Category: The Conversation – Canada

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Laszlo Sarkany, Assistant Professor, Political Science, Western University

Canada has yet to officially throw its support behind the International Criminal Court (ICC), an institution it helped create, against targeted sanctions imposed on several prosecutors and judges by the United States earlier this year.

---

Read more:
Why is Canada quiet on the International Criminal Court while recognizing Palestine?

---

Four key staff of the court — including Canadian judge Kimberly Prost — have been sanctioned by President Donald Trump’s administration because of their involvement in investigations related to alleged war crimes committed by American and Israeli officials.

Other allies, including France, Belgium and the European Union have publicly opposed the sanctions, issuing statements in support of the ICC.

Other states have also spoken out out against the sanctions, including Denmark, Finland, Estonia, the Netherlands, Norway, Senegal, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

Canada has publicly backed Prost, and has recently joined a number of states at the United Nations in supporting the overall work of the court. But Canadian officials have been silent about the American sanctions.

Sanctions fallout

The current wave of sanctions has forced the court to take extraordinary measures, such as paying staff ahead of time and changing email software to openDesk which was developed by the Germany-based Centre for Digital Sovereignty.

Despite these safety measures, the court may not be safe from further punishment. The Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC has speculated the U.S. government may impose further sanctions against the entire organization.

This would mean that any American company — including financial institutions — or even Canadian companies with subsidiaries in the U.S. that deal with the court may be subject to penalties and legal action.

Shielding businesses

Not all is lost, however. There are two legal remedies that could be be used to shield the ICC. Canada and the EU could amend key laws designed to protect companies from such actions, which could significantly aid in the operation of the court.

These include the 1985 Foreign Extra-Territorial Measures Act (FEMA) and its subsequent amendments in Canada, and in the EU, legislation known as the Extraterritorial Blocking Statute (EBS).

A FEMA amendment was passed in 1996 in response to the Helms-Burton Act in the U.S. that prohibited companies from trading or conducting business in Cuba.

FEMA shields Canadian businesses affected by the Helms-Burton Act and contains specific provisions to protect companies from retaliatory action by the U.S. Similarly, the EBS was passed in the European Parliament to shield European companies from American sanctions.

It was introduced initially as a result of the Helms-Burton Act, and then later revised when the U.S. withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018.

Canada and the EU could amend both FEMA and the EBS to ensure that Canadian and European companies are shielded from the effects of American sanctions and can continue to provide key services to the court.

In the case of the EU, most of the ICC’s contractual arrangements with entities like banks, insurers, service providers, technology providers and landlords are with European firms because the court is located in Europe — in The Hague, Netherlands.

Amending the EBS, therefore, would protect these companies from further American sanctions and would ensure they can still provide services to the ICC.

These legal remedies are a proportional response to the U.S. sanctions. They would allow all parties — the U.S. and the ICC’s supporters — to continue to negotiate instead of bringing international criminal justice to a grinding halt.

Ensuring the survival of the ICC

It’s important to note that including the need to shield businesses from U.S. sanctions in any amended legislation in both Canada and the EU legislation isn’t aimed at helping governments in either Cuba or Iran.

The goal is to protect Canadian and European companies from possible legal action or economic fallout if more sanctions are applied. Most importantly, the aim is to ensure that the ICC continues to operate with as little interruption as possible.

Sanctions may have significant effects on businesses, and what’s been identified as Trump’s penchant for “retributive diplomacy” may compel states — and businesses — to think twice before they act.

But FEMA and EBS provide appropriate countermeasures if and when broader U.S. sanctions on the entire ICC are introduced, or if Canadian and European companies unjustifiably suffer due to the imposition of new sanctions.

The ICC is the international organization with the ability to deliver justice and support victims. It’s the “court of last resort” that only gets involved when offending states are unwilling or unable to do so.

National security concerns in the U.S., Canada and the EU stem as much from the committing of mass atrocities as they do from other types of global crimes. That’s why it’s so important for states to support international criminal justice efforts by fulsomely supporting the ICC.

Laszlo Sarkany 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 Canada and the European Union could ensure the survival of the International Criminal Court – https://theconversation.com/how-canada-and-the-european-union-could-ensure-the-survival-of-the-international-criminal-court-269372

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By David Tindall, Professor of Sociology, University of British Columbia

We live in a time often characterized as a polycrisis. One of those crises is human-caused climate change, an issue currently being discussed by delegates at the COP30 climate talks in Belém, Brazil.

