Category: The Conversation – Canada

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sophia Melanson Ricciardone, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour, McMaster University

Have you ever felt fired up with moral indignation after reading a controversial tweet, or after watching a YouTube video about a political topic?

Not only are you not alone, but these experiences online are likely by design. Our emotional landscapes have increasingly become the battleground where politicians compete for votes and power.

When political parties hire big data companies to help their candidates develop digital campaign strategies, like geofencing or programming social bots to inject key messaging into online political discussions, they could be treading on our universal rights and freedoms.

With our digital footprints — information about who we are — big data companies can group our likes, shares, retweets and purchases into virtual personality profiles and create content to match them.

This helps make what you read or watch seem personal and familiar, prompting the social parts of our brains to feel really good. And this, in turn, can cause us to lower our guard and trust information posted by social bots without even knowing it’s happening.

Social strengths make us vulnerable online

Historically, our social nature prepared us for the kind of large-scale co-operation that makes political institutions work. It enabled us to create the complex, modern societies we live in today. Understanding and sharing intentions were central to this evolution.

But there’s a catch: the very social strengths that make us successful as a species can now make us vulnerable online. With the use of AI technologies, our social connections can be simulated in highly realistic ways, manipulating our perceptions in the process.

AI-generated photos, videos and texts are being used for political advertising informed by augmented analytics, which create political ads personalized to our individual traits. This strategy is called microtargeting.

The situation gets more complicated when the content we see on social media isn’t created by humans but by social bots.

These are automated social media accounts designed to imitate us. By slipping naturally into our conversations, social bots make it nearly impossible to tell them apart from real human beings.

Bots increase exposure to negative and inflammatory content in online social systems. They also affect how we feel about the other side of the proverbial political divide. They can also give us the impression that our way of thinking is aligned with the consensus.

What Bill C-4 has to do with online data

In Canada, political parties use third-party firms that can program bots to post this kind of content on social media during elections. For instance, political parties can use bots to dampen or suppress some messages while amplifying others, and this remains a legal practice in Canada.

In June 2025, the federal government introduced a bill on affordability — Bill C-4, the Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act — that also touched on political parties’ use of personal data.

The bill requires each party to develop a privacy policy, but it doesn’t set clear guidelines for how our data can be used. This means parties can still collect and use traces of our digital behaviour to inform how they use AI to strategically communicate with us online, as long as they follow the policies they create and self-regulate.

Though part of the bill proposes changes to the Canada Elections Act, focusing on how parties can use our personal information, it takes only a small step to protect privacy. While political parties will be obligated to create a policy about the use of citizens’ private data, they will not be required to stop collecting our online data or using it to making predictions about our voting behaviour.

It also fails to provide Elections Canada or the federal privacy commissioner the power to enforce meaningful limitations on the use of our online engagement for such purposes. Even if parties publish their privacy policies publicly, any third-party consultancies they hire are likely to remain beyond enforcement, creating significant gaps in accountability.

Why does this matter? Misused data could harm our rights to privacy and to participate in democratic elections free from manipulation.

Why political parties need universal guardrails

While Bill C-4 does force political parties to create privacy policies and assign someone to oversee them, the way those policies are handled is left up to the parties themselves.

Without clear and universal guardrails for how parties are allowed to collect and use our online data, Canadians remain at the mercy of whatever political parties decide to do.

Instead, Canada could follow the European Union’s example by prohibiting the use of data for online microtargeting purposes. We could also adopt a framework for the ethical use of citizens’ online data like the one currently being implemented in the United Kingdom, which would require political parties to obtain voters’ consent before using their data for campaign purposes.

Allowing parties to define their own rules and decide who enforces them leaves far too much open to interpretation and even potential abuse. And under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians should be free to form political thoughts and opinions without interference from those who wield political power.

If we are not able to do so as voting citizens, can we genuinely say that our elections are free and fair? What, then, does this mean for democracy in Canada?

