Category: The Conversation – Canada

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

The death of Prashant Sreekumar made headlines across Canada when the 43-year-old father of three died in the emergency room of Edmonton’s Grey Nuns hospital after waiting for eight hours with chest pains.

Recently, there have been other reports of preventable deaths in Alberta ERs. Alberta doctors have called the emergency room situation a disaster, citing a tsunami of seasonal respiratory illnesses that have overwhelmed hospitals and led to crowded emergency departments.

Widespread vaccination for common respiratory illnesses, including COVID-19 and the flu, would help to relieve the pressure on hospitals. Yet vaccination rates for seasonal illness are falling across Canada. Our research shows that conflicting messages across levels of government and skepticism about whether the vaccines work may be helping to fuel the emergency-room surge.

This winter is not the first bad virus season in Alberta, nor is it the first time we’ve seen patients die waiting for care. During the 2022-23 viral illness season, a “tripledemic” of viruses rolled across the country, as COVID-19, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) circulated simultaneously.

Our research showed how this tripledemic also slammed working parents trying to maintain their jobs while they and their children were infected over and over again.

This year could prove even worse. The 2025-26 season marks a new height in influenza cases, rising above a three-season high. Hospitals across the country have been flooded with patients, and burnt-out health-care workers have been putting in extra shifts.

Despite all of this — and the overwhelming research that shows influenza vaccines keep people out of the hospital — fewer Canadians are getting vaccinated. With declining seasonal vaccination rates each year, Canada now falls far short of the vaccination coverage needed to protect at-risk groups such as seniors or people with chronic illness, which is 80 per cent.

Who do Canadians trust on health care?

Our research explored parental decision-making in Alberta during the tripledemic to understand why, or why not, people get themselves and their kids vaccinated for COVID-19 and influenza. Using Viewpoint Alberta survey data, we found that who parents trust and the messages governments provide around vaccination strongly influence whether they and their kids get shots.

During the pandemic, parents in Alberta faced conflicting messages from governments. Despite the promotion of vaccination by the federal government and public health agencies, the provincial United Conservative Party government took a strong stance against enforcing COVID-19 protective measures. For those who trusted the provincial government, this essentially negated any pro-vaccination messaging provided by other institutions.

Our study found that those who trusted the federal government as a source of health information were more likely to have vaccinated their children for COVID-19 than those who supported the Alberta government’s messaging. The same was true for those who trusted Alberta Health Services and the Chief Medical Officer of Health. Those who placed their trust in the elected UCP government had much lower vaccination rates.

Trust is important, but it’s not the only factor keeping seasonal vaccination rates low. The question of who is perceived to benefit from vaccination also shaped parents’ decisions.

Are seasonal vaccines worth the trouble?

In addition to looking at survey data, we also interviewed parents to better understand how they made their decisions regarding seasonal vaccination for themselves and their children.

We were surprised to learn that after repeated viral illness infections, parents were actually less likely to vaccinate their children. Persistent illness contributed to a sense that infection was both inevitable and mild, often not even worth preventing. Some parents were also skeptical of the novelty of the COVID-19 vaccine compared to more established vaccinations, despite assurances from health-care professionals.

These parents did not hold “anti-vaxxer” beliefs; instead they believed that viral illness season was inevitable, and of little risk to themselves and their children. On top of this, the struggle to balance work and child care already made it difficult for many families to get vaccinated. Because the vaccine didn’t prevent infections altogether, many parents believed it was not worth the added effort.

Canada needs a new approach

Canada does not have the resources to continue this yearly severe illness cycle. Without better uptake of seasonal vaccines, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes year after year, resulting in more needless deaths and health system crises.

Clear and consistent messaging is key, and the messages of provincial leaders must match those of the federal government. Our research shows that all levels of government have a role to play in building public trust in seasonal vaccines, and in making sure those shots are accessible to everyone. Vaccines must be available freely, widely and early, without pre-booking and payment requirements.

The tragedy of patients dying while waiting for care in a busy emergency room illustrates the dangers of overcrowded facilities. Higher vaccination rates could help prevent respiratory illnesses from overwhelming hospitals. Our governments need to step up and step forward to build public trust and accessibility for seasonal vaccines.