Another is disinformation, much of which has been focused on climate change. A third potential crisis comes from the implications of artificial intelligence for society and the planet.

When it comes to AI and climate change, there are a variety of opinions, from the optimistic to the pessimistic and the skeptical. Given the overarching concerns about environmental harms of AI, it is surprising to some that AI is front and centre at COP30, which I am currently attending.

Both COP30 President André Aranha Corrêa do Lago and Simon Stiell, executive director of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, have noted the importance of AI and other aspects of technology for addressing climate change.

While there has been some consideration of AI in addressing climate change at previous COPs, COP30 is the first conference where AI has been formally integrated as a central theme in the conference agenda.

AI at COP30

On the first day of COP30, “science, technology and artificial intelligence” was explicitly listed as one of the key themes. Initiatives included the Green Digital Action Hub, a global platform to drive a greener, more inclusive digital transformation.

Additionally, there was a session introducing the AI Climate Institute. A key goal of the AI Climate Institute is to enable Global South countries to design, adapt and implement their own AI-based climate solutions.

In these and other forums, there were discussions about digital decarbonization technologies and advances in data transparency for emissions. Proponents argued these initiatives were designed to help countries harness technology to meet their climate goals.

When it comes to AI and climate change, there is a tendency for people to think about the increased environmental and climate change harms that AI will bring. In this regard, there has been a lot of recent media coverage on the potential of increased carbon emissions, water use and environmental damage as a result of mining for critical minerals.

A key issue is the emissions produced by data centres. As many commentators have said — including Stiell — data centres need to have electrical power sources if AI is to be aligned with climate action.

How is AI relevant to addressing climate change?

AI is already being applied in climate change mitigation. At COP30, former United States vice president Al Gore gave a presentation about the role of Climate TRACE in addressing climate change. Climate TRACE is a non-profit coalition of organizations that have been developing an inventory of exactly where greenhouse gas emissions are coming from to help governments, organizations and companies to reduce or eliminate these emissions.

Climate TRACE uses satellite imagery, remote sensing, artificial intelligence and machine learning to estimate emissions. In his presentation, Gore demonstrated visual examples in a slide show.

AI can play a role in reducing emissions in a number of ways. One, as noted above, is by tracking emissions. Another is by making energy systems more efficient and thus reducing emissions through energy savings.

Reducing energy use and emissions were not the only type of efficiencies discussed at COP30. Conservation of water use and increased efficiencies in agricultural production were also highlighted. An example is the AI for Climate Action Award that was given to a team from Laos this year for a project using AI for farming and irrigation.

Climate adaptation

AI has the potential to make a big impact in the area of climate adaptation. Key issues were discussed at COP30 at a session called Smarter than the Storm: The Future of AI in Forecasting and Proactive Responses to Build More Resilient Communities.

Scientific research has demonstrated that machine learning can assist local governments in their decisions about options for climate adaptation. AI can be an integral part of an early warning system.

It can be used to predict floods using sensor data, predict wildfires using satellite and weather data, monitor social media for disaster response and identify areas at risk of landslides.

AI tools involved in these various processes include machine learning, deep learning, natural-language processing and computer vision. Consistent with overarching concerns at COP30 about the importance of social and climate justice, proponents of community AI applications emphasized the need for transparency, affordability of data and AI systems and the sovereignty of community data.

Dangers of disinformation

Climate disinformation is a key type of disinformation in contemporary society. AI can either be a source or a counter to climate disinformation.

At COP30, disinformation and climate denial was mentioned in a number of contexts, including by Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. One key event on this topic was the announcement of a Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change, which a number of countries endorsed.

AI can be considered a triple-edged sword. Unregulated expansion of AI has the potential to do enormous environmental harm and magnify misinformation and disinformation.

However, principled development of AI, powered by clean energy sources, also has the potential to significantly reduce carbon emissions, provide early warning to communities of climate threats, reduce the costs of adapting to a changing climate and enhance our understanding of climate change.

David Tindall receives funding from from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, a body that funds academic research. He has an affiliation with Cllimate Reality Canada. In this voluntary role he occassionally gives unpaid talks on climate change.

