Category: The Conversation – Canada

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Abbas Yazdinejad, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Artificial Intelligence, University of Toronto

Imagine receiving a robocall, but instead of a real person, it’s the voice of a political leader telling you not to vote. You share it with your friends, your family — only to find out it was a hyper-realistic AI voice clone. This is not a hypothetical.

In January 2024, a fake Joe Biden robocall reached New Hampshire Democrats urging them to “stay home” ahead of the state primary. The voice may have been synthetic, but the panic was real — and it’s a preview of the threats facing democracies around the world as elections become the most valuable targets for AI‑driven disinformation.

AI‑generated content — whether deepfakes, synthetic voices or artificial images — is becoming shockingly simple to create and near‑impossible to detect.

Left unchecked, the harms posed by this new disinformation threat are myriad, with the potential to erode public trust in our political system, depress voter turnout and destabilize our democratic institutions. Canada is not immune.

---

Read more:
The use of deepfakes can sow doubt, creating confusion and distrust in viewers

---

The danger is already here

Deepfakes are artificially generated media — video, audio or images — that use AI to realistically impersonate real people. The benign applications (movies, education) are well understood, but the malicious applications are quickly catching up.

Open-source generative AI tools like ElevenLabs and OpenAI’s Voice Engine can produce high-quality cloned voices with just a few seconds of audio. Apps like Synthesia and DeepFaceLab put video manipulation in the hands of anyone with a laptop.

These tools have already been weaponized. Beyond the Biden robocall, Trump’s campaign shared an AI‑generated image of Taylor Swift endorsing him — an obvious hoax, but one that nonetheless circulated widely.

Meanwhile, state‑backed entities have deployed deepfakes in co-ordinated disinformation campaigns targeting democracies, according to the Knight First Amendment Institute, a free speech advocacy organization.

Why it matters for Canada

Canada recently concluded its 2025 federal election — conducted without robust legal safeguards against AI‑enabled disinformation.

Unlike the European Union, where the AI Act mandating clear labelling of AI‑generated text, images, and videos has been enacted, Canada has no binding regulations requiring transparency in political advertising or synthetic media.

Instead, it relies on voluntary codes of conduct and platform‑based moderation, both of which have proven inconsistent. This regulatory gap leaves the Canadian information ecosystem vulnerable to manipulation, particularly in a minority‑government situation where another election could be called at any time.

Alarm is mounting around the world. A September 2024 Pew Research Center survey found 57 per cent of Americans were “very” or “extremely” worried that AI would be used to generate fake election information; Canadian polls show a similar level of concern.

Closer to home, researchers recently discovered deepfake clips — some mimicking CBC and CTV bulletins — circulating in the run-up to Canada’s 2025 vote, including one purported news item that quoted Mark Carney, showing how fast AI‑powered scams can show up in our feeds.

What we can do

No single solution will be a panacea, but Canada could take the following key steps:

1. Content-labelling laws: Emulate the European Union and mandate labels for AI-generated political media. The EU requires content creators to label manufactured content.

2. Detection tools: Invest in Canadian deepfake detection research and development. Some Canadian researchers are already advancing this work, and the resulting tools should be integrated into platforms, newsrooms and fact-checking systems.

3. Media literacy: Expand public programs to teach AI literacy and how to spot deepfakes.

4. Election safeguards: Equip Elections Canada with rapid-response guidance for AI-driven disinformation.

5. Platform accountability: Hold platforms responsible for failing to act on verified deepfakes and require transparent reporting on removals and detection methods for AI-generated content.

Empowering voters in the AI age

Democracies are built on trust in elected officials, in institutions and in the information voters consume. If they can’t trust what they read or hear, that trust erodes and the very fabric of civil society begins to unravel.

AI can also be part of the solution. Researchers are working on digital‑watermarking
schemes to trace manufactured content and media outlets are deploying real‑time, machine-learning‑powered fact checks. Staying ahead of AI‑powered disinformation will take both smart regulation and an alert public.

The political future of Canada’s minority government is uncertain. We cannot wait for a crisis to act. Taking action now by modernizing legislation and building proactive infrastructure will help ensure democracy isn’t another casualty of the AI era.

Abbas Yazdinejad is a postdoctoral research fellow in artificial intelligence and cybersecurity in the AIMML at the University of Toronto.

Jude Kong receives funding from NSERC, NFRF, IDRC, FCDO and SIDA. He is affiliated with Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Modelling Lab (AIMMLab), Africa-Canada Artificial Intelligence and Data Innovation Consortium (ACADIC), Global South Artificial Intelligence for Pandemic and Epidemic Preparedness and Response Network (AI4PEP), Canadian Black Scientist Network (CBSN).

– ref. Battling deepfakes: How AI threatens democracy and what we can do about it – https://theconversation.com/battling-deepfakes-how-ai-threatens-democracy-and-what-we-can-do-about-it-262262

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jennifer Black, Associate Professor of Food, Nutrition and Health, University of British Columbia

If it takes a village to raise a child, it also takes a village to care for children’s food needs.

Children’s health and nutrition outcomes are nurtured directly by family caregivers, but also by a broader “village” of policymakers and governments, health and education systems, social services and civil-society groups, as well as others working at both national and local levels.

Lessons learned from academic research studies help today’s multi-sector villages improve health policies, medical treatments and approaches for preventing children’s food- and eating-related problems.

Yet, medical research studies focus more on what parents are doing wrong than they do on the social conditions and resources that families and communities need to improve kids’ nutrition.

In our recent paper, we found that studies published in medical journals are stuck in a rut, repeating some outdated tropes and assumptions. The recipe to care well for school-aged children’s food needs is due for a refresh.

Food care

We are food and nutrition researchers and dietitians who have painstakingly reviewed a breadth of food and nutrition studies, including authoring rigorous reviews about childhood nutrition and family food practices.

Our team recently combed through two leading medical research databases to find out what questions, theories and measurements health researchers commonly use to study the processes involved in caring for school-aged children’s food and nutrition needs.

We couldn’t find a term that described exactly what we were looking for, so we proposed a concept and research framework called “food care.” We described the concept of food care as “the processes of feeling concern or interest about food, or taking action to provide food necessary for the health, welfare, maintenance, or protection of oneself or someone else.”

We found lots of valuable studies about what children eat, risk factors for sub-optimal diets and describing how parents feed their kids.

But overall, studies largely ignored the most important elements of our food care framework. This includes social and political factors and the emotional, cognitive and physical work that goes hand-in-hand with nourishing children.

These issues are well established in other fields of social science, but health research continues to largely overlook them.

