the task. There will simply be too many people competing for jobs.”

“Companies see AI as a cheap way to lay off many workers and maximize their own profits — even though doing so will make their products worse,” said a 22-year-old barista. “Companies only care about money, not the workers that generate their revenue.”

Optimism about human adaptability

Not everyone was so gloomy. Many expressed optimism about AI and the human capacity to adapt and evolve.

“AI is not a replacement for humans,” said a 54-year-old community television producer, while emphasizing that rather than replace humans, AI “should allow humans to accomplish more at their jobs.”

Others shared this confidence, drawing parallels to other historical changes in technology. “The job market will adapt as needed,” speculated a 34-year-old service officer, “switching to different roles that match the current technology, just as we have done in the past.”

A 33-year-old project co-ordinator said: “I think people and jobs will adapt to utilize technology in the same way we adapted to the internet. I think the job market will change, but overall, we’re more likely to adapt than have high unemployment.”

---

Read more:
Generative AI can boost innovation – but only when humans are in control

---

Some reinforced the human relevance of work. “Regardless of the nature of the job, individuals will still need to train the younger generation” said a 32-year-old economist. “While we might not need data entry people anymore, we still need to understand how data entry works to hold upper-level positions — it can’t just be taken away from people completely.”

What this tells us

These findings show that, despite sensational headlines about AI and job loss, Canadian workers’ perceptions about the issue are complex.

It’s clear that the emotional landscape of work is filled with frustrations about corporate priorities and skepticism about whether workers will be protected. And yet, our survey found traces of resilience in the belief in the essential humanness of work.

Over the next one to five years, we’ll continue to track how this all plays out, and the ways that Canadian workers, business leaders and policymakers adapt and evolve to the ongoing changes brought by AI.

Scott Schieman receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Alexander Wilson receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

– ref. Will AI automation really kill jobs? A new survey finds Canadian workers are split on the answer – https://theconversation.com/will-ai-automation-really-kill-jobs-a-new-survey-finds-canadian-workers-are-split-on-the-answer-268649

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Knut von Salzen, Senior Research Scientist, Marine Cloud Brightening Research Program, University of Washington

Winter is setting in across the Northern Hemisphere, and with it, cold and cloudy winter days. Clouds play a vital role in the environment, providing rain but also reflecting sunlight before it reaches the Earth’s surface.

But between 2003 and 2022, clouds over the North Atlantic and Northeast Pacific became less reflective, allowing more sunlight to reach the ocean surface and causing sea surface temperatures to rise.

My colleagues and I recent conducted research that shows global efforts to improve air quality have unintentionally accelerated climate warming by modifying clouds.

While cleaner air has major health benefits, decreasing the amount of particulate pollution has also reduced the cooling effect of clouds, accelerating climate warming.

Dimming clouds and rising temperatures

Our study relied on two decades of satellite data to analyze the impacts of changes in particulate pollution and climate warming on the clouds. The data shows that low-level clouds in the Northern Hemisphere have dimmed rapidly since 2003.

In particular, cloud reflectivity over the North Atlantic and Northeast Pacific has fallen by nearly three per cent per decade. During the same period, sea surface temperatures rose about 0.4 C, intensifying marine heatwaves that have damaged ecosystems and fisheries.

We expected that climate warming from greenhouse gas increases would lead to a decrease in low clouds over the ocean. However, the observed changes were too large to be explained by this process or by natural climate variability, pointing to an additional cause of warming that many climate models underestimated.

The key factor turned out to be aerosols — tiny particles that act as seeds for cloud droplets. When there are fewer aerosols, clouds contain fewer but larger droplets. Those droplets reflect less sunlight and are more likely to rain out quickly, producing shorter-lived, darker clouds. This process weakens the cooling influence that low clouds have over marine areas.

The effect stems from two known mechanisms: the Twomey effect, where fewer aerosols make clouds less reflective, and the Albrecht effect, where larger droplets shorten cloud lifetime. Together, these changes reduce the planet’s overall reflectivity.