– ref. Artificial intelligence is front and centre at COP30 – https://theconversation.com/artificial-intelligence-is-front-and-centre-at-cop30-269872

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jillian Sunderland, PhD Student , University of Toronto

Across TikTok and university campuses, young men are rewriting what masculinity looks like today, sometimes with matcha lattes, Labubus, film cameras and thrifted tote bags.

At Toronto Metropolitan University, a “performative male” contest recently drew a sizeable crowd by poking fun at this new TikTok archetype of masculinity. “Performative man” is a new Gen Z term describing young men who deliberately craft a soft, sensitive, emotionally aware aesthetic, signalling the rejection of “toxic masculinity.”

At “performative male” contests, participants compete for laughs and for women’s attention by reciting poetry, showing off thrifted fashion or handing out feminine hygiene products to show they’re one of the “good” guys.

Similar events have been held from San Francisco to London, capturing a wider shift in how Gen Z navigates gender. Research shows that young men are experimenting with gender online, but audiences often respond with humour or skepticism.

This raises an important question: in a moment when “toxic masculinity” is being called out, why do public responses to softer versions of masculinity shift between curiosity, irony and judgment?

Why Gen Z calls it “performative”

Gen Z’s suspicions toward these men may be partially due to broader shifts in online culture.

As research on social media shows, younger users value authenticity as a sign of trust. If millennials perfected the “curated self” of filtered selfies and highlight reels, Gen Z has made a virtue of realness and spontaneity.

Studies of TikTok culture find that many users share and consume more emotionally “raw” content that push against the more filtered aesthetics of Instagram.

Against this backdrop, the performative man stands out because he looks like he’s trying too hard to be sincere. The matcha latte, the film camera, the tote bag — these are products, not values. Deep, thoughtful people, the logic goes, shouldn’t have to announce it by carrying around a Moleskine notebook and a copy of The Bell Jar.

But as philosopher Judith Butler explained, all gender is “performative” in that it’s made real through repeated actions. Sociologists Candace West and Don Zimmerman call this “doing gender” — the everyday work we do to communicate we’re “men” or “women.”

This framing helps explain why the “performative man” can appear insincere, not because he’s fake, but because gender is always performed and policed, destined to look awkward before it seems “natural.”

On this end, the mockery of “performative men” acts as a way of keeping men in the “man box” — the narrow confines of acceptable masculinity. Studies show that from school to work, people judge men more harshly than women when they step outside gender norms. In this way, the mockery sends a message to all men that there are limits to how they can express themselves.

When progress still looks like privilege

However, many researchers caution that new masculine styles may still perpetuate male privilege.

In the post-#MeToo era, many men are rethinking what it means to be a man now that toxic masculinity has been critiqued. The calls for more “healthy masculinity” and positive male role models reveal a culture searching for new ways of being a man, yet also uncertain about what that would look like.

In this context, many public commentators argue these men are just rebranding themselves as self-aware, feminist-adjacent and “not like other guys” to seek better dating opportunities.

Sociologists Tristan Bridges and C.J. Pascoe would call this “hybrid masculinity” — a term that describes how privileged men consolidate status by adopting progressive or queer aesthetics to reap rewards and preserve their authority.

A 2022 content analysis of popular TikTok male creators found a similar pattern: many creators blurred gender boundaries through fashion and self-presentation yet reinforced norms of whiteness, muscularity and heterosexual desirability.

This echoes many critiques of performative men: they use the language of feminism and therapy without altering their approach to sharing space, attention or authority.

Can these small experiments matter?

Yet as sociologist Francine Deutsch argues in her theory of “undoing gender,” change often begins with partial, imperfect acts. Studies show that copying and experimenting with gender are key ways people learn new gender roles.

On the surface, there’s nothing inherently harmful about men getting into journaling, vinyl records or latte art.

In fact, youth and anti-radicalization research suggests these could be practical tools in countering online radicalization and isolation, another issue affecting young men.

What would change look like?

The truth is we may not yet have the tools to recognize change, given that much of our world is created to be shared and consumed on social media, and male dominance seems hard to change.

A positive sign is that, rather than being defensive, many male creators are leaning into the joke and using parody as a way to explore what a more sensitive man might look like.