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

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

Amy Kaler 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. The flu is everywhere. So why aren’t Canadians getting vaccinated for viral illnesses? – https://theconversation.com/the-flu-is-everywhere-so-why-arent-canadians-getting-vaccinated-for-viral-illnesses-273354

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Wolfgang Alschner, Hyman Soloway Chair in Business and Trade Law, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

When United States President Trump imposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico in early 2025, the two countries reacted very differently. Canada led with an “elbows up” campaign involving counter-tariffs and boycotts of American alcohol.

Mexico, by contrast, struck a more conciliatory tone and cautiously started to align its trade policy with the U.S. As Canada prepares for a turbulent 2026, Mexico’s experience offers valuable lessons.

Both Mexico and Canada depend heavily on trade with the U.S: both send three-quarters of their exports there. The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) underpins tariff-free access to the U.S. for most North American goods. But the deal is in jeopardy.

The U.S. alleges Mexico and Canada are being used as trans-shipment hubs for Chinese goods. These tensions will come to a head in July 2026 when CUSMA is up for review.

Mexico’s calibrated response

To pre-empt American concerns, Mexico has begun cautiously aligning with U.S. trade policy. As early as 2023, it pledged to work with the U.S. on foreign investment screening to address security issues around rising Chinese investment.

In late December 2025, Mexico followed up by raising tariffs on 1,400 Chinese items to between 35 to 50 per cent, including in sectors like electric vehicles and steel.

It would be wrong to dismiss these measures as capitulations to American demands. Instead, Mexico has cleverly navigated trade tensions with the U.S. while protecting its own values and interests. Mexico’s latest duty increases aim to protect domestic industries and counteract trade imbalances with China.

By raising duties only in select sectors, Mexico avoided putting duties on everyday consumer goods, which have driven up prices in the U.S. In addition, while the U.S. is imposing tariffs on friends and foes alike, the Mexican tariffs explicitly exempt countries with which it has free-trade agreements, supporting its broader trade diversification agenda.

Unlike the U.S. tariffs, which violate international trade law, Mexico’s measures are also fully consistent with its international obligations. As a developing country, Mexico committed to higher tariff ceilings at the World Trade Organization (WTO) than the U.S. This allows it to unilaterally raise tariffs up to the maximum levels permitted under international trade law.

Although China has criticized the move, Mexico’s non-discriminatory application of tariffs to all non-FTA partners avoids singling out any specific country and is legal.

Alignment without subordination

Mexico’s strategy offers a template for aligning with the U.S. without sacrificing sovereignty or respect for the rule of law. It is a far cry from a full North American customs union that some hope to achieve as part of the upcoming CUSMA review, which would unduly tie Mexican and Canadian trade policy to the whims of Washington, D.C.

It also demonstrates Mexico’s ability to walk the tight rope of seeking common ground with the U.S. while diversifying its trade and protecting its industry.

It is also superior to alternative ways of aligning with the U.S. Deals struck by the U.S. with Malaysia and Cambodia committed these countries to aligning with American import restrictions and export controls whenever it is in the U.S. national interest, effectively forcing them to forgo an autonomous trade policy altogether.

Canada also learned its lesson when it copied an illegal 100 per cent U.S. tariff on Chinese electric vehicles in 2024, only to face both U.S. auto tariffs and Chinese retaliation the following year.

Smartly, Ottawa has now partially reversed course by agreeing to allow 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles into the Canadian market at a tariff rate of 6.1 per cent. In return, China is expected to lower tariffs on Canadian canola to 15 per cent by March.

What Canada should do differently

In 2026, Canada will feel growing pressure to align with some U.S. trade-restrictive measures and, like Mexico, should do so smartly. Unlike Mexico, Canada has lower tariff bindings and cannot raise import duties without violating its commitments. Canada needs a bespoke approach, similar to Mexico’s, but implemented differently.

First, Canada should renegotiate its tariff bindings at the WTO in sectors critical to its industrial base. The European Union, for example, is preparing to increase its tariffs on imported steel by renegotiating its bindings at the WTO. This would provide a long-term solution offering predictability for both the affected Canadian sectors and trading partners and would be fully lawful.

In the steel sector, this route is preferable to the current Canadian tariff-rate quota regime, which is both WTO-illegal and hitting Canada’s closest free-trade agreement partners hard.

Second, Canada should actively pursue safeguard measures in sectors affected by trade diversion. U.S. tariffs have closed off the American market and diverted goods to Canada.