Sophia Melanson Ricciardone 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. Bill C-4 privacy enhancements are modest and fail to regulate politicians’ use of social bots – https://theconversation.com/bill-c-4-privacy-enhancements-are-modest-and-fail-to-regulate-politicians-use-of-social-bots-264758

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sean Carleton, Associate Professor, Departments of History and Indigenous Studies, University of Manitoba

In May 2021, when the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc Nation announced preliminary results of their search for unmarked burials of children at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School (IRS), Canada was forced to reckon with a truth that Survivors had always carried: children were taken, and many never came home.

This difficult truth was already established years earlier, in 2015, by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Canada’s final report, which confirmed more than 3,200 deaths of children as a result of the IRS system, including 51 at Kamloops.

The Kamloops announcement shook many Canadians and revealed that more children likely died at residential schools in Canada than the TRC reported. This was something the commission anticipated would happen with new research, and additional deaths have now been confirmed by First Nations and police as they have undertaken their own subsequent investigations.

Vigils sprang up across the country. Shoes, toys and teddy bears were placed on the steps of legislatures and churches to remember the children who died at residential schools. For a brief moment, Canada mourned with Indigenous Peoples; the truth of Survivors was acknowledged.

But four years later, residential school denialism — the downplaying and minimizing of residential school facts and the disavowal of the system’s abuse and harm — is on the rise.

As community initiatives and research related to missing children and unmarked burials have persevered and expanded, so too have efforts to diminish and disavow this very work.

---

Read more:
Residential school deaths are significantly higher than previously reported

---

Residential school denialism, as historian Crystal Gail Fraser has outlined, is an attack on truth. It seeks to dismiss the validity of ground searches and recast residential schools as humanitarian and benevolent.

Residential school denialism is not simply an alternate perspective. It is a form of harm that retraumatizes Survivors, undermines truth and perpetuates colonial ideas that jeopardize Canada’s ability to work with Indigenous Peoples to create a stronger future.

Confronting denialism is an ethical and shared responsibility.

The denialist playbook

Residential school denialism follows a pattern familiar from other forms of atrocity denialism. Holocaust denialism, genocide denialism and similar movements employ similar strategies: demand impossible “proof,” discredit Survivor and expert testimony and attack the reputations of researchers.

This can include denialists turning their attention toward those who dare to speak openly: Survivors, Indigenous communities and the experts who support them. What is often framed as “debate” seems more like a campaign of intimidation.

---

Read more:
We fact-checked residential school denialists and debunked their ‘mass grave hoax’ theory

---

Residential school denialism, then, is not just an attack on truth. It also increasingly has many of the hallmarks of an attack on truth-tellers and anyone who is listening.

Denialists often present themselves as “skeptics” or “truth seekers,” cloaking harmful narratives in the language of free speech and rational inquiry. They cast Survivor testimony as unreliable, “emotional” or politically or financially motivated.

In doing so, they promote an alluring colonial narrative that absolves Canada of responsibility. The reach extends beyond Canada: denying the harms and facts of residential schooling is increasingly being used globally to shape international opinion related to the legacies of the British Empire.

At its heart, denialism is not about evidence. It is about power — who gets to tell the story of residential schooling and whose voices are considered trustworthy — and it causes harm along the way.

The human cost

The damage caused by denialism is immediate and personal. Survivors who bravely share their experiences are accused of fabrication.

Kimberly Murray, who serves as special interlocutor for missing children and unmarked graves and burial sites associated with Indian Residential Schools, received abuse, threats and hate mail.

Via social media and online commentary, people advocating denialist claims have targeted individual university employees.

Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars, including ourselves, have seen their names dragged into online forums, their work misrepresented, their credibility attacked.

Cumulatively, efforts that discredit and delegitimize prominent truth-tellers contribute to backlash by creating space — for example, in comment sections or via re-circulating media — for people to voice ignorant views about Indigenous Peoples and perpetuate anti-Indigenous racism.