And perhaps the “performative male” trend holds up a mirror to our own contradictions. We demand authenticity but consume performance; we beg men to change but critique them when they try; we ask for vulnerability yet recoil when it looks too forced.

The “performative male” may look ironic, but he’s also experimenting with what it means to be a man today.

Whether that experiment leads to lasting change or just another online trend remains unclear, but it’s a glimpse of how masculinity is being rewritten, latte by latte.

Jillian Sunderland has previously received funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Grant and the Ontario Graduate Scholarship (OGS) Award.

– ref. The rise of the ‘performative male:’ How young men are experimenting with masculinity online – https://theconversation.com/the-rise-of-the-performative-male-how-young-men-are-experimenting-with-masculinity-online-268742

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Daryl Janzen, Observatory Manager and Instructor, Astronomy, University of Saskatchewan

The nature of time has plagued thinkers for as long as we’ve tried to understand the world we live in. Intuitively, we know what time is, but try to explain it, and we end up tying our minds in knots.

St. Augustine of Hippo, a theologian whose writings influenced western philosophy, captured a paradoxical challenge in trying to articulate time more than 1,600 years ago:

“What then is time? If no one asks me, I know; if I want to explain it to a questioner, I do not know.”

Nearly a thousand years earlier, Heraclitus of Ephesus offered a penetrating insight. According to classical Greek philosopher Plato’s Cratylus:

“Heraclitus is supposed to say that all things are in motion and nothing at rest; he compares them to the stream of a river, and says that you cannot go into the same water twice.”

Superficially, this can sound like another paradox — how can something be the same river and yet not the same? But Heraclitus adds clarity, not confusion: the river — a thing that exists — continuously changes. While it is the same river, different waters flow by moment to moment.

While the river’s continuous flux makes this plain, the same is true of anything that exists — including the person stepping into the river. They remain the same person, but each moment they set foot in the river is distinct.

How can time feel so obvious, so woven into the fabric of our experience, and yet remain the bane of every thinker who has tried to explain it?

An issue of articulation

The key issue isn’t one most physicists would even consider relevant. Nor is it a challenge that philosophers have managed to resolve.

Time itself isn’t difficult to grasp: we all understand it, despite our persistent struggle to describe it. As Augustine sensed, the problem is one of articulation: a failure to precisely draw the right boundaries around the nature of time both conceptually and linguistically.

Specifically, physicists and philosophers tend to conflate what it means for something to exist and what it means for something to happen — treating occurrences as if they exist. Once that distinction is recognized, the fog clears and Augustine’s paradox dissolves.

The source of the issue

In basic logic, there are no true paradoxes, only deductions that rest on subtly mishandled premises.

Not long after Heraclitus tried to clarify time, Parmenides of Elea did the opposite. His deduction begins with a seemingly valid premise — “what is, is; and what is not, is not” — and then quietly smuggles in a crucial assumption. He claims the past is part of reality because it has been experienced, and the future must also belong to reality because we anticipate it.

Therefore, Parmenides concluded, both past and future are part of “what is,” and all of eternity must form a single continuous whole in which time is an illusion.

Parmenides’ pupil, Zeno, devised several paradoxes to support this view. In modern terms, Zeno would argue that if you tried walking from one end of a block to the other, you’d never get there. To walk a block, you must first walk half, then half of what remains, and so on — always halving the remaining distance, never reaching the end.

But of course you can walk all the way to the end of the block and beyond — so Zeno’s deduction is absurd. His fallacy lies in removing time from the picture and considering only successive spatial configurations. His shrinking distances are matched by shrinking time intervals, both becoming small in parallel.

Zeno implicitly fixes the overall time available for the motion — just as he fixes the distance — and the paradox appears only because time was removed. Restore time, and the contradiction disappears.

Parmenides makes a similar mistake when claiming that events in the past and future — things that have happened or that will happen — exist. That assumption is the problem: it is equivalent to the conclusion he wants to reach. His reasoning is circular, ending by restating his assumption — only in a way that sounds different and profound.

Space-time models

An event is something that happens at a precise location and time. In Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity, space-time is a four-dimensional model describing all such occurrences: each point is a particular event, and the continuous sequence of events associated with an object forms its worldline — its path through space and time.

But events don’t exist; they happen. When physicists and philosophers speak of space-time as something that exists, they’re treating events as existent things — the same subtle fallacy at the root of 25 centuries of confusion.