A cleaner atmosphere, a warmer planet

Ultimately, our study exposes a paradox: cleaner air benefits human health while also revealing the full force of greenhouse-gas warming, which has historically been “masked” by the cooling effect of particulate pollution.

Sulfur dioxide (SO₂) emissions — the main source of sulfate aerosols — have fallen sharply as countries adopted stricter air-quality regulations. China’s SO₂ emissions alone dropped by about 16 million metric tonnes per decade since 2003, with similar reductions in the United States and Europe. Cleaner air means fewer aerosol particles available to form bright, reflective clouds.

Our study showed five to 10 per cent declines in cloud droplet concentrations, especially in regions where cloud brightness fell most. The close correspondence between reduced aerosols, larger droplet size and cloud dimming confirmed that cleaner air was driving regional warming.

We analyzed 24 Earth system models and found that most underestimated the magnitude and extent of observed cloud changes. Only models that accurately represented how aerosols affect clouds matched real-world observations, highlighting a major modelling weakness.

In our study, we separated the effects of particulate air-pollution cuts from cloud changes driven by general warming. The results showed that declining aerosols accounted for 69 per cent of the cloud reflectivity loss, while warming explained 31 per cent. Our simulations indicate that changes in cloud lifetime in response to having larger droplets (the Albrecht effect) proved more influential in the change in cloud droplet size itself (the Twomey effect).

Reduced cloud brightness in these ocean regions added about 0.15 watts per square metre (W/m²) per decade to Earth’s global energy imbalance, even though the regions cover only 14 per cent of the planet’s surface. Rising global CO₂ levels added roughly 0.31 W/m² per decade during the same time, meaning cleaner air produced nearly half as much additional warming as CO₂ itself in those areas.

This finding creates a policy challenge: air-quality improvements that save lives also remove a cooling shield that has been masking a significant portion of greenhouse-gas warming. Because aerosol emissions are projected to keep falling through mid-century, this “unmasking” could continue to contribute to faster rates of warming for decades.

Importance of continued observation

The satellites observing clouds and aerosols are nearing the end of their mission, with a phaseout expected in 2026. Long-term satellite monitoring proved essential for revealing the link between cleaner air, dimmer clouds and regional warming, and will continue to be essential for understanding future warming.

Our results suggest that many climate models may underestimate near-term regional warming as air particulate pollution declines. Improving the representation in models of how aerosols affect clouds and continuing global observations will be critical for more accurate projections.

Addressing the paradox of cleaner air uncovering hidden warming demands integrating air-quality and climate policy and accelerating the reduction of greenhouse gases — the only lasting way to cool the planet.

Knut von Salzen receives funding from the University of Washington’s Marine Cloud Brightening Research Program, which is funded by a consortium of individual and foundation donors. He is affiliated with the Climate Research Division of Environment and Climate Change Canada and the University of Victoria.

– ref. Reduced air pollution is making clouds reflect less sunlight – https://theconversation.com/reduced-air-pollution-is-making-clouds-reflect-less-sunlight-269805

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kerry McCuaig, Fellow in Early Childhood Policy, Atkinson Centre, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto

Five years into Canada’s $10-a-day child care plan, affordability has improved dramatically for families fortunate enough to have a space. However, the families who need care the most are being left behind.

Both the auditor general of Canada and the auditor general of Ontario have warned that the Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care (CWELCC) program, while successful in lowering fees, is failing to meet its other commitments — inclusion, quality and equitable access.

The $10-a-day plan was meant to be a nation-building project — one that gives every child, regardless of background, an equal start in life.

But affordability without equity is a hollow victory. If governments fail to correct course, inequities will harden into the system’s design, and the intergenerational cycle of poverty will deepen.

Subsidies down

Low-income families have traditionally been eligible for government subsidies to help pay for care. For the poorest families, the subsidy can cover the entire cost.