Blaming parents

Health research about children’s food care largely centres on the family, including parents’ food practices and household conditions that shape what and how children eat. While this field is progressing, when (if at all) studies about school-aged children talked about food care, children’s eating and nutrition challenges were most often described as issues that stemmed from parents’ shortcomings.

Both the food care measures themselves and the child outcomes most commonly studied were more often than not described as harmful. Three-quarters of studies we analyzed focused on how parental actions increased children’s risks of feeding problems, disordered eating, excess weight or poor mental health.

The four main categories of food care that researchers focused on in the 20 studies analyzed included:

• Caregivers’ feeding practices
• Parents’ actions focused on children’s body size or weight
• Ways that parents cultivate healthy eating
• Mealtime interactions

In studies where many factors were measured, research conclusions often focused squarely on things parents were doing “wrong” or should improve.

Even when the size of the effects found were very small, or little meaningful impact of parental actions were identified, research conclusions were often still tinged with parent-blaming. Fingers were pointed at parents described as doing “too little” to foster healthy dietary choices, but also at those described as overzealous and trying too hard. Parents could seldom catch a break in these studies.

On the flip side, researchers rarely mentioned or tried to assess how parents’ food care efforts contributed to building healthy relationships, connections, trust or family traditions or bonds, psychological attachment, health benefits or mental well-being for children or other family members, or the benefits of food care for the wider community.

Assumptions baked into research

Researchers are currently working in an era in which “intensive parenting” is the cultural ideology and norm. Intensive mothering, as coined by sociologist Sharon Hayes, reflects ideas about “good” mothering that are child-centred, emotionally absorbing, labour-intensive and expert-guided.

While health studies seldom named their own assumptions about gender roles or parenting beliefs, intensive mothering approaches seeped into the types of recommendations found across many studies.

These ways of thinking sometimes lay beneath assumptions and recommendations that parents should always try harder, spend more time, money and labour. Or research language presumed that parents — and particularly mothers — are, or should be, the main party responsible for children’s health outcomes.

Such ideas also showed up in study recommendations that tended to blame parents for outcomes that may be out of their control, clinically irrelevant or benign, while overlooking the benefits of food care and the often invisible work of feeding a family.

Similar trends were called out in the field of psychology nearly 40 years ago when psychologist Paula Caplan suggested “blaming mothers for their children’s psychological problems has a long and, unfortunately, respected history.”

Parents, as children’s primary caregivers and first teachers, do influence children’s eating patterns, behaviours and habit development. But they do so in a broad and complex social context that is influenced by political, historical and community conditions. These conditions are under-examined in discussions of family food work in medical studies.

Recommendations from some of these studies suggested that medical professionals should provide parents with more guidance about healthy eating and food-related parenting strategies. But authors seldom mentioned structural supports such as policies, programs or tangible resources that would help parents succeed.

Yet parents contend with lots of conflicting factors and considerations when deciding what, when, where and how to feed their children. In many cases, it’s not as simple as just following available dietary advice.

What’s needed to provide quality food care

Evidence from medical research contributes to improved pediatric nutrition policies, programs and clinical practice. But research in leading medical journals about what and how to feed school-aged children remains largely disconnected from the complex realities of family life and the political forces that shape it.

The sample of studies we analyzed largely overlooked measuring and talking about the important ingredients needed to provide good quality food care for children. These include affording and accessing nutritious food, safe food storage and preparation facilities, resources, time, childcare and available school food programs, food literacy knowledge and skills, neighbourhood food environments and overarching institutional and social policies and conditions that foster food care.

These topics were occasionally mentioned on the fringes and have long been topics of study in some corners of sociology, political science and food studies research.

But it’s time that medical researchers and those who read and use nutrition studies take a closer look at the unnamed assumptions baked into research to make sure we’re not perpetuating one-size-fits all tropes about how parents — namely mothers — can “do better” while discounting the effort parents are already putting into feeding their children.

Health researchers can progress by more actively reflecting on their own assumptions about gender roles, good parenting, healthy eating and idealized family meals, and how these understandings are infused into scholarly work and the ways we measure and talk about how to feed children well.

In the 1980s, family food researcher Marjorie DeVault pointed out how important it is to name and study the valuable daily work of feeding families, but there remains much work to be done.

Jennifer Black has recently received research funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and Michael Smith Health Research BC among other financial supports from the University of British Columbia.

Georgia Middleton 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. Glass half empty? Nutrition studies shouldn’t just focus on what parents do wrong – https://theconversation.com/glass-half-empty-nutrition-studies-shouldnt-just-focus-on-what-parents-do-wrong-262479

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Shaelyn Carr, PhD Student in Psychology, University of Regina

There is often a dramatic scene in crime shows where an eyewitness points to a suspect in a police lineup. This identification looks convincing on television, and it is also convincing in real-world investigations. But here’s the problem: eyewitnesses can often be wrong. Their mistakes are a leading cause of wrongful convictions.

This risk is even greater when the eyewitness is a child. Although children can correctly identify the perpetrator when they are present in the police lineup, they are more likely than adults to identify an innocent person when the perpetrator is not included in the police lineup.

For instance, in 1990, a three-year-old girl was abducted from her Mississippi home. Her body was found two days later in a nearby pond, showing signs of sexual assault and drowning. The only eyewitness to the child’s abduction was her six-year-old sister.

The sister picked a man named Levon Brooks from the police lineup — and this identification sealed his fate. Brooks was sentenced to life in prison. After 16 years behind bars, DNA evidence led to his exoneration.

So, how do these mistakes happen? One major issue is that we have no way of knowing whether an eyewitness picked the right person. There is no built-in system to tell us whether the identification that is made is correct or not.

As forensic psychology researchers, we have spent several years studying how to improve the reliability of eyewitness evidence, especially when children are involved.

We have developed and tested a promising new police lineup technique that reflects how likely it is that the person identified by a child eyewitness is guilty.

Why eyewitnesses make mistakes

Crime shows are the most watched TV genre in the world. They often portray police investigations as fast, clean and fool-proof. This has led to what experts call the “CSI effect,” a phenomenon where people expect real investigations to include clear-cut evidence, like perfect DNA matches or eyewitness accounts.

But real-life investigations are rarely this tidy.

In courtrooms and police investigations, eyewitness testimony is often treated as one of the most powerful pieces of evidence.

Jurors and judges tend to believe someone who states with confidence: “That’s the person I saw.” Identifying someone seen for only a brief moment, often during a stressful or emotional moment, is incredibly challenging. And despite their best intentions, eyewitnesses can mistakenly identify an innocent suspect from a police lineup.