---

Read more:
Space-time doesn’t exist — but it’s a useful concept for understanding our reality

---

Cosmology — the study of the whole universe — offers a clear resolution.

It describes a three-dimensional universe filled with stars, planets and galaxies that exist. And in the course of that existence, the locations of every particle at every instance are individual space-time events. As the universe exists, the events that happen moment by moment trace out worldlines in four-dimensional space-time — a geometric representation of everything that happens during that course of existence; a useful model, though not an existent thing.

The resolution

Resolving Augustine’s paradox — that time is something we innately understand but cannot describe — is simple once the source of confusion is identified.

Events — things that happen or occur — are not things that exist. Each time you step into the river is a unique event. It happens in the course of your existence and the river’s. You and the river exist; the moment you step into it happens.

Philosophers have agonized over time-travel paradoxes for more than a century, yet the basic concept rests on the same subtle error — something science fiction writer H.G. Wells introduced in the opening of The Time Machine.

In presenting his idea, the Time Traveller glides from describing three-dimensional objects, to objects that exist, to moments along a worldline — and finally to treating the worldline as something that exists.

That final step is precisely the moment the map is mistaken for the territory. Once the worldline, or indeed space-time, is imagined to exist, what’s to stop us from imagining that a traveller could move throughout it?

Occurrence and existence are two fundamentally distinct aspects of time: each essential to understanding it fully, but never to be conflated with the other.

Speaking and thinking of occurrences as things that exist has been the root of our confusion about time for millennia. Now consider time in light of this distinction. Think about the existing things around you, the familiar time-travel stories and the physics of space-time itself.

Once you recognize ours as an existing three-dimensional universe, full of existing things, and that events happen each moment in the course of that cosmic existence — mapping to space-time without being reality — everything aligns. Augustine’s paradox dissolves: time is no longer mysterious once occurrence and existence are separated.

Daryl Janzen 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. Physicists and philosophers have long struggled to understand the nature of time: Here’s why – https://theconversation.com/physicists-and-philosophers-have-long-struggled-to-understand-the-nature-of-time-heres-why-269762

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

Across Canada, doctors and nurses are quietly using public artificial-intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot and Gemini to write clinical notes, translate discharge summaries or summarize patient data. But even though these services offer speed and convenience, they also pose unseen cyber-risks when sensitive health information is no longer controlled by the hospital.

Emerging evidence suggests this behaviour is becoming more common. A recent ICT & Health Global article cited a BMJ Health & Care Informatics study showing that roughly one in five general practitioners in the United Kingdom reported using generative-AI tools such as ChatGPT to help draft clinical correspondence or notes.

While Canadian-specific data remain limited, anecdotal reports suggest that similar informal uses may be starting to appear in hospitals and clinics across the country.

This phenomenon, known as shadow AI, refers to the use of AI systems without formal institutional approval or oversight. In health-care settings, it refers to well-intentioned clinicians entering patient details into public chatbots that process information on foreign servers. Once that data leaves a secure network, there is no guarantee where it goes, how long it is stored, or whether it may be reused to train commercial models.

A growing blind spot

Shadow AI has quickly become one of the most overlooked threats in digital health. A 2024 IBM Security report found that the global average cost of a data breach has climbed to nearly US$4.9 million, the highest on record. While most attention goes to ransomware or phishing, experts warn that insider and accidental leaks now account for a growing share of total breaches.

In Canada, the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security have both highlighted the rise of internal data exposure, where employees unintentionally release protected information. When those employees use unapproved AI systems, the line between human error and system vulnerability blurs.

Are any of these documented cases in health settings? While experts point to internal data exposure as a growing risk in health-care organizations, publicly documented cases where the root cause is shadow AI use remain rare. However, the risks are real.

Unlike malicious attacks, these leaks happen silently, when patient data is simply copy-and-pasted into a generative AI. No alarms sound, no firewalls are tripped, and no one realizes that confidential data has crossed national borders. This is how shadow AI can bypass every safeguard built into an organization’s network.

Why anonymization isn’t enough

Even if names and hospital numbers are removed, health information is rarely truly anonymous. Combining clinical details, timestamps and geographic clues can often allow re-identification. A study in Nature Communications showed that even large “de-identified” datasets can be matched to individuals with surprising accuracy when cross-referenced with other public information.