Yet since the program began, the number of children receiving subsidies has fallen sharply — Ontario’s auditor general reported a 31 per cent decline, and in Toronto, subsidy use has dropped below 80 per cent

Each time fees fall, more families want low-cost care. But the number of spaces hasn’t kept pace.

Competition intensifies — and more affluent families, who have greater networks and resources, move to the front of the line.

This is a well-documented social pattern known as the Matthew effect: advantage begets more advantage.

The problem is compounded by the fact that CWELCC-funded programs are not required to enrol families receiving subsidies.

By mid-2025, according to reports published on the City of Toronto open data portal, roughly 30 per cent of Toronto’s CWELCC programs — representing over one-third of all infant-to-preschool spaces — had no contract with the city to serve subsidized children.

Meanwhile, more than 16,500 children in Toronto are waitlisted for a space, while nearly one in three publicly funded programs deny them access.

A quiet incentive to underspend

Funding structures further entrench inequity. Fee subsidies are paid from provincial budgets, while CWELCC affordability funding comes from the federal government.

When families stop using subsidies — because spaces are unavailable or eligibility rules too restrictive — provinces and territories save money, while still benefiting politically from federal investments that make care appear more affordable.

Some jurisdictions don’t bother with subtlety: Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories have eliminated subsidy programs altogether.

A fragile truce on funding

On Nov. 10, Ontario announced a one-year extension of its federal child-care deal, maintaining current funding terms while a longer agreement is negotiated. The extension preserves the current fee — roughly $22 a day — but does nothing to address the inequities embedded in the system.

The CWELCC framework rests on five pillars: affordability, access, quality, inclusion and data accountability. In practice, only affordability has advanced.

---

Read more:
Canada-wide child care: It’s now less expensive, but finding it is more difficult

---

Even if new funding materialized, money alone wouldn’t fix the problem. Federal and provincial governments control the purse strings, but in Ontario, regional policymakers already have the tools — and the responsibility — to act.

They allocate subsidies, set local priorities and conduct annual program reviews. With stronger direction, they could require all CWELCC-funded programs — both for-profit and non-profit — to:

• Accept subsidized children as a condition of continued funding;

• Meet quality standards, such as those in Toronto’s Assessment for Quality Improvement system; and

• Set targets for equitable access based on local demographics.

In areas identified as child-care deserts, where demand far outstrips supply, service managers could also give priority to neighbourhood families until new facilities are built.

Danger of unchecked for-profit expansion

Equity cannot be achieved by giving for-profit operators a free hand — yet that’s exactly what’s happening across several provinces.

For-profit growth has exceeded the limits set in child-care agreements. These operators naturally expand where profits are fastest — in higher-income communities. The result: rapid growth in affluent areas and stagnation in places where families most need affordable, high-quality care.

Ontario’s auditor general flagged this trend, finding that nearly half of all new licensed spaces were in for-profit centres — despite federal and provincial commitments to prioritize non-profit and public expansion.

Unfettered commercial growth not only weakens public accountability but also deepens the inequities the federal child-care program was meant to eliminate.

A system designed to build a public good cannot rely on private profit as its engine.

Redirect the savings

The one-year CWELCC extension gives Ontario breathing room to get this right. By our calculations, holding the line at a $22 daily fee — rather than dropping to the promised $12 — would free up roughly $100 million in Toronto alone.

Those funds could expand care in low-income neighbourhoods, strengthen program quality, stabilize the educator workforce and rein in for-profit expansion.

Contrary to political fears, this would not cause undue hardship for middle-income families. After applying existing federal and provincial tax benefits, the median Ontario family with two children in care pays approximately $15 per child per day, which is close to the $12 goal.

The greater hardship lies with families who still can’t find a space at all.

---

Read more:
Ontario’s child-care agreement is poised to fail low-income children and families

---

Beyond subsidies: making access universal

Expanding subsidies won’t fix structural inequality. Under current rules, parents must prove they are employed, in school or meeting specific “activity” requirements to qualify.

These conditions exclude children whose parents are outside the labour market — precisely those who could benefit most from early education.