Safeguards are WTO-compliant trade defence instruments explicitly designed to counteract an unexpected surge of imports threatening serious injury to a domestic industry. That scenario has already played out in the Canadian lumber and downstream industry and will likely affect other sectors subject to U.S. tariffs.

Third, using the recent rapprochement with China as a blueprint, Canada should strive for similarly nuanced solutions in future partnerships. Rather than dropping electric vehicle tariffs altogether, Canada has negotiated a compromise that let some Chinese vehicles in, but not enough to endanger either its domestic auto-sector or relations with the U.S.

As U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer recently stated, the U.S. is not asking its trading partners to mirror its trade policy. Rather, it’s looking for “similar trade actions” with “equivalent restrictive effect.”

This pragmatic formulation allowed Mexico to have its cake and eat it too: selectively align with the U.S. in key sectors to preserve its market access, protect domestic industries from trade diversion and avoid upsetting key trading partners elsewhere through WTO-illegal actions. Canada would be wise to follow Mexico’s lead. The recent China deal is a step in the right direction.

Wolfgang Alschner has received research grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. What Canada can learn from Mexico’s approach to U.S. trade – https://theconversation.com/what-canada-can-learn-from-mexicos-approach-to-u-s-trade-273101

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

The death of Prashant Sreekumar made headlines across Canada when the 43-year-old father of three died in the emergency room of Edmonton’s Grey Nuns hospital after waiting for eight hours with chest pains.

Recently, there have been other reports of preventable deaths in Alberta ERs. Alberta doctors have called the emergency room situation a disaster, citing a tsunami of seasonal respiratory illnesses that have overwhelmed hospitals and led to crowded emergency departments.

Widespread vaccination for common respiratory illnesses, including COVID-19 and the flu, would help to relieve the pressure on hospitals. Yet vaccination rates for seasonal illness are falling across Canada. Our research shows that conflicting messages across levels of government and skepticism about whether the vaccines work may be helping to fuel the emergency-room surge.

This winter is not the first bad virus season in Alberta, nor is it the first time we’ve seen patients die waiting for care. During the 2022-23 viral illness season, a “tripledemic” of viruses rolled across the country, as COVID-19, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) circulated simultaneously.

Our research showed how this tripledemic also slammed working parents trying to maintain their jobs while they and their children were infected over and over again.

This year could prove even worse. The 2025-26 season marks a new height in influenza cases, rising above a three-season high. Hospitals across the country have been flooded with patients, and burnt-out health-care workers have been putting in extra shifts.

Despite all of this — and the overwhelming research that shows influenza vaccines keep people out of the hospital — fewer Canadians are getting vaccinated. With declining seasonal vaccination rates each year, Canada now falls far short of the vaccination coverage needed to protect at-risk groups such as seniors or people with chronic illness, which is 80 per cent.

Who do Canadians trust on health care?

Our research explored parental decision-making in Alberta during the tripledemic to understand why, or why not, people get themselves and their kids vaccinated for COVID-19 and influenza. Using Viewpoint Alberta survey data, we found that who parents trust and the messages governments provide around vaccination strongly influence whether they and their kids get shots.

During the pandemic, parents in Alberta faced conflicting messages from governments. Despite the promotion of vaccination by the federal government and public health agencies, the provincial United Conservative Party government took a strong stance against enforcing COVID-19 protective measures. For those who trusted the provincial government, this essentially negated any pro-vaccination messaging provided by other institutions.

Our study found that those who trusted the federal government as a source of health information were more likely to have vaccinated their children for COVID-19 than those who supported the Alberta government’s messaging. The same was true for those who trusted Alberta Health Services and the Chief Medical Officer of Health. Those who placed their trust in the elected UCP government had much lower vaccination rates.

Trust is important, but it’s not the only factor keeping seasonal vaccination rates low. The question of who is perceived to benefit from vaccination also shaped parents’ decisions.

Are seasonal vaccines worth the trouble?

In addition to looking at survey data, we also interviewed parents to better understand how they made their decisions regarding seasonal vaccination for themselves and their children.

We were surprised to learn that after repeated viral illness infections, parents were actually less likely to vaccinate their children. Persistent illness contributed to a sense that infection was both inevitable and mild, often not even worth preventing. Some parents were also skeptical of the novelty of the COVID-19 vaccine compared to more established vaccinations, despite assurances from health-care professionals.