The cost is not limited to reputation; it is emotional and psychological. It has also resulted in disrespectful physical presence at former IRS sites: Murray reported that at the former Kamloops IRS:

“Denialists entered the site without permission. Some came in the middle of the night, carrying shovels; they said they wanted to ‘see for themselves’ if children are buried there.”

Survivors and Elders, those who should be most honoured, are retraumatized by these attacks on their integrity.

We, among other scholars, calculate the risks of speaking publicly, knowing it may bring harassment. And we know some community leaders for whom it is the same.

Denialism thrives on fear and hate

Residential school denialism has flourished in today’s political and digital climate. The rise of far-right populism, entrenched anti-Indigenous racism and the ecosystem of social media provide fertile ground for dedicated people to flood online spaces with disinformation.

Denialists exploit the deliberate, careful pace of ground searches and archeological work. They portray the absence of immediate excavation results as evidence that nothing is there, and ignore the confirmed deaths from exhumation when they are announced.

Proper archaeological and community-led work takes time. It requires ceremony, consent and cultural respect as multiple Nations work collaboratively to figure out how to honour children who attended schools from various communities. Excavation is not always possible, or even desired. Denialists twist these hard realities into narratives of doubt.

Gaps in education, inconsistent coverage

This manipulation is made easier by gaps in public education, inconsistent media coverage and government hesitancy. Too often, denialist claims circulate unchallenged. In these silences, mis- and disinformation thrives.

Denialism is not an Indigenous problem; confronting it is a Canadian responsibility.

Non-Indigenous Canadians must take an active role: learning the history, correcting misinformation and standing with Survivors and communities as they confront the truth about residential schooling.

Journalists and scholars also have a responsibility to report with care, refusing to legitimize denialist rhetoric under the guise of “balance” and disingenuous “debate.”

Truth and reconciliation cannot survive if the truth is minimized, downplayed or disavowed.

Shared responsibility

Despite these challenges, Indigenous communities continue the work of truth-telling. Survivors share their stories with courage: for example, one has launched a defamation lawsuit.

Communities organize and lead ground searches. Journalists fight to reveal hidden truths about residential school crimes.

Writers and scholars contribute expertise to raise awareness and meet community needs. Each act of testimony, ceremony and research is also an act of resistance against erasure and disavowal.

The children we are searching for, and remembering, deserve nothing less than our courage to confront the truth in an effort to create a better future. This is our shared responsibility.

Sean Carleton receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Benjamin Kucher 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. Confronting residential schools denialism is an ethical and shared Canadian responsibility – https://theconversation.com/confronting-residential-schools-denialism-is-an-ethical-and-shared-canadian-responsibility-265127

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 Sophie M Phillips, Post-Doctoral Associate, School of Occupational Therapy, Western University

Healthy movement behaviours support young children’s physical, mental and social development, and shape lifelong habits. These habits include engaging in physical activity, reducing sedentary screen time and obtaining sufficient sleep, including naps.

National 24-hour movement guidelines for children exist in Canada, with recommendations on physical activity, sedentary and screen time and sleep.

Nevertheless, only 13 percent of young children in Canada are meeting these guidelines.

Over one million young children (aged birth to five years) in Canada attend child care, spending most of their weekday waking hours in these settings. The number of children enrolled in child care is projected to rise with the rollout of the national Early Learning and Child-Care Plan, which comes with reduced fees for parents.

Child-care settings play an influential role in healthy movement behaviours and early childhood development, offering a unique and primary environment for supporting these behaviours — and a prime location to enact movement guidelines. Despite this, discrepancies remain in the quality of child care across Canada, and only the Northwest Territories and British Columbia specify a duration of required physical activity in their regulations.

We are researchers in the Child Health and Physical Activity Lab at Western University. Our work is concerned with supporting child-care educators in providing healthy movement behaviour environments for the children in their care.