These rules should be scrapped. Every child deserves access to quality care, regardless of their parents’ work status.

A choice about values

Over time, Canada should move toward a universal, income-based model — similar to the Canada Child Benefit — where all children qualify for early learning and fees are scaled to family income. Fees based on the family’s ability to pay are well-established in Nordic countries.

This would replace the costly and complex patchwork of subsidies and flat fees with a simpler and fairer system.

The next phase of Canada’s early learning and child-care plan must put equity at its centre — not as an afterthought, but as the measure of success.

Canada has already proven it can make child care affordable. Now it must make it fair.

Kerry McCuaig receives funding from the Margaret and Wallace McCain Family Foundation, The Lawson Foundation, Atkinson Foundation and the Waltons Trust.

Michal Perlman receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Data Science Institute at the University of Toronto, the Margaret and Wallace McCain Family Foundation and the Lawson Foundation.

Nina Howe has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Economic and Research Council of the UK..

Petr Varmuza is affiliated with B2C2 – (Building Blocks for Child Care) as an advisory board member

– ref. Child-care affordability is coming at the expense of equity — and it’s time governments acted – https://theconversation.com/child-care-affordability-is-coming-at-the-expense-of-equity-and-its-time-governments-acted-269266

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Victoria (Vicky) McArthur, Associate Professor, School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University

Canadian politicians have increasingly taken to social media to campaign as well as communicate with constituents, sharing updates on policies, local events, emergencies or government initiatives.

But stories have emerged of constituents being blocked by their representatives. Should Canadian politicians be free to block their own constituents?

Some politicians claim the blocking is to combat increased online harassment, while constituents have claimed that simply being critical of policies or initiatives is enough to get them blocked.

Some recent cases in Canada include federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault being asked to unblock Ezra Levant on X in 2023, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith blocking constituents on X in 2023 and Montréal Mayor Valérie Plante blocking comments on X and Instagram in 2024. In 2018, Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson was sued by three local Ottawa activists after blocking them on X.

Research has indicated that politicians in Canada are subject to uncivil messages on their social media accounts and increasing threats and hate are directed to candidates online. Furthermore, social media has been attributed to rising political polarization and the spread of disinformation. The RCMP is currently investigating online threats made to MP Chris d’Entremont after he crossed the floor to join the federal Liberals.

Constituent rights

AI bots on social media are influencing political discourse online in Canada; one researcher has warned these bots “amplify specific narratives, influence public opinion, and reinforce ideological divides.”

But where do Canadian politicians draw the line, and does blocking constituents violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically regarding the rights of citizens to access government information?

The Charter recognizes a derivative right to access government information when it’s essential for meaningful expression about government operations. This is why a court ordered Guilbeault to unblock Levant, founder of Rebel News, two years ago. However, this wasn’t an official ruling, but rather a settlement.

Within Ontario, the Office of the Integrity Commissioner has provided guidance on the use of social media accounts by provincial members of parliament (MPPs). The policy states that MPPs may have social media accounts in their own names, and provides advice on how they are used, but this advice mostly covers polices about partisan content or campaign rules.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association notes that there is, “a special incentive for politicians to make sure that the online record casts them in the best possible light, even if that means silencing critical or otherwise inconvenient voices.”

Social media platforms generally do not effectively or consistently intervene when it comes to targeted harassment of Canadian politicians. For Canadian politicians who maintain active, public-facing social media accounts, this leaves managing online abuse to the candidates and their staff.

What about constituents who are simply unhappy with their elected officials?

In an era where Canadian politicians increasingly use social media to communicate policy and promote transparency, shouldn’t citizens be able to post critical comments in those same spaces? If these platforms serve as modern public forums, where exactly should democratic debate take place if not there?

Silenced by elected officials?

The issue presently lacks legal precedence in Canada. In the case of Levant/Guilbeault, the decision ordering the former environment minister to unblock Levant appeared to hinge on the nature of Guilbeault’s X account: whether it was a personal account or whether he was using it in an official capacity to communicate updates on his work in Parliament.