These parents did not hold “anti-vaxxer” beliefs; instead they believed that viral illness season was inevitable, and of little risk to themselves and their children. On top of this, the struggle to balance work and child care already made it difficult for many families to get vaccinated. Because the vaccine didn’t prevent infections altogether, many parents believed it was not worth the added effort.

Canada needs a new approach

Canada does not have the resources to continue this yearly severe illness cycle. Without better uptake of seasonal vaccines, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes year after year, resulting in more needless deaths and health system crises.

Clear and consistent messaging is key, and the messages of provincial leaders must match those of the federal government. Our research shows that all levels of government have a role to play in building public trust in seasonal vaccines, and in making sure those shots are accessible to everyone. Vaccines must be available freely, widely and early, without pre-booking and payment requirements.

The tragedy of patients dying while waiting for care in a busy emergency room illustrates the dangers of overcrowded facilities. Higher vaccination rates could help prevent respiratory illnesses from overwhelming hospitals. Our governments need to step up and step forward to build public trust and accessibility for seasonal vaccines.

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

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

Amy Kaler 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. The flu is everywhere. So why aren’t Canadians getting vaccinated for viral illness? – https://theconversation.com/the-flu-is-everywhere-so-why-arent-canadians-getting-vaccinated-for-viral-illness-273354

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Andrew Stevens, Associate Professor, Faculty of Business Administration, University of Regina

In October 2025, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith invoked back-to-work legislation to end a strike by tens of thousands of the province’s teachers who had walked off the job over disputes around wages, class sizes and working conditions.

The legislation, known as the Back to School Act, forced the 51,000 striking teachers back to work and legislated a collective agreement that had been previously rejected by teachers during bargaining.

Smith also invoked the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The clause is a constitutional provision that allows legislatures to override certain Charter protections, including the right to the freedom of association, which underlies the ability to strike.

This move was the latest in a long history of anti-union legislation in Alberta. The election of the United Conservative Party (UCP), led by former Premier Jason Kenney in 2019, heralded a return to anti-labour policies under the guise of “restoring balance” to what Conservatives perceived to be the NDP’s excessively pro-labour and pro-union reforms.

Both Kenney and, later, Smith reversed several changes introduced by Rachel Notley’s NDP government. Under the NDP, basic workplace rights were extended to non-family farm workers, first contract arbitration was introduced, remedial certification measures enacted and the right to strike and bargaining collectively was formally extended to the post-secondary sector.

The UCP reversed these gains.

Despite these obstacles, organized labour continues to make important gains in Alberta, Canada’s most anti-union province. Our new report draws on Statistics Canada data to examine the economic impact of unionization in Alberta.

Why unions matter

The benefits of unionization are well established. Unions can decrease income inequality and push for policy changes that benefit all workers and people with a stake in their work and service environments, as in the case of teachers advocating for smaller class sizes.

Organized labour also contributes to the fabric of democratic societies in many ways, including by advancing sustainable development.

This role is particularly critical now, in a period defined by affordability crises and accusations of authoritarianism south of the border. Unions provide one of the few mechanisms through which workers can push back and secure fair treatment in the workplace.

Unionization also provides stronger outcomes for women, immigrant workers and young workers. While unionized men in Alberta earned four per cent more than their non-unionized counterparts, unionized women earn 19 per cent more than their non-unionized counterparts.

Collective bargaining stalls or even reverses gendered and immigration status-based pay inequities. Unionization helps shrink the gender wage gap from 19 to eight per cent, and the usual pay gap between Canadian-born workers and immigrants is either eliminated or reversed in some industries.

The material impact of unionization

Even in provinces like Alberta, where union density rates are relatively low, unions can deliver economic justice.

Our analysis of an unpublished dataset shows that unionized workers in Alberta earn $3.40 an hour more than non-unionized workers ($37.88 per hour compared to $34.48 an hour). This difference is slightly higher than the national average across Canada.

The average unionized worker earns $1,404 a week, compared with $1,296 for non-unionized colleagues working a similar number of hours. Unionized workers are also more likely to have supplementary benefits, which is especially important in lower-wage sectors like food services.