Public AI models further complicate the issue. Tools such as ChatGPT or Claude process inputs through cloud-based systems that may store or cache data temporarily.

While providers claim to remove sensitive content, each has its own data-retention policy and few disclose where those servers are physically located. For Canadian hospitals subject to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and provincial privacy laws, this creates a legal grey zone.

Everyday examples hiding in plain sight

Consider a nurse using an online translator powered by generative AI to help a patient who speaks another language. The translation appears instant and accurate — yet the input text, which may include the patient’s diagnosis or test results, is sent to servers outside Canada.

Another example involves physicians using AI tools to draft patient follow-up letters or summarize clinical notes, unknowingly exposing confidential information in the process.

A recent Insurance Business Canada report warned that shadow AI could become “the next major blind spot” for insurers.

Because the practice is internal and voluntary, most organizations have no metrics to measure its scope. Hospitals that do not log AI usage cannot audit what data has left their systems or who sent it.

Bridging the gap between policy and practice

Canada’s health-care privacy framework was designed long before the arrival of generative AI. Laws like the PIPEDA and provincial health-information acts regulate how data is collected and stored but rarely mention machine-learning models or large-scale text generation.

As a result, hospitals are forced to interpret existing rules in a rapidly evolving technological environment. Cybersecurity specialists argue that health organizations need three layers of response:

1- AI-use disclosure in cybersecurity audits: Routine security assessments should include an inventory of all AI tools being used, sanctioned or otherwise. Treat generative-AI usage the same way organizations handle “bring-your-own-device” risks.

2- Certified “safe AI for health” gateways: Hospitals can offer approved, privacy-compliant AI systems that keep all processing within Canadian data centres. Centralizing access allows oversight without discouraging innovation.

3- Data-handling literacy for staff: Training should make clear what happens when data is entered into a public model and how even small fragments can compromise privacy. Awareness remains the strongest line of defence.

These steps won’t eliminate every risk, but they begin to align front-line practice with regulatory intent, protecting both patients and professionals.

The road ahead

The Canadian health-care sector is already under pressure from staffing shortages, cyberattacks and growing digital complexity. Generative AI offers welcome relief by automating documentation and translation, yet its unchecked use could erode public trust in medical data protection.

Policymakers now face a choice: either proactively govern AI use within health institutions or wait for the first major privacy scandal to force reform.

The solution is not to ban these tools but to integrate them safely. Building national standards for “AI-safe” data handling, similar to food-safety or infection-control protocols, would help ensure innovation doesn’t come at the expense of patient confidentiality.

Shadow AI isn’t a futuristic concept; it’s already embedded in daily clinical routines. Addressing it requires a co-ordinated effort across technology, policy and training, before Canada’s health-care system learns the hard way that the most dangerous cyber threats may come from within.

Abbas Yazdinejad is a Postdoctoral Scholar at the Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Modelling Lab (AIMMlab), University of Toronto. He will be joining the Department of Computer Science at the University of Regina as an Assistant Professor in Cybersecurity in January 2026.

Jude Kong receives funding from NSERC, IDRC, and FCDO. He is the Executive Director of the Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Modelling Lab (AIMMLab) at the University of Toronto, as well as AI4PEP, ACADIC, and REASURE2.

– ref. Silent cyber threats: How shadow AI could undermine Canada’s digital health defences – https://theconversation.com/silent-cyber-threats-how-shadow-ai-could-undermine-canadas-digital-health-defences-268478

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Britta Baechler, Adjunct Professor, Department of Physical & Environmental Sciences, University of Toronto

Plastics are everywhere, and the ocean is no exception: 11 million metric tons of plastics enter the ocean every year, where they spread far and wide, making their way to the deepest trenches and remote Arctic islands.

We have long known that marine animals can mistake plastic bags and other plastic pollution for food. To date, every family of marine mammal and seabird, and all seven species of sea turtles, have been documented to ingest plastics — nearly 1,300 species in total.

We also know that eating plastics can prove fatal for wildlife. When swallowed, macroplastics — plastics larger than five millimetres in size in any single direction — can block or puncture an animal’s organs or cause lethal twisting of the digestive tract, also known as torsion.