In the case of Watson in Ottawa, the three blocked plaintiffs argued the mayor had “infringed their constitutional right to freedom of expression by blocking them from his official Twitter account.” They further argued that his Twitter feed was “a public account used in the course of his duties as mayor” — a point he later conceded in unblocking them and ending the legal battle.

As Canadian politics continues to become integrated with social media, Canada still has no clear legal framework governing when or if politicians can or should block constituents online. The issue sits at the crossroads of digital safety, public accountability and freedom of expression.

Until clearer guidelines emerge, the question remains: how can politicians in Canada safely and effectively use social media to engage with constituents? And how can constituents confidently engage in critique via those same channels without fear of being silenced by their elected officials?

Victoria (Vicky) McArthur receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Canadian Foundation for Innovation.

– ref. Should Canadian politicians be allowed to block their constituents on social media? – https://theconversation.com/should-canadian-politicians-be-allowed-to-block-their-constituents-on-social-media-269165

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jennifer Walinga, Professor, Communication and Culture, Royal Roads University

In the sports documentary miniseries The Last Dance, Michael Jordan describes how, as a young rookie, he was confronted with an invitation to take part in illicit activities with teammates, including drugs and gambling.

He “did not go through that door,” realizing “he was in the NBA to get better.” Nowadays that kind of moral compass feels increasingly rare.

The recent gambling and fraud scandal rocking the NBA, for example, illustrates how, when sport leaders compromise on sport values — respect, excellence, safety and fairness — they compromise the value of sport to individuals and society as a whole.

The purpose of sport is individual and community development. The word “compete” is derived from the Latin competere which means to strive (for excellence) together.

Money changes the game

Adding money to sport requires a high level of regulation to prevent the associated pitfalls of corruption, fraud, power imbalances and excess.

Allowing gambling in sport places stress on sport governance, but also erodes cultural integrity. Betting communicates a tolerance for what has been considered criminal in the past and corrupting in the present.

When a referee tolerates cheating behaviour on the field, they soon lose control of the game, and the game soon loses its value.

Canadian researchers have repeatedly shown the value of sport in fostering individual and community development. From positive youth development to significant social impact and social inclusion of people with disabilities, research shows the positive role sport can have through inspiration, health, confidence, belonging and connection.

The Power of Sport: The True Sport Report 2022, a research series by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport that provides evidence for a values-based approach to sport, consistently finds that “the sport Canadians want” includes safety, integrity and community.

What women’s sport teaches us

A recent report from Women and Sport Canada shows the sport Canadians want is equitable, inspiring and community-oriented. Women’s sport in Canada, for example, has doubled in value over two years to $400 million and is expected to reach $500 million within a year.

Sport organizations such as Speed Skating Canada, Rugby Canada and the Toronto Blue Jays are modelling positive sport values and the result is a growing fan base and participation, record ticket sales and exceptional performances.

In their studies of Speed Skating Canada and Rowing Canada, former professional athletes and organizational psychologists Katrina Monton and Jennifer Walinga found that cultural integrity — living the values of respect, safety and excellence — has created a foundation for optimal performance. Indeed, the Canadian Speed Skaters enjoyed a dominant performance at the recent World Cup.

Rugby Canada leadership stood by the women’s team through two cases of coach abuse to see the women earn Olympic and World Cup silver medals.

In studying rugby and other sports, our research team has found cultural integrity to be essential to a team’s resilience and success.

The Blue Jays have also confirmed it: the Canadian public wants a sport that upholds friendship, respect and excellence on the diamond. Fans are enthusiastically celebrating the expressed and enacted love the players have for one another, the game and the country.

---

Read more:
Boys do cry: The Toronto Blue Jays challenge sport’s toxic masculinity with displays of love and emotion

---

Fair play and the public’s trust

The recent gambling scandals in the NBA and the MLB are a product of ill-governed sport. Insider betting and games rigging involving players, coaches and organized crime rings are the fallout of legalized sports betting.