Outcomes, however, are mixed. Part-time unionized workers gain the most, earning 29 per cent more than non-unionized ($32.57 an hour compared to $22.91). Unionized full-time workers, on the other hand, only earn five per cent more — $38.83 an hour versus $36.86 an hour.

Considering that some 20 per cent of workers in Alberta are employed part-time, these differences represent a substantial economic boost for a significant portion of workers.

Variation by sector

Unionized workers in Alberta earn, on average, more than their non-unionized counterparts, but results are mixed across industries and sub-sectors. Take retail, for example. In that industry, unionized workers may appear to earn less on average, largely because a higher proportion of them work part time, which pulls down overall wages.

In Alberta’s oil and gas sector, there is near parity between unionized and non-unionized workers when it comes to wages.

Even in health care and education, where many workers are unionized, collective bargaining can yield different outcomes within sectors.

In construction, some sub-sectors with fewer unionized workers actually show stronger wage gains than areas where unions are more established. These differences are shaped by a combination of industry-specific economic conditions, how wages are set by unions and how employers respond to union activity. Other variables, such as age, sex, education and tenure, also matter.

Political implications

For young workers, unions deliver the strongest wage advantages, even when accounting for other human capital variables like education levels and work experience. This is especially notable given that young workers are less likely to be unionized overall.

In both Canada and the United States, young workers demonstrate stronger positive opinions of unionization than their older co-workers, offering potential for unions seeking to grow their ranks provided they organize.

Alberta’s unions face significant political obstacles, but the evidence shows their resilience pays off for working people. That resilience should serve as an inspiration and call to action for union leaders everywhere.

Andrew Stevens receives funding from the Parkland Institute and the Government of Canada (Social Science and Humanities Research Council).

Angèle Poirier received funding from the Parkland Institute for work related to this article.

– ref. Organized labour continues to make gains in Canada’s most anti-union province – https://theconversation.com/organized-labour-continues-to-make-gains-in-canadas-most-anti-union-province-273568

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

While it’s true that many Canadians would benefit from more exercise and from improving the quality of their diet, research shows that society often blames nutrition problems and food insecurity on personal choices like lack of willpower and imperfect parenting.

However, this thinking largely ignores the well-established social and political factors that shape food choices, nutrition-related chronic disease and Canada’s declining ranking in life expectancy.

Food insecurity in Canada worsened for the third year in a row in 2024, setting another national record, with more than 25 per cent of the population living in households with inadequate access to food due to financial constraints.

We are contributors to the Hungry Stories Project, a growing team of scholars, dietitians and artists who are fighting for the elimination of food insecurity by sharing what it takes to collectively care for each other’s food needs. We are advocating for more comprehensive, accurate and engaging information about the root causes of nutrition inequalities.

Why food banks can’t solve hunger

Food insecurity is a structural issue that is primarily a problem of insufficient income.

Decades of research evidence confirm that food insecurity cannot be solved by providing food through charities such as food banks and soup kitchens. At best, these non-governmental mechanisms may temporarily alleviate hunger for some people. For many reasons, most people living with food insecurity do not access food banks at all.

Research shows that when more people have adequate incomes, food insecurity declines, and that policy changes are essential to ensure that wages, social assistance and pension rates provide a livable income and greater income equality.

In The Case for Basic Income, Jamie Swift and Elaine Power share personal stories of Canadians who participated in the 2017–19 Ontario Basic Income Pilot and unpack the history behind the movement for basic income. They explain why wealth should be built by society, not individuals, and why everyone should have an unconditional right to a fair share.

This thoughtful book helps us consider whether a basic income guarantee could be the way forward to intervene where the market economy and social programs fail.

---

Read more:
Dear politicians: To solve our food bank crisis, curb corporate greed and implement a basic income

---

Teaching kids about the causes of food insecurity

This reality doesn’t affect only adults. How children come to understand the issue is shaped by how we talk about it as a society.

Based on a detailed analysis of children’s books for middle-grade readers, we noticed that most children’s fiction suggests individual choices or life circumstances are to blame for food insecurity and that charity, kind strangers and luck are the solutions. Children seldom see realistic portrayals of the structural causes, consequences or experiences of food insecurity.

This gives them, at best, an incomplete understanding of the social and political issues that produce the problem. Young readers need opportunities to learn about the experiences and belief systems of others.