Child eyewitnesses

These mistaken identifications are especially likely when the eyewitness is a child, particularly those under the age of eight. Even more concerning is that an eyewitness’s confidence in reporting is often mistaken as a sign of their accuracy. However, children are documented to be overconfident in their identification decisions.

This means their mistaken identifications can appear particularly convincing in court, where there is no way to actually verify whether the person identified in the lineup is actually the perpetrator.

As a potential solution, we developed the multiple independent lineup (MIL) technique to gauge the reliability of a child eyewitness’s identification by providing insight into the likelihood of guilt.

Assessing child eyewitness identifications

The MIL technique involves showing the child eyewitness multiple, separate lineups, each focused on a different feature of the suspect. For example, one set of lineups might feature different faces, another of different bodies, a third would play different voices, and so on.

Instead of relying on a single identification, the child eyewitness makes several independent identification decisions across these lineups.

By having child eyewitnesses make multiple independent identification decisions, we can use the number of lineups in which they identify the suspect as a reflection of how likely it is that the suspect is guilty. The idea behind this technique is that the more lineups that a suspect is selected in, the more likely it is that the person that the child has selected is guilty.

In our study, we asked children aged six to 11 to make identification decisions for a person they had met the previous day. The children were shown six independent lineups, which included a face, body, shirt, voice and two object lineups. Regardless of age, if a child identified the suspect only in the face lineup, this strongly suggested the suspect was innocent.

When children identified the suspect in the face lineup and any two other lineups, there was a 96 per cent chance that the suspect was guilty. And if the suspect was identified in the face lineup and three or more lineups, the chance of guilt rose to 100 per cent.

We conducted this research in several different situations with more than 900 children, including repeated exposure to an innocent suspect. Overwhelmingly, all the results suggest we can use the number of lineups in which a suspect is identified to reflect the likelihood that they are guilty.

Reducing wrongful convictions

These results are encouraging. But more research is needed to test the parameters of the MIL technique and whether it should be used with real eyewitnesses. In the future, we plan to continue exploring ways to better reflect the likely accuracy of child eyewitness identifications.

Child eyewitnesses can be accurate eyewitnesses, but they are also more likely than adults to identify innocent suspects from police lineups. That’s why it is essential to develop a technique that can help investigators distinguish between accurate and mistaken identifications. Doing so might help reduce the number of wrongful convictions.

It is also important to educate the public about the limits of eyewitness memory, especially with children, to reduce the influence of the CSI effect, and encourage more informed expectations in the courtrooms.

Shaelyn Carr receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and the University of Regina.

Kaila C. Bruer receives research funding from Luther College, the University of Regina, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

– ref. Child eyewitnesses can be unreliable, but new techniques can support them – https://theconversation.com/child-eyewitnesses-can-be-unreliable-but-new-techniques-can-support-them-257764

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jean-Nicolas Reyt, Management Professor, McGill University

The emails from Air Canada came without warning: flights cancelled at the last minute, no way to get home and no one at Air Canada answering the phones despite repeated calls. Days went by without a solution.

The disruption stems from a strike that began on Aug. 16 when some 10,000 Air Canada flight attendants walked off the job after months of unsuccessful talks over compensation and working conditions. In the wake of it, more than 100,000 passengers were left stranded.

A tentative agreement to end the contract dispute between Air Canada and its flight attendants has since been reached, and flights are gradually resuming. But many travellers are still stuck abroad or facing lengthy layovers and long lines in crowded airports as they rebook alternative routes.

For those caught up in it, the experience has been draining and overwhelming. Air Canada has said it could take up to a week for full operations to resume, leaving Canadians stranded abroad, still waiting for a path home.

I am one of those stranded passengers. I also teach management and study how people respond in high-stress, uncertain situations and how they can handle them more effectively.

Research has long shown that uncertainty and scarcity push ordinary people toward frustration and conflict, often in ways that make matters worse. In this piece, I will share a few research-backed strategies to help make an unbearable situation a little easier to navigate.

Why this moment feels so stressful

The Air Canada strike combines three powerful stressors: uncertainty, lack of control and crowding. Travellers do not know when or how they will get home, they cannot influence the pace of solutions and they are surrounded by others competing for the same resources.

Each of these factors is already stressful on its own, and combined, they can overwhelm even the most patient individuals. In these volatile conditions, frustration builds and there is a strong urge to lash out.

Anger might seem like a way to regain control, or at least to feel noticed in the chaos. While it’s an understandable reaction, it rarely improves such situations.

Reacting out of anger often leads us to make emotional rather than rational decisions, such as yelling to feel heard. This behaviour can close off communication with the very people whose help is needed. It also drains our resilience at the moment when it matters most.

Importantly, anger is often directed at front-line staff who represent the organization, but have little control over the root causes of disruption. In ordinary times, these employees already face a considerable amount of abuse from customers. In moments of widespread disruption, that mistreatment can quickly become unbearable.

What you can do instead

Although the situation is frustrating and unfair, research has identified practical ways to make it a little more bearable and of improving how travellers navigate it. Here are three strategies supported by scientific studies, including research I conducted with colleagues:

1. Remember this is a collective problem.

My research has found that people stuck in crowded environments feel less frustrated when they think of the situation in collective terms. Airline staff are not opponents; they are trying to help thousands of stranded passengers at once. Approach them as partners in a shared challenge as much as you can. Seeing the situation as a collective issue, rather than a personal one, can make it easier to cope and connect with those who can assist you.

2. Bring your attention inward.

Crowded airports and long layovers can make every minute feel longer and harder to go through. In several studies on how to handle stressful crowds, my co-researchers and I found that focusing on personal media — a book, a tablet or music through headphones — can reduce stress by narrowing your sense of the crowd. Instead of feeding off the chaos and getting more agitated, try to give your mind a smaller, calmer space to settle in. The wait may still be long, but it will feel more manageable.

3. Be polite and respectful with staff.

Showing respect isn’t just courteous; it’s an effective way to manage conflict. In their book Getting to Yes, negotiations experts Roger Fisher and William Ury famously argued to “separate the people from the problem.”

This lesson applies here as well: always treat staff with dignity, even when the situation is frustrating, and focus on solving the real issue. Airline employees may have limited resources, but they are more likely to help travellers who remain calm, clear and respectful.

None of this diminishes how exhausting and unfair the situation feels. However, while travellers cannot control cancelled flights or the pace of labour negotiations, we can control how we respond to these stressors.

Seeing the situation as a shared problem, finding ways to manage our own stress and treating staff with respect can make the experience more bearable. More importantly, these strategies improve our chances of getting help when opportunities arise.