---

Read more:
Kids’ physical activity before age 5 matters so much because of the developing brain

---

Movement guidelines

Guidelines help to establish clear expectations for the operation of child-care centres, promoting consistent and high-quality care. They also provide direction and objectives for educators, supporting their understanding of responsibilities and effective practices. Research shows that children in centres with formal physical activity guidelines are more active, demonstrating the value of guidelines in promoting healthy behaviours in child-care settings.

Using the best available evidence and expert consensus, with partners, we have created the first ever Canadian Best Practice Guidelines for Healthy Movement Behaviour in Childcare.

Partners including national child-care organizations (Canadian Child Care Federation, Childcare Resource and Research Unit, Association of Early Childhood Educators Ontario); public health agencies (City of Hamilton Public Health, Grey Bruce Public Health, Ottawa Public Health); ParticipACTION; Métis Nation of Ontario Early Learning and Child Care; as well as other research experts and child-care educators.

The guidelines were developed using a rigorous and inclusive approach. Key steps in the development process included:

• Hosting a national consensus meeting with child-care organizations, public health agencies, research experts and child-care educators to collaboratively determine direction, content and priorities;

• Drafting guidelines based on the consensus meeting discussions, along with key national and international documents in this area: the World Health Organization’s standards for healthy eating, physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep in early childhood education and care settings; British Columbia’s active play standard; a similar Australian active play standard and our lab’s previously developed PLAY policy.

• Distributing a survey among attendees of the consensus meeting, as well as broader experts and advocates in the field, to gather feedback and assess agreement on the draft guidelines; and,

• Finalizing the guidelines based on expert feedback via the survey responses.

The resulting guidelines serve as a series of best practices for educators, program directors and child-care centres to promote healthy movement behaviours.

From guidelines to practice

While guidelines are important, simply introducing new guidelines may not be enough to effectively improve healthy movement behaviours in child care.

Rather, combining guidelines with professional development designed to enhance educators’ skills and confidence to provide movement opportunities may help effectively put guidelines into practice.

However, importantly, few educators across Canada receive training relating to healthy movement; many also report limited knowledge and confidence in their ability to lead physical activity in their roles.

To address this issue, our lab created the TEACH e-Learning course, focused on promoting physical activity, limiting sedentary screen time and supporting the development of children’s fundamental movement skills within child-care centres.

---

Read more:
Kids’ physical activity in child care is essential — how an online course equips educators to lead the way

---

The course, developed with educators and movement experts, has been tested across Canada. It’s led to significant improvements in educators’ knowledge, confidence, sense of control and intentions related to movement behaviour practices with the young children in their care.

The course, alongside the guidelines, may better equip educators to confidently implement movement opportunities for children.

Guidelines in action

The next steps for the best practice guidelines will involve testing them, with the TEACH e-Learning course, in participating child-care centres across Ontario.

Piloting and testing is required to assess the guidelines’ acceptability and feasibility, which could lead to modifications. This will also help to determine whether this approach leads to changes in child-care environments, educator practices and children’s movement.

Once the final stages of testing and evaluating the guidelines are completed, they will be made publicly available and freely accessible on our lab’s website. Our vision is that Canada-wide child-care centres can benefit from this resource.

Child care in Canada is at a pivotal point with implementation of the 2021 Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Plan. This draws on the earlier (2017) Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework’s principles: affordability, accessibility, quality and inclusivity. This government initiative works towards ensuring all children have access to high-quality early learning and child care that supports their development and lifelong well-being.

The best-practice guidelines support this vision as a critical aspect of creating more active and health-promoting child-care centres to best support the health and development of young children across the country.

This article was co-authored with Emily Sussex, an undergraduate summer research intern in the Child Health and Physical Activity Lab.

Sophie M Phillips is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).

Trish Tucker receives funding from the Canada Foundation of Innovation, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the Children’s Health Research Institute.

– ref. Kids in child care need healthy movement — and guidelines can improve their health – https://theconversation.com/kids-in-child-care-need-healthy-movement-and-guidelines-can-improve-their-health-264826

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 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 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 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