In an effort to rectify the gaps in available materials for children, Dian Day and Amanda White, two of the artist-scholars in the Hungry Stories Project, teamed up to create the graphic novel Shy Cat and the Stuff-the-Bus Challenge slated to be published by Second Story Press on March 3, 2026.

This is the first book catalyzed by the collective, offering a fresh and relatable story about friendship, neighbourhood cats and growing up, while also creating space for hard conversations with kids about why people go hungry in the first place. It offers ideas for reflection and collective action, without providing easy or simplistic answers.

Through quirky Shy Cat comics, the main character Mila imagines many creative solutions to food insecurity, but reality is more complicated: The food bank is only open one day a week, the community garden plots are all spoken for, people are protesting in front of City Hall — and Mila’s friend Kit is still hungry.

It’s important to show children that they have agency in sparking collective change, that they can grapple with complex questions and consider structural solutions.

The transformational potential of school food programs

In 2025, the federal government announced its plan to make Canada’s emerging National School Food Program permanent. The choices being made now will shape whether these programs reduce inequality or reproduce it.

Most Canadian children now rely on lunches packed from home (or go without) on school days, and Canada has been ranked among the worst performing affluent countries in terms of investments in children’s well-being and nutrition.

For school food programs to reach their full potential to serve as a form of community care and a tool for advancing health, education, justice, food sovereignty and sustainability, schools, parents and communities will need ideas and resources to help envision and build the future of school food.

The 2024 book Transforming School Food Politics around the World provides examples of how people from a diverse range of global contexts have successfully challenged and changed programs that fall short of these ideals.

It spotlights the potential of school food systems, and how change depends on valuing the gendered labour that goes into caring for, feeding and educating children. In the Canadian chapter, Jennifer Black teamed up with scholars and school food practitioners to describe valuable ways to think more broadly about health and nutrition in school food programs to actively address issues of justice and equity.

But if we are to galvanize a positive change, we must also pay attention to diverse voices and lived experiences.

Learning to listen to diverse voices about food experiences

Left of Dial Media, the creators of the newly released Tubby podcast, recently published the Essential Listening Poll, a helpful guide gathered by 300 scholars, audio creators, podcast hosts and writers from around the world. However, it’s a challenge finding Canadian podcasts that look beyond individual behaviour changes and address the wider food systems that shape these choices.

To fill this gap, in 2025, the editors of the journal Canadian Food Studies launched Digesting Food Studies, a podcast that helps break down research on food systems into manageable portions. Episodes tackle topics ranging from food justice and sustainability to infant food insecurity, Indigenous food sovereignty and school food.
Meaningful improvements in health will require shifts in public policy. To get there, now more than ever, we need more evidence-based stories that mobilize the public to envision and advocate for better solutions to food insecurity.

Jennifer Black receives 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.

Jennifer is also the little sister of Alan Black, the founder of Left of Dial media mentioned in this article.

Amanda White receives funding from The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, The Canada Research Chairs program, and The Canada Foundation for Innovation.

Elaine Power receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

– ref. Why we need to talk about the root causes of food insecurity – https://theconversation.com/why-we-need-to-talk-about-the-root-causes-of-food-insecurity-272796

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Blayne Haggart, Associate Professor of Political Science, Brock University

Over the past year, few words have been abused as much as “sovereignty,” particularly in relation to Canadian digital policy and artificial intelligence. In early December, Microsoft promised to invest more than $7.5 billion over the next two years to build “new digital and AI infrastructure” in Canada. This investment is backed by a pledge that it will “stand up to defend” Canadian digital sovereignty.

Framing the investment in terms of protecting Canadian sovereignty isn’t incidental. Politically, countries are increasingly worried that tech companies based in the United States are vulnerable to pressure from the increasingly authoritarian government of President Donald Trump to turn over foreign citizens’ data, trade secrets, emails and any activity or metadata produced on their systems to the U.S. government.

If you’re wondering how investments in essential digital infrastructure from a U.S. company can help protect Canadian sovereignty, you’re not alone. It can’t and it won’t, for the simple reason that Microsoft — and other tech companies based in or that do business in the United States — are promising something that’s beyond their control to deliver.

Data sovereignty

Sovereignty, in its simplest terms, refers to the ability of a state to control what happens within its borders and what crosses those borders. It has other aspects, such as whether a state is recognized by other states, but at heart it’s about control.