Jean-Nicolas Reyt 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. Stranded by the Air Canada strike? 3 strategies to keep your cool, work with staff and return home safely – https://theconversation.com/stranded-by-the-air-canada-strike-3-strategies-to-keep-your-cool-work-with-staff-and-return-home-safely-263411

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

Canadian employers have been mandating workers back to in-person work through blanket return-to-office policies. On top of harming workplace equity, these policies have broader repercussions for the public as children head back to school and respiratory illness season looms.

On Aug. 14, Doug Ford’s Ontario Progressive Conservative government announced that all public workers were being ordered back to the office full-time. This followed the federal government’s controversial mandate that requires federal workers to be in the office at least three days a week, despite mass union pushback.

The private sector is also rescinding workplace flexibility, with both Toronto-Dominion (TD) and the Royal Bank of Canada mandating their employees back in the office.

While employers may be rushing to undo COVID-19 era changes, viral illnesses have other plans.

Respiratory illness season

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the state of public health in Canada remains bleak. Alberta has broken the record for the deadliest flu season three years in row, with a staggering 239 deaths in the 2024-25 season. At the same time, Ontario has seen its influenza numbers spike to levels not seen in over a decade.

The “tripledemic” of respiratory infections — COVID-19, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) — can wreak havoc on health-care systems. Thousands are hospitalized every year, overloading our hospitals, while many more more ride out acute sickness at home, burdening family members and other unpaid caregivers.

As fewer people get seasonal flu vaccinations and viral illness spreads, Canadian employers continue to dismantle the few pandemic-induced policies that helped families manage their workplace responsibilities during viral illness season.

Work structure and COVID-19

One of the few benefits of the COVID-19 pandemic was how workplaces amended their day-to-day structure. Arrangements that did not seem possible before, like holding meetings over Zoom, became commonplace.

These changes had the unintended consequences of reducing workplace inequality, especially among women with care-giving responsibilities. In Canada, women’s employment recovery after the acute stages of the pandemic was rapid, with core-aged women achieving the highest employment rates ever recorded. The changes made it so they could better manage conflicts between work demands and the uncertainty of family life and childhood illness.

Our research in Alberta — a province that has been grappling with especially difficult viral illness outbreaks, deaths and waning vaccinations — overwhelmingly shows that flexible, remote work options benefit workers.

Using survey data] from the 2023 Alberta Viewpoint Survey from more than 1,000 people, we found that since September 2022, over half missed work due to their child or other family member being sick. Nearly one-third missed one to six days and near 20 per cent missed one to four weeks. Women were more likely than men to miss extended periods away from work, and many participants worried about how their bosses viewed their absences to care for sick children.

The spread of viral illness throughout the 2022-2023 season clearly affected the workforce, but the larger consequences of illness depended on workplace remote options and flexibility.

Parents who had access to remote, flexible options were able to manage the ongoing unpredictability of illness far better than those who were mandated to be in the workplace. Crucially, these parents were also less likely to send their children to school or daycare sick, thereby reducing the circulation of illness.

Parents who did not have this option, especially those with jobs that required in-person interactions with the public, felt immense pressure to be at work while limited sick days were being used up quickly. Many were left with no choice but to send their children to child care even though they were sick.

Parents who feared losing a day’s pay, their boss’s good will or even their job tried to mask children’s symptoms with medications. Even so, while they were at work, they were anxious about getting “the call” from school or child care telling them that their child needed to be picked up immediately.

Remote work does not just benefit parents, either. It saves workers’ time in commuting, improves well-being and can increase workplace productivity and performance. It has been especially beneficial for people with disabilities and chronic health conditions who often face a range of barriers for accessing employment.

During the pandemic, people with disabilities employed in jobs with flexible and remote work options had lower levels of economic insecurity and were often protected from illness. Since the pandemic, greater access to jobs that provide the ability to work from home has been a key driver in increasing labour force participation among people with disabilities.

Despite all of the evidence that work-from-home options are a public health and equity win, and in the face of worker and union protest, Canadian employers continue to choose policies that disrupt families and add to multiple public health crises.

Risks of ending remote work

While it’s too early to see the effect these mass policies will have on the Canadian labour market, early data from the United States shows a mass exodus of women from the workplace after the implementation of return-to-office policies. Based on federal labour force statistics, the proportion of women who have young children in the workforce has reached its lowest level in more than three years.

---

Read more:
Combatting the measles threat means examining the reasons for declining vaccination rates

---

Canadian employers turned to work-from-home and remote work to meet the unprecedented risks of the COVID-19 pandemic. More than five years on from the start of the pandemic, it’s clear that these policies have other benefits for both workplaces and for Canadian society as a whole.

Work-from-home and remote-work flexibility has driven gains in workplace equity. It also limits outbreaks of respiratory infections by enabling parents to keep their kids home from school or child care when they’re sick. Removing remote work policies during the back-to-school season is a dangerous game to play, especially with declining vaccination rates.

As illness spreads again this fall, this game may very well lead to productivity losses and more expenses for governments and businesses across Canada.

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

Amy Kaler receives funding from the University of Alberta’s Support for the Advancement of Scholarship fund.

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

– ref. As back-to-school season approaches, Canadian employers are making a mistake by mandating workers back to the office – https://theconversation.com/as-back-to-school-season-approaches-canadian-employers-are-making-a-mistake-by-mandating-workers-back-to-the-office-263251

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sam Routley, PhD Candidate, Political Science, Western University

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre will return to Parliament, this time as the new member for the Alberta riding of Battle River-Crowfoot.

With more than 80 per cent of the popular vote in a byelection, Poilievre has managed to pass the first significant test of his leadership following the Conservative Party’s federal election loss in April. The victory not only signals ongoing support from the riding’s voters but, more importantly, restores the legitimacy and platform that the Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition provides.

But the scope of this success should not be overstated. This victory isn’t a noteworthy accomplishment, nor does it indicate a comeback for the Conservatives. Rather, success here was the bare minimum; the start of a much longer journey back to prominence for the Conservatives.

Safest possible riding

Battle River-Crowfoot, which comprises a predominantly rural part of southeastern Alberta, is one of the safest seats for the Conservatives in the country. Although there are variations over time, a Conservative candidate within the last few decades could have, regardless of the particulars of the election period, expected at least 70 per of the vote. Just this year, the party’s candidate — Damien Kurek — won almost 83 per cent of the vote.

But although there has been little change in the riding over time, byelections can often produce novel, unpredictable and counterintuitive results. Unlike Canada-wide contests, local communities are subject to the near constant attention of parties, leaders and the national media.