When sport leaders place winning or money at the centre of sport, a “win at all costs” mentality prevails, rationalizing and indirectly promoting behaviours like cheating, inequity and corruption — and the costs are well-documented.

Compromising on sport values creates cultural fractures, contradictions and incongruities across sport, which then undermine public trust and the participation that comes with it.

The Hockey Canada sexual assault settlement scandal, which involved the board using registration fees to settle the claims, is another example of values undermined under the guise of protecting players or the sport. Despite their acquittals, a group of junior hockey players compromised human dignity.

This type of behaviour stems from a cultural belief system that values violence — permitted and promoted in hockey — and leads to compromise across the hockey environment, including fan violence, referee abuse, hazing, bullying, misogyny and toxic masculinity.

These sport scandals are examples of how rationalizing illicit behaviours for the sake of sport — for example, gambling that increases the fan base and ticket sales, which fund sport — leads to value compromises across the sport environment.

UK Sport has relied on $1.5 billion in lottery funding since 1997. Most Canadian provinces rely on gaming grants to fund community sport — arguably a slippery slope.

Gaming, sponsorship and “targeted” performance-based funding models like UK Sport and Canada’s Own the Podium privilege money over ethics and safety, and communicate to athletes, coaches and fans that compromising values is acceptable. Yet, it can be argued, these models enhance funding and bring success. The question becomes: where do we draw the line?

When referees compromise on fair play or lose sight of their role, the game unravels — and so can sport in general unravel without proper governance, accountability, transparency and independence. When the rules no longer seem to apply, athletes believe they are free to push boundaries or take their own form of recourse.

The Edmonton Oilers/St.Louis Blues NHL hockey game in April 2025, when referees were accused of making several questionable calls, is a good example. The doping track-and-field scandals in the 1980s were yet another. When winning becomes the priority, other values fall by the wayside.

Rebuilding sport from the inside out

Sport must be governed by the same principles that define it at its best: excellence, respect, safety, community, accountability, independence, transparency, accessibility and fairness.

Sport based on Olympic and Paralympic values brings tremendous value to society.

Compromising on sport’s values and integrity only serves to squander its local, national and global power. Sport, when done right, unites the world.

Jennifer Walinga receives funding from SSHRC, WorkSafeBC and Royal Roads University

– ref. When we gamble with the integrity of sport, we risk losing the values it offers – https://theconversation.com/when-we-gamble-with-the-integrity-of-sport-we-risk-losing-the-values-it-offers-268731

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ahmed Al-Juhany, PhD Candidate, University of Calgary

In 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) released the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases — a global, standard-setting guideline for how institutions should understand and organize health information. In it was a new diagnostic category for symptoms and signs of disease: “old age.”

The new category sparked outrage and, in 2021, the WHO backed down. It replaced “old age” with the more cumbersome but less incendiary category of “ageing-associated declines in intrinsic capacities.”

The reversal dealt a blow to scientists who, for years, had fought to have institutions formally classify aging as a disease. Older age, after all, is a major predictor of hypertension, cancer and other chronic conditions. And if we delve into the biology behind this association, we’ll find that the changes making us visibly “age” also make us more susceptible to those chronic conditions over time. The same cellular changes that cause wrinkles, for example, are also involved in atherosclerosis — a chronic condition that can lead to stroke and heart attacks.

With these facts in mind, it can be hard to see why we shouldn’t classify aging as a disease.

And yet, there’s good reason not to. Doing so risks stigmatizing older age and exacerbating ageism. Ethical concerns like these should factor into our medical classifications; in fact, they’re unavoidable. To see why, we’ll need to take a closer look at what it means to call anything a disease.

What we do when we classify diseases

A label is a powerful thing — the “disease” label, especially so.

Classifying anything as a disease marks it as something bad: a defect, a disorder, something we most definitely don’t want.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons why something might be classified as a disease, despite the label’s connotations. It may help set a clear target for medicine to cure, like distinguishing Alzheimer’s disease from other causes of dementia. Or it may help find the right framing for a problem. Classifying alcoholism as a disease, for example, can clarify the fact that people’s struggles with alcohol aren’t owed to a lack of willpower.