In June 2025 testimony before a French Senate committee examining the issue of government procurement and digital sovereignty, Microsoft France’s director of public and legal affairs, Anton Carniaux, was asked if he could guarantee under oath that data could not be transmitted to the U.S. government without the French government’s approval. He replied: “No, I cannot guarantee that, but, again, it has never happened before.”

Carniaux’s response reminds us that the U.S., through its 2018 CLOUD Act, has claimed the right to exercise control over data collected by U.S. companies, even if it’s stored outside the country. In other words, American law explicitly requires that U.S. law takes precedence over other countries’ laws.

This is a clear infringement of any definition of sovereignty in terms of control. In response, Microsoft has promised to write “into contracts that Microsoft will challenge any government demand for Canadian data where it has legal grounds to.”

While meant to sound reassuring, Microsoft’s promise is less than it appears. Not only does their commitment leave it up to Microsoft and U.S. courts to determine the validity of any demand, but the law itself is only half of the problem.

Mass surveillance

The mass illegal surveillance of global communications by U.S. intelligence agencies, revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013, was abetted by American tech companies. The U.S. National Security Agency collected vast amounts of data on people around the world, including non-American citizens, by tapping into internet firm servers.

American companies are uniquely beholden to pressure from the U.S. government. They depend on the government to negotiate favourable international agreements, and also as a major purchaser of their goods and services.

As research by York University criminology professor Natasha Tusikov has shown, the U.S. also engages in “shadow regulation,” putting pressure on private companies to fulfil government objectives that go beyond what’s required by law — even, as Tusikov discusses, pursuing policies that have been explicitly rejected by democratically elected legislatures.

All that happened before the Trump era. And given his clear contempt for the principle of sovereignty and American tech companies’ close ties with the government, U.S. abuse of the non-American data held by its tech companies is certainly a possibility.

Carney government vague about sovereignty

As misleading as Microsoft’s promises may be, it’s the Canadian government that’s playing the loosest with digital sovereignty talk. Prime Minister Mark Carney arguably won the federal election on his promise to protect Canadian sovereignty against a rapacious United States.

While the prime minister has promised a “Canadian sovereign cloud,” it is unclear what exactly this means. Evan Solomon, Canada’s minister in charge of promoting AI, has expressed openness to including U.S. companies like OpenAI (a Microsoft partner) in Canada’s sovereign cloud, indicating that it could include “hybrid models” with “multiple players.”

Solomon has also argued that “sovereignty does not mean solitude … we can’t look at AI as a walled-off garden. Like, ‛Oh, we cannot ever take money from X or Y.’”

It’s true that sovereignty is never absolute. The real world is much messier than a world divided into neat, discrete packages that the principle of territorial sovereignty implies. No community or state is fully self-sufficient.

We live in a global world of economic and social connections. Global governance involves a mix of domestic laws, international agreements and formal and informal cross-border working relationships. Countries benefit when they can draw on expertise and resources they lack at home.

But Microsoft’s and Solomon’s comments elide the deeper issue that come from focusing too much on abstract notions like “sovereignty.” Canada’s problem isn’t a loss of Canadian sovereignty in the abstract. It’s a U.S. that has violated Venezuela’s sovereignty, threatened others (including Canada) with annexation and is led by a president who has declared himself above international law.

Reasserting control

Sovereignty is about control. In the digital era, power lies with those who control the software and the data. Canada’s problem is that American companies control enormous swaths of Canada’s essential digital infrastructure, including emerging AI technologies and cloud services, but also email and the increasingly networked office software that underpin our entire society.

There’s a reason why France and Germany are collaborating on an alternative to Google Docs.

So long as the U.S cannot be trusted to respect domestic and international laws, companies based or working in the U.S are vulnerable to political pressure. This could potentially include capturing Canadians’ data for political and economic reasons, and cutting off our access to their products or limiting their functionality.

These hard facts about control, rather than abstract musings about sovereignty, should be our starting points for discussions about Canadian digital policy.

Blayne Haggart has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. Microsoft’s AI deal promises Canada digital sovereignty, but is that a pledge it can keep? – https://theconversation.com/microsofts-ai-deal-promises-canada-digital-sovereignty-but-is-that-a-pledge-it-can-keep-272890

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Zhixi Zhuang, Associate Professor, School of Urban and Regional Planning, Toronto Metropolitan University

International students in Canada are vulnerable to housing insecurity and exploitation in the rental market.