Byelections also generally have smaller rates of voter turnout and engagement — it’s rare to see more than a third of them turn out. This means that short-term and localized dynamics can have a bigger impact on the results, especially if they can be mobilized.

In fact, minor parties and independent candidates perform generally better in byelections.

Were there any localized dynamics that could have hurt Poilievre? Apart from some reports of grumbling within the Conservative camp, media coverage focused on residents who expressed skepticism that Poilievre — having been an urban politician for the last two decades — was capable (let alone willing) to voice the specific needs of the community.

In fact, this byelection has come at a moment of rising separatist sentiment in Alberta.

---

Read more:
What if Alberta really did vote to separate?

---

Voting for party over leader?

With all this said, though, none of it proved to matter in the results. No serious challenge to Poilievre really materialized, even with 216 other names on the ballot. Instead, by winning 80 per cent of the vote, the Conservative leader has accomplished what amounts to a typical result for the party.

Voters, it seems, did not turn out for Poilievre’s leadership in large numbers as much as they have maintained their support for the party. For now, that’s enough for Poilievre.

He’s shown his ability to mobilize support among voters, and now can turn to his next challenge of surviving the mandatory leadership review in January.

In the months following the federal election in April, the federal Conservatives have been at something of a standstill. Alongside the slow summer months and the soul-searching that follows every election defeat, the party has yet to determine how to adjust to Canada’s new political environment.

While Poilievre — who may or may not still be leader in a year — has focused on communities in Battle River-Crowfoot, the political centre of gravity has shifted to Prime Minister Mark Carney.

In his fifth month in the job, Carney maintains considerable public confidence, whether it comes to ongoing negotiations with the United States or in his expressed support for many of the policies that have been long promoted by the Poilievre Conservatives.

Historically, the Conservatives have quickly replaced their leaders. Poilievre’s predecessors, Andrew Scheer and Erin O’Toole — despite publicly expressing intentions to stay on — were quickly pushed out of their jobs following the formation of Liberal minority governments under Justin Trudeau.

The months ahead

What seems to make Poilievre’s situation different, though, is that no clear or popular successor has appeared, especially someone who can combine the support of party members, elites and unaffiliated voters in the same way he has. In the coming months, he will be able to use his platform in the House of Commons to make this point even more apparent.

No honeymoon lasts forever. Even while Carney now has the support of the Canadian public, there are several tensions and deep-seated challenges within his stated goals that are bound to lead to future problems.

---

Read more:
Is Mark Carney turning his back on climate action?

---

The discontents Poilievre has managed to tap into have been, at best, temporally satiated in the wake of the byelection win. And Carney’s coalition remains a defensive one, consisting of just one cohort of Canadian voters who are divided in terms of age, region, education level and income. This is all part of a voter realignment that is increasingly shaping the country’s politics.

What remains unclear is what challenges Carney will face in the months ahead and how the Conservatives will pivot to take advantage of them.

Will the party, for instance, maintain the libertarian-flavoured populism of the last few years? Or will it, like its international peers, embrace a program that’s, among other things, more economically interventionist, pro-worker and concerned with national culture?

Already, the party has explored a more restrictive stance on immigration, has taken the side of striking Air Canada workers and offered substantive alternative to Carney’s “elbows up” nationalism.

We’ll have to wait until the leadership review in January to see.

Sam Routley 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. Pierre Poilievre wins Alberta byelection — but he’s got a long road ahead to broaden his base – https://theconversation.com/pierre-poilievre-wins-alberta-byelection-but-hes-got-a-long-road-ahead-to-broaden-his-base-262191

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ali Asgary, Professor, Disaster & Emergency Management, Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies & Director, CIFAL York, York University, Canada

In one of the first communications of its kind, the British Columbia Wildfire Service has issued a warning to residents about viral, AI-generated fake wildfire images circulating online. Judging by comments made by viewers on social media, some people did not realize the images were not authentic.

As more advanced generative AI (genAI) tools become freely accessible, these incidents will increase. During emergencies, when people are stressed and need reliable information, such digital disinformation can cause significant harm by spreading confusion and panic.

This vulnerability to disinformation stems from people’s reliance on mental shortcuts during stressful times; this facilitates the spread and acceptance of disinformation. Content that is emotionally charged and sensational often captures more attention and is more frequently shared on social media.

Based on our research and experience on emergency response and management, AI-generated misinformation during emergencies can cause real damage by disrupting disaster response efforts.

Circulating misinformation

People’s motivations for creating, sharing and accepting disinformation during emergencies are complex and diverse. Some individuals may generate and spread disinformation for a number of reasons. Self-determination theory categorizes motivations as intrinsic — related to the inherent interest or enjoyment of creating and sharing — and extrinsic, which involve outcomes like financial gain or publicity.

The creation of disinformation can be motivated by several factors. These include political, commercial or personal gain, prestige, belief, enjoyment and the desire to harm and sow discord.

People may spread disinformation because they perceive it to be important, they have reduced decision-making capacity, they distrust other sources of information, or because they want to help, fit in, entertain others or self-promote.

On the other hand, accepting disinformation may be influenced by a reduced capacity to analyze information, political affiliations, fixed beliefs and religious fundamentalism.

Misinformation harms

Harms caused by disinformation and misinformation can have varying levels of severity and can be categorized into direct, indirect, short-term and long-term harms.

These can take many forms, including threatening people’s lives, incomes, sense of security and safety networks.

During emergencies, having access to trustworthy information about hazards and threats is critical. Disinformation, combined with poor collection, processing and understanding of urgent information, can lead to more direct casualties and property damage. Misinformation disproportionately affects vulnerable populations.

When individuals receive risk and threat information, they usually check it through vertical (government, emergency management agencies and reputable media) and horizontal (friends, family members and neighbours) networks. The more complex the information, the more difficult and time-consuming the confirmation and validation process is.

And as genAI improves, distinguishing between real and AI-generated information will become more difficult and resource-consuming.

Debunking disinformation

Disinformation can interrupt emergency communications. During emergencies, clear communication plays a major role in public safety and security. In these situations, how people process information depends on how much information they have, their existing knowledge, emotional responses to risk and their capacity to gather information.

Disinformation intensifies the need for diverse communication channels, credible sources and clear messaging.

Official sources are essential for verification, yet the growing volume of information makes checking for accuracy increasingly difficult. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, public health agencies flagged misinformation and disinformation as major concerns.

---

Read more:
How to address coronavirus misinformation spreading through messaging apps and email

---

Digital misinformation circulated during disasters can lead to resources being improperly allocated, conflicting public behaviour and actions, and delayed emergency responses. Misinformation can also lead to unnecessary or delayed evacuations.