But if our classification of diseases depends on our strategic aims, then by implication, they also depend on the ethical values our aims reflect.

Think of the pathologizing views of autism and ADHD that the neurodiversity movement resists. In taking neurodivergent brains to be diseased or disordered, these views implicitly brand them as defective — unfortunate deviations from the way “normal” brains are supposed to work. This results in stigma: prejudicial attitudes that take neurodivergent people to be inferior in some way.

The neurodiversity movement resists these views primarily on ethical grounds. Treating people as though they’re inferior goes against the fundamental belief that, no matter our differences, we should all be able to interact as social equals. We all deserve some baseline of mutual respect.

Why aging shouldn’t be classified as a disease

Which brings us back to aging, an incredibly complex process that influences almost every aspect of our lives. It might make us more vulnerable to some diseases, but it’s more than just a health risk.

It is, in many ways, embodied biography — a physiological testament to all the changes we go through in life (anti-ageism activist Maggie Kuhn took pride in her wrinkles, seeing them as “a badge of distinction”).

Aging is also an opportunity for us to grow. It can mean change, but change that helps keep our lives as rich and rewarding as ever. If, for example, our libidos happen to wane with age, we can often learn to appreciate and practise new ways of showing affection, exploring different touches and intimacies that make us feel even more connected with our partners.

And, contrary to stereotypes, science shows that many things can improve with age, like our emotional well-being, semantic memory and some aspects of our executive function.

There’s a lot to value and celebrate about growing older.

But classifying aging as a disease would flatten all these nuances, all these gains, and frame it as a process of mere decline — one that only robs us of our health.

In an already ageist world, the consequences could be dire. Think of the people pressured out of jobs because their employers believe they’re “too old,” or of the people whose medical concerns get ignored because their doctors believe their ailments are just a “natural” part of getting older. These people aren’t made vulnerable because they’ve aged, but because of the mistaken belief that aging is a process that’s worn them out.

The belief, then, stigmatizes older age. It implies that older people have “deteriorated” and, as a result, have somehow become inferior. Classifying aging as a disease would risk bolstering this harmful belief. It could cement the negative associations people already have about aging and strengthen the hold of their prejudices.

In other words, it could exacerbate ageism.

That is a strong ethical reason to not classify aging as a disease.

Ahmed Al-Juhany does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why aging shouldn’t be classified as a disease – https://theconversation.com/why-aging-shouldnt-be-classified-as-a-disease-268277

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Rebecca H. Hogue, Assistant Professor, Department of English, University of Toronto

Following recent comments on nuclear testing by United States President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin, it’s more important than ever to remember that nuclear detonations — whether in war or apparent peace time — have long-lasting impacts.

Over a 40-year period, up to 1989, the Soviet Union detonated 456 nuclear weapons in present-day Kazakhstan (or Qazaqstan, in the decolonized spelling).

During the time of the detonations, approximately 1.5 million people lived near the sites, despite Soviet claims that the area was uninhabited.

In the ensuing decades, diagnoses of cancers, congenital anomalies and thyroid disease affected the surrounding communities at an alarming rate, particularly for women.

A new independent documentary, JARA Radioactive Patriarchy: Women of Qazaqstan, examines the impacts of nuclear weapons in Qazaqstan. Jara means “wound” in the Qazaq language.

The film is directed by Aigerim Seitenova, a nuclear disarmament activist with a post-graduate degree in international human rights law who co-founded the Qazaq Nuclear Frontline Coalition. Seitenova grew up in Semey (formerly called Semipalatinsk), Qazaqstan.

Close to Semey is the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site, also known as The Polygon, in Qazaqstan’s northeastern region. It’s an area slightly smaller than the size of Belgium — approximately 18,000 square kilometres — in the former Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic.