But understanding the link between ingestion of these large plastics and animal death has long been difficult. In an effort to investigate this connection, our team at the Ocean Conservancy non-profit collaborated with experts at the University of Toronto, the Federal University of Alagoas and the University of Tasmania to answer a deceptively simple question: how much ingested plastic is too much?

This question led us to undertake an ambitious effort to compile more than 10,000 animal autopsies — called necropsies — where both cause of death and data on plastic ingestion were known. These necropsies had been reported in peer-reviewed literature, in stranding network databases (collections of information about marine wildlife that have become stranded) and in two original datasets.

What we found

Our dataset included 31 species of mammals, 57 species of seabirds, and all seven species of sea turtles. We then modelled the relationship between plastics in the gut and likelihood of death for each group, looking both at total pieces of plastics as well as volume of plastics.

Our findings are sobering.

First, we found that plastic consumption was common among all types of animals: nearly half of sea turtles, over one-third of seabirds and one in eight marine mammals had plastic in their guts. For sea turtles who ingested plastic, roughly five per cent died directly as a result — an alarming figure given that five of seven sea turtle species are already endangered.

Second, we found that the lethal dose was much smaller than we had initially guessed, especially for small seabirds.

For example, if an Atlantic puffin consumes plastic around the size of three sugar cubes, it faces a 90 per cent chance of death.

A loggerhead sea turtle that consumes just over two baseballs’ worth of plastic has the same odds. And for a harbour porpoise, consuming a soccer ball’s worth of plastic is fatal 90 per cent of the time.

Third, we found that not all plastics cause equal harm. When modelling lethal ingestion thresholds, we looked at the number of plastic pieces and the volume of plastic, and found that the type of plastic is actually very important, as each impacts the gastrointestinal tract differently.

For seabirds, rubber materials like balloons were the deadliest; consuming just six pea-sized shards could be lethal. For marine mammals, lost fishing gear — also known as ghost gear — posed the greatest risk: as few as 28 tennis ball-sized pieces could kill a sperm whale.

Nearly half of the individual animals in our dataset who had ingested plastics were red-listed as threatened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature — that is, near-threatened, vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered.

Protecting marine life from plastics

The most impactful way to protect ocean wildlife is to reduce how much plastic enters the ocean in the first place. By pinpointing which plastics are deadliest to key marine species, we can help guide targeted actions such as bans on some of the most dangerous items like balloons, fishing line and plastic bags.

Last year, Florida banned the intentional release of balloons with major implications for protecting seabirds and manatees, which also featured heavily in our dataset.

The research also demonstrates the potentially significant impact of removing plastics from shorelines, waterways and the ocean through cleanups and other removal efforts.

By modelling lethal doses, providing our data open-access for anyone to search or us and generating this new framework to help guide risk-assessment efforts, we hope our findings will inform the continued development and implementation of solutions that protect vulnerable ocean species from the dangers of ocean plastics.

Britta Baechler is Director of Ocean Plastics Science and Research at Ocean Conservancy, a U.S.-based nonprofit that spearheaded the study in this article. This study was funded by the Seale Family Foundation, the Wayne Hollomon Price Foundation, and Carla Itzkowich in memory of Moisés Itzkowich.

Erin Murphy is the Manager of Ocean Plastics Science and Research at Ocean Conservancy, a U.S.-based nonprofit that spearheaded the study. This study was funded by the Seale Family Foundation, the Wayne Hollomon Price Foundation, and Carla Itzkowich in memory of Moisés Itzkowich.

– ref. New study finds that ingesting even small amounts of plastic can be fatal for marine animals – https://theconversation.com/new-study-finds-that-ingesting-even-small-amounts-of-plastic-can-be-fatal-for-marine-animals-269882

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

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

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

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

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

The story of The Mignonette

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

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

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

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

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

Justifying murder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Online child exploitation

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

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

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

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

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

Understanding gender-based violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

School-based programs

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

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

Eroding prevention strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy harms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effective violence prevention needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But is Canada Strong actually weak on AI?

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

Past budgets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sovereignty focus

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

The AI weakness in Canada Strong

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mixed reactions to job loss

We asked respondents:

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

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

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

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

Concerns about corporate greed and job loss

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Optimism about human adaptability

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

What this tells us

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

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

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

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

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

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