In such cases, disaster management teams must contend not only with the crisis, but also with the secondary challenges created by misinformation.

Counteracting disinformation

Research reveals considerable gaps in the skills and strategies that emergency management agencies use to counteract misinformation. These agencies should focus on the detection, verification and mitigation of disinformation creation, sharing and acceptance.

This complex issue demands co-ordinated efforts across policy, technology and public engagement:

1. Fostering a culture of critical awareness: Educating the public, particularly younger generations, about the dangers of misinformation and AI-generated content is essential. Media literacy campaigns, school programs and community workshops can equip people with the skills to question sources, verify information and recognize manipulation.

2. Clear policies for AI-generated content in news: Establishing and enforcing policies on how news agencies use AI-generated images during emergencies can prevent visual misinformation from eroding public trust. This could include mandatory disclaimers, editorial oversight and transparent provenance tracking.

3. Strengthening platforms for fact-checking and metadata analysis: During emergencies, social platforms and news outlets should need rapid, large-scale fact-checking. Requiring platforms to flag, down-rank or remove demonstrably false content can limit the viral spread of misinformation. Intervention strategies need to be developed to nudge people about skeptical information they come across on social media.

4. Clear legal consequences: In Canada, Section 181 of the Criminal Code already makes the intentional creation and spread of false information a criminal offence. Publicizing and enforcing such provisions can act as a deterrent, particularly for deliberate misinformation campaigns during emergencies.

Additionally, identifying, countering and reporting misinformation should be incorporated into emergency management and public education.

AI is rapidly transforming how information is created and shared during crises. In emergencies, this can amplify fear, misdirect resources and erode trust at the very moment clarity is most needed. Building safeguards through education, policy, fact-checking and accountability is essential to ensure AI becomes a tool for resilience rather than a driver of chaos.

Maleknaz Nayebi receives funding from NSERC.

Ali Asgary 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. AI-generated misinformation can create confusion and hinder responses during emergencies – https://theconversation.com/ai-generated-misinformation-can-create-confusion-and-hinder-responses-during-emergencies-263081

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James Horncastle, Assistant Professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney Professor in International Relations, Simon Fraser University

The current phase of the war in Ukraine continues unabated into its fourth year, with grinding offences and strikes against civilian infrastructure increasingly the norm.

It is, for Ukraine, arguably the most vulnerable that it has been since 2022.

These developments have prompted calls among world leaders to end the conflict. On the surface, United States President Donald Trump’s meetings with both the Ukrainian and Russian leaders suggests a balanced approach. In reality, however, Trump’s actions primarily benefit Russia.

The Alaska summit

After the recent meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, Trump declared that their summit had been “very useful.” When asked how he would rate the meeting on a scale of one to 10, the president declared the meeting “was a 10 in the sense we got along great.”

While Trump and Putin may have hit it off, the issue with such an assessment is that it failed to address the underlying reason for the meeting: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In this regard, the meeting was far more useful for Putin and Russia than Ukraine and its allies.

Putin managed to stoke tensions, and potentially divisions, among Ukraine’s principal supporters by not including Ukraine in the summit. No other countries participated in the summit.

This format caused considerable consternation in Ukraine, where it was feared that Trump would make an agreement without Ukrainian consent, as well as in Europe, where Russian aggression and revisionism is a more direct threat.

Prior to Trump assuming power for a second time in 2025, Ukraine benefited from a largely united front among NATO and the European Union. This unity has declined over the last several months, and the Alaska summit reinforced this decline to Russia’s benefit.

Ceasefire demand evaporated

Putin and his negotiators managed to obtain a major concession from Trump at the summit as Trump renounced his own recent calls for a ceasefire.

For Ukraine and its allies, achieving a ceasefire was a fundamental requirement for any peace negotiations in 2025. This precondition has become more significant as Russia ramps up its attacks on Ukrainian cities and civilians.

Lastly, the very nature of the Alaska meeting itself helped legitimize Russia in international opinion.

Since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russia has courted international opinion. It’s been more successful than most people in Europe and North America realize as significant portions of Asia, Africa and Latin America remain ambivalent or even support Russia in its war against Ukraine.

Nonetheless, Russia was always restrained by the condemnation it’s received from multiple international organizations, most notably the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.

Trump welcoming Putin on American soil, when the Russian leader is under what amounts to a de facto travel ban by the International Criminal Court, undermines these institutions’ condemnations.

Zelenskyy’s visit to Washington

The benefits that Putin obtained from Trump in Alaska demanded an immediate response by Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy promptly arranged a White House meeting with Trump in the aftermath of the Alaskan summit. And he didn’t arrive alone: European leaders accompanied him to show solidarity with Ukraine.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted the European leaders weren’t on hand to prevent Trump from bullying Zelenskyy, as occurred during their last Oval Office meeting.

---

Read more:
What the U.S. ceasefire proposal means for Ukraine, Russia, Europe – and Donald Trump

---

That’s probably only partly true. Several European leaders — ranging from the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, to French President Emmanuel Macron — almost assuredly accompanied Zelenskyy to prevent Trump from forcing the Ukrainian leader into concessions that are detrimental to their interests as well.

Trump’s pre-meeting social media post undoubtedly heightened their concerns. In the post, he placed the burden of peace on Zelenskyy and argued that Ukraine must accept the loss of Crimea and never accede to NATO.

Carefully orchestrated

Ukrainian officials sought to carefully orchestrate Zelenskyy’s one-on-one Oval Office meeting with Trump. Zelenskyy wore a suit and delivered a letter from the Ukrainian first lady to Melania Trump.

These and other efforts aimed to stroke Trump’s ego, and the president’s response — in particular agreeing with a reporter that Zelenskyy “look(ed) fabulous” in a suit — suggests it was a success. The same American reporter criticized Zelenskyy for failing to don a suit during his ill-fated February White House visit.

Notably, Trump did not rule out a role for American soldiers in helping to maintain peace in Ukraine during the meeting. Outside observers believe an American presence in Ukraine to maintain any eventual peace is a fundamental requirement for its success.

Unfortunately, while Trump did not immediately oppose the idea, he did not make any firm commitment either. Trump’s propensity to reverse course on statements that he makes in the moment, furthermore, undermines any firm takeaways from the meeting.

Hope versus reality

Any direct American involvement in Ukraine would also undermine his support among his political base. One of Trump’s key campaign promises was not to involve the U.S. in “endless foreign wars.”

A move by Trump to deploy American soldiers to Ukraine would be politically tenuous, as fractures are already emerging among his political base over his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.