Nuclear Truth Project

Seitenova introduced her film in March 2025 at the United Nations headquarters in New York, hosted by the Nuclear Truth Project. The documentary premiere was a side event at the Third Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

As a literary and cultural historian who examines narratives of the nuclear age, I attended the standing-room-only event alongside many delegates from civil society organizations.

Nuclear disarmament activist

Seitenova, who wrote, directed and produced JARA Radioactive Patriarchy on location in Semey, aims to bring women’s nuclear stories to Qazaqstan and international audiences.

The 30-minute documentary features intimate interviews with five Qazaq women. The film shares the women’s fears, grief and the ways they have learned to cope, as well as reflections from Seitenova filmed at the ground-zero site.

For Seitenova, it was essential that the film be in Qazaq language.

“Qazaq language, like Qazaq bodies,” she said in an interview after the premiere, “were considered ‘other’ or not valuable.” Seitenova acknowledged it was also important to show a Qazaq-language film at the UN, as Qazaq is not an official UN language like Russian.

Women consensually share experiences

One of Seitenova’s directorial choices was not just what or who would be seen, but specifically what would not be seen in her film.

“I’m really against sensationalism,” said Seitenova. “If you Google ‘Semipalatinsk’ you will see all of these terrible images of children and fetuses.”

Seitenova accordingly does not show any of these images in her film, and instead focuses on women consensually sharing their experiences.

Seitenova explained how narratives regarding the health effects in Semey are often disparaged. When others learn she is from Semey, Seitenova shared, some will make insensitive jokes like “are you luminescent at night?” — making nuclear impact into spectacle, instead of taking it as a serious health issue.

These experiences have propelled her to take back the narrative of her community by correcting misconceptions or the minimization of harms. Instead, she brings attention to the larger structural issues.

“Everything was done by me because I did not want to invite someone who would not take care of the stories of these women,” said Seitenova.

Likewise, Seitenova only interviewed participants who had already made decisions to speak out about nuclear weapons. She did this so as not to risk retraumatizing someone by asking them to discuss their illnesses, especially for the first time on camera.

Global legacy of anti-nuclear art, advocacy

Seitenova also wanted to show a genealogy of women speaking out about nuclear issues in Qazaqstan, contributing to a global legacy of anti-nuclear art and advocacy.

The film features three generations of women, including Seitenova’s great aunt, Zura Rustemova, who was 12 at the time of the first detonations.

As part of this genealogy of nuclear resistance, the film includes footage of a speech from the Qazaq singer Roza Baglanova (1922-2011), who rose to prominence singing songs of hope during the Second World War.

Effects felt into today

JARA Radioactive Patriarchy shows how the impacts of nuclear weapons are felt intergenerationally into the present.

“Many women lost their ability to experience the happiness of motherhood,” interviewee Maira Abenova says in the film. Abenova co-founded an advocacy group representing survivors of the detonations, Committee Polygon 21.

Other interviewees shared how often men left their wives and children who were affected by nuclear weapons to begin a new family with someone else.

Seitenova looks at the roles of women and mothers not just as protectors, but also as those who have launched formidable advocacy.

The film highlights the towering monument in Semey, “Stronger than Death,” dedicated to those affected by nuclear weapons.

The Semey monument depicts a mother using her whole body to protect her child from a mushroom cloud. Just like the monument, Seitenova and the women in her documentary use the film to show how women have been doing this advocacy work in the private and public spheres, with their bodies and with their words.

“I want to show them as being leaders in the community, as changing the game,” Seitenova said.

While the film brings a much-needed attention to the gendered impact of nuclear weapons in Qazaqstan, she makes clear that this is, unfortunately, not an issue unique to her homeland or just to women.

“The next time you think about expanding the nuclear sector in any country” Seitenova said, “you can think about how it impacts people of all genders.”

Rebecca H. Hogue 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. ‘Radioactive patriarchy’ documentary: Women examine the impact of Soviet nuclear testing – https://theconversation.com/radioactive-patriarchy-documentary-women-examine-the-impact-of-soviet-nuclear-testing-256775