---

Read more:
Trump’s changing stance on Epstein files is testing the loyalty of his Maga base

---

Trump’s cordial meetings with Zelenskyy and European leaders may fuel hope among Ukraine’s supporters in the coming days. But any optimism should be tempered by the damage done by Trump’s meeting with Putin. Trump reportedly interrupted the meetings in Washington to call Putin.

Trump’s unwillingness to make firm commitments at the meetings with Zelenskyy and European leaders means that Russia, on the balance, has succeeded in advancing its interests to the detriment of Ukraine and the prospects for a long-term, sustainable peace.

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

– ref. How Trump’s separate meetings with Putin and Zelenskyy have advanced Russian interests – https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-separate-meetings-with-putin-and-zelenskyy-have-advanced-russian-interests-263372

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Gerard Di Trolio, PhD candidate, Labour Studies, McMaster University

Air Canada flight attendants say they will continue to defy a government back-to-work order after the federal labour relations board declared the strike “unlawful.” The walkout, which began early on Aug. 16, grounded hundreds of flights and left passengers stranded.

Less than 12 hours into the strike, the federal government intervened in the dispute between Air Canada and the union representing its flight attendants. Minister of Jobs and Families Patty Hajdu invoked Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to impose binding arbitration and order employees back to work.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) condemned the move, accusing the government of “crushing flight attendants’ Charter rights.”

---

Read more:
Air Canada flight attendants have issued a strike notice: Here’s what you need to know

---

Air Canada reportedly encouraged the government to intervene, while CUPE pushed for a negotiated solution, arguing binding arbitration would ease pressure on the airline to negotiate fairly.

After a Sunday hearing, the Canada Industrial Relations Board released an order reiterating flight attendants should “cease all activities that declare or authorize an unlawful strike of its members” and “resume the performance of their duties.”

As an expert in unions and the politics of labour, I see this dispute as highlighting several fault lines in Canada around work, how we value it and the ways the law affects workers.

Mark Carney’s labour dilemma

Prime Minister Mark Carney currently faces the first labour crisis of his term. Carney had worked alongside labour leaders in the face of United States President Donald Trump’s tariff threats, even appointing Lana Payne, president of the Unifor trade union, to the new Canada-U.S. Relations Council.

The federal government’s decision to invoke Section 107 to send Air Canada and its flight attendants to arbitration continues a growing trend of its increasing use.

Section 107 has been part of the Canada Labour Code since 1984. It was rarely used for decades, but became more common last year when Justin Trudeau’s government invoked it several times to end work stoppages at ports, rail yards and Canada Post.

This is part of a longer history. Dating back to the 1970s, federal and provincial governments started interfering with free and fair collective bargaining through back-to-work legislation or by imposing contracts on public sector workers.

What has changed in recent decades is the federal government’s growing creep into the private sector. Under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, there were increasing threats to use back-to-work legislation, targeting CN Rail, CP Rail and Air Canada. These interventions were justified as protecting an economy emerging from a global financial crisis. The Harper government followed through with back-to-work legislation in the Air Canada and CP Rail cases.

If the Carney government continues to use back-to-work legislation, it could alienate unions that once saw him as a potential ally. Yet the public may be more receptive to it, given the country’s economic weakness and continued Trump threats.

The Air Canada strike could effect the trajectory not only of the government, but also the labour movement as well. It’s a strike that has major consequences for all workers in Canada, and its outcome will signal to workers across the country what they can expect in these uncertain times.

Defying the law is rare

CUPE’s decision to defy the Canadian government’s use of Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code comes with big risks but also potential victories.

A union or workers defying the law is hardly unprecedented, but is increasingly rare in an era where unions have been in an overall decline in Canada and globally.

The risks are significant for workers: heavy fines, termination of employment or even jail time for flight attendants and union officials.

If CUPE is successful, it would have a galvanizing effect, sending a message to workers across the country that they can stand up not only to their bosses, but to the state, in order to improve their labour circumstances.

However, for any kind of unlawful strike to be successful, there must be an incredible amount of unity among the workers. While CUPE leadership and the Canadian labour movement are strongly supportive of continuing the strike, rank-and-file flight attendants must be willing to stand their ground.

Even in a legal strike, unions only take the step of stopping work if they have an overwhelming amount of the membership on board. That need for solidarity is even greater for illegal action.

The reason why Canada has laws allowing unions, workplace safety and strikes is because of industrial militancy that often defied the law to force governments to enact legislation allowing for unions and strikes.

The flight attendant strike could be a barometer of increased labour organizing and action experienced across Canada since the COVID-19 pandemic, and whether that momentum for the labour movement can continue.

Work and gender

Another key issue at the heart of the strike is the gender wage gap, which continues to be an issue in Canada. While it has narrowed during this century, women in Canada still earn on average 12 per cent less than men. This gap is even wider for women who are newcomers, Indigenous, transgender or living with disabilities.

This disparity is closely tied to sectors where women are overrepresented, such as flight attendants, a workforce overwhelmingly made up of women. Across the Canadian workforce, 56 per cent of women are employed in the “5 Cs”: caring, clerical, catering, cashiering and cleaning. These occupations tend to be precarious and underpaid.

While airlines are part of transportation, the work that flight attendants perform is unmistakably service-based and covers much of the 5 Cs, including emotional labour and customer care.

For Air Canada flight attendants, the situation is compounded by the fact they are paid only while the plane is in motion, meaning they often perform unpaid work.

The gender dynamics become even clearer when comparing the treatment of flight attendants with that of Air Canada pilots.

In 2024, Air Canada pilots — who are mostly men — won a 26 per cent wage increase in the first year of their new contract and a 42 per cent increase overall. Air Canada’s most recent offer to its flight attendants was only an eight per cent increase in year one and 38 per cent overall.

“Air Canada’s male-dominated workforce received a significant cost-of-living wage increase. Why not the flight attendants, who are 70 per cent women?” Natasha Stea, president of the CUPE division that represents the Air Canada flight attendants, said in an Aug. 15 CUPE article.

In this context, the Air Canada strike is also a spotlight on systemic gender inequality, the undervaluing of service work and the fight for fair compensation in occupations dominated by women.

Gerard Di Trolio is a member of CUPE 3906 as a teaching assistant and sessional instructor at McMaster University.

– ref. Air Canada flight attendant ‘unlawful’ strike exposes major fault lines in Canadian labour law – https://theconversation.com/air-canada-flight-attendant-unlawful-strike-exposes-major-fault-lines-in-canadian-labour-law-263325

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Simon Blanchette, Lecturer, Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University

Since 2024, pushback against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) has gathered momentum across North America. This year, that retreat has taken on a new form: the rebranding of “equity” with softer, less contentious terms like “belonging” or “community.”

The University of Alberta, for instance, no longer has a vice-provost of equity, diversity and inclusion. Instead, it now has an office for “access, community and belonging.”

Similarly, Alberta’s public pension fund eliminated its lead DEI role during a restructuring. A spokesperson maintained that “the departure of the individual responsible for the formal DEI program has not lessened AIMCo’s firm commitment to these principles.”

A similar shift is underway at the University of Lethbridge, which established an office of “accessibility, belonging and community” in December.

While language naturally evolves, this current shift appears to lack the deliberate engagement needed for genuine progress. Instead, it may be obscuring a step back from equity rather than a step forward.

A retreat disguised as progress

Calls for rebranding DEI work have existed for years and are valid, even within the field itself. What we are seeing now, however, often lacks genuine community engagement and the voices of the very stakeholders these shifts to “belonging” are meant to include.

Today’s so-called rebranding efforts are more about appeasement than progress. Rather, they are reactive moves that respond to external pressures rather than to the needs and demands of the communities most affected.

Once embraced as essential to address systemic discrimination, the term equity has now become a political lightning rod.

Some institutions now face political, shareholder and donor pressures that frame DEI initiatives as divisive or ideologically extreme, pushing them to distance themselves from such programs.

In the corporate world, the trend is stark. Mentions of “DEI” in S&P 500 corporate filings have dropped 70 per cent since 2022, replaced by softer terms like “belonging” and “inclusive culture.”

This shift allows organizations to sidestep accountability, obscure inequities and replace measurable equity frameworks with vague platitudes.

Why this matters

By softening language, organizations secure a socially acceptable way to exit from the difficult work of equity. It suggests these organizations have somehow moved beyond equity without ever having done the work.

Removing equity from organizational language has tangible consequences. First, it undermines accountability. Effective equity frameworks create measurable, trackable goals. Terms like “belonging” are harder to define and easier to abandon. They allow organizations to gesture toward inclusion without doing the hard work of systemic change.

---

Read more:
Businesses must stop caving to political pressure and abandoning their EDI commitments

---

Second, it risks leaving people behind. Equity centres those facing real structural barriers, like women, Black and racialized people, Indigenous Peoples, 2SLGBTQI+ communities and people living with disabilities. When the term disappears, so too can their visibility in policies, funding and accountability.

Finally, there’s a risk to organizations themselves. DEI rollbacks hurt morale, retention, innovation and performance, and can even increase legal risk.

A 2025 survey from New York University’s Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging found 80 per cent of leaders believe reducing equity efforts increases reputational and legal risk. It also found widespread agreement that DEI initiatives improved firms’ financial performance.

The myth of meritocracy

A common justification for dropping “equity” is desire to return to “meritocracy.” Meritocracy is the idea that individuals should be rewarded based on their talent and hard work.

But meritocracy assumes a level playing field and obscures the fact that “merit” is socially constructed and context-dependent. It ignores that unequal barriers, like access to education and networks, impacts individual success despite a person’s achievements.

Meritocracy also assumes that diversity is prioritized over qualifications, which is not the case. We can successfully focus on both skills and inclusion.

Research by MIT management professor Emilio J. Castilla has shown that organizations claiming to be meritocratic often end up reinforcing biases instead — this is also called the “paradox of meritocracy.”

For instance, in a study involving 445 participants with managerial experience, researchers asked participants to make bonus, promotion and termination decisions for fictional employees. When an organization’s culture emphasized meritocracy, male employees received higher bonuses than equally qualified female employees.

Conversely, when the work culture emphasized managerial discretion instead, the bias reversed in favour of women. This likely occurred because the prompt signalled a potential gender bias, triggering an over-correction. In a third scenario where neither meritocracy nor managerial discretion was emphasized, there was no significant difference in the bonuses assigned.

While the last scenario sounds promising, most work environments emphasize meritocracy, consciously or not. Merit- or performance-based pay remains the norm in many organziations, meaning the first scenario is most common.

Without transparency, merit-based rhetoric about who supposedly “deserves” advancement often reinforces existing inequalities. Nepotism, network-based advantages and selective visibility often fill the gap when equity frameworks are abandoned. Networks and visibility matter, but they should not be mistaken for merit.

Ironically, sometimes the loudest critics of equity initiatives are silent when inherited privilege or insider connections determine who rises to leadership.

What can organizations do?

While some institutions are backpedalling on DEI commitments, others in Canada and across Europe are holding firm by embedding equity in their strategy, leadership and performance frameworks.

Advancing equity in today’s climate requires both strategy and sustained action. Here’s where organizations can begin:

1. Establish and embed explicit, measurable equity objectives aligned with your business strategy.

2. Increase data transparency by collecting and publicly sharing disaggregated information on recruitment, promotion, pay equity, turnover and employee experience.

3. Give diverse voices real decision-making authority over policies and initiatives. Employee resource groups are a great way to start.

4. Hold leaders accountable by training them to champion equity and tying their incentives to concrete DEI outcomes.

5. Communicate DEI impacts transparently and authentically by sharing stories and metrics that showcase how equity efforts have improved business performance.

These solutions are already working. In my consulting practice, I have accompanied organizations that are making progress by building trust, energizing teams and driving innovation. In the end, they are measurably more successful and resilient.

The business case for equity is well-established: it drives performance, helps fuel growth and is an overall leadership imperative. In today’s political climate, it’s critical to stay focused on outcomes rather than rhetoric that frames equity as divisive or unnecessary.

The way forward

Rebranding “equity” as “belonging” doesn’t advance justice, especially when there’s no shared definition of what “belonging” actually means. It politely denies the need to dismantle real systemic barriers. For individuals facing those barriers, it sounds like an empty promise.

No one chooses their race, sex, socio-economic background, sexual orientation or to live with a disability or the lasting impacts of military service. But institutions can choose whether to confront the inequities tied to those experiences and dismantle barriers that individuals face.

This moment also calls for an honest reflection within the DEI space itself. Some initiatives have overreached or lost focus, contributing to this current backlash. Addressing missteps openly is part of rebuilding credibility in DEI work.

Equity, at its core, is about ensuring dignity and providing everyone with a fair chance to succeed. Walking away from equity work or watering it down until it becomes meaningless is not the answer. Moving forward requires less political polarization and more co-ordinated action so that everyone can have a fair chance to thrive.

Simon Blanchette 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. Rebranding equity as ‘belonging’ won’t advance justice — it’s DEI rollback in disguise – https://theconversation.com/rebranding-equity-as-belonging-wont-advance-justice-its-dei-rollback-in-disguise-261730