Across Canada, students are grappling with record-high rents, low vacancy rates and widespread housing shortages. International students, however, experience these pressures in uniquely severe and unequal ways.

Many of them are unfamiliar with local rental markets and have small social networks. As well, they often have limited knowledge of their rights and often face uncertain immigration and financial situations.

As a result, international students are especially vulnerable to rental discrimination, housing insecurity, financial exploitation and even homelessness.

Ongoing research I’m conducting with colleagues highlights the responsibilities of governments and institutions who are obligated to uphold the housing rights of international students. Researchers have included Rupa Banerjee, Mariam (Mo) El Toukhy, Jack Krywulak and Rushde Akbar from Toronto Metropolitan University, and Sandeep Agrawal and Pradeep Sangapala from the University of Alberta.

This research examines the accountability measures and actions governments and institutions must take to ensure students’ rights are preserved using the Rights and Responsibility framework developed by researcher Kathryn Sikkink.

Based on our preliminary findings, grounded partly in interviews with
students as well as research dialogue at a housing symposium, we offer urgent recommendations.

Housing is human right

Housing is widely recognized as a basic human right. Yet, international students often lack protection when securing safe and affordable housing.

They are also unfairly blamed for worsening Canada’s housing crisis.

Across the Global North, the lack of accessible and affordable housing has put international students at risk of housing insecurity. While financial instability is one main cause, many students also experience exploitation.

This includes overcrowded housing, rent hikes, forced evictions, illegal upfront rent payments, rental scams and harassment from landlords.

These negative housing experiences are linked to growing mental distress. Many students struggle to meet basic daily needs, such as food and shelter, and they face barriers to social integration. These vulnerabilities put international students at risk of psychological, academic and financial stress.

Limited support regarding tenant rights

International students also frequently report discrimination based on their status, race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. These challenges are worsened by the limited support higher education institutions provide regarding tenant rights or finding safe, stable long-term housing.

Canada formally acknowledges housing as a basic human right under the National Housing Strategy Act of 2019. Through this legislation, the federal government has committed to ensuring that everyone in Canada has access to adequate housing. For international students, this means the right to live in safe, secure, affordable and adequate conditions.

But many international students are denied this right. Unfairly high rent, unsafe living conditions and discrimination often leave them living in severely inadequate conditions, all while being scapegoated for Canada’s growing housing pressures.

Root causes

In January 2024, the federal government capped international student visas to approximately 360,000. The 2025 budget also proposes cutting study permits by over half within three years.

Rather than addressing the longstanding housing crisis, this approach wrongly shifts blame onto international students, further marginalizing them and risking lasting harm to their health, academic success and future careers.

Current housing policies are outdated and lack intergovernmental co-ordination. This has worsened the country’s housing crisis by creating regulatory bottlenecks, misaligned incentives, inadequate development of affordable housing and insufficient co-ordination among stakeholders across sectors.

Government policies affecting student housing are complex and fragmented. They involve overlapping jurisdictions, including federal immigration decisions (like visa caps), provincial education mandates (such as student recruitment goals) and municipal zoning rules that regulate student housing development.

Not addressing housing needs

Canada’s National International Education Strategy (2019–24) incentivized universities and colleges to boost international student enrolment through grants tied to tuition revenue.

Institutional dependence on these fees grew, but the strategy was not accompanied by housing funding. Similarly, provinces regulate only domestic tuition, allowing institutions to maximize their reliance on international fees without addressing housing needs.

At the municipal level, zoning bylaws have also acted as barriers to student housing.

---

Read more:
International students’ housing challenges call for policy action

---

All levels of government should create formal avenues for collaboration on housing issues, while higher education institutions should play a key role in leading student housing development.

There is a clear need for co-ordinated action to address the policy, infrastructure and human rights dimensions of these challenges. Existing research rarely examines the role of multisectoral partnerships — or how key stakeholders, such as governments, higher education institutions, housing developers and community organizations should collaborate.

Research with students, stakeholders

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 international students from 14 countries, representing 10 higher education institutions from across southern Ontario — as well as with two private and non-profit housing developers, two student housing providers and one higher education representative.

Drawing on interview insights, we conducted an online survey with nearly 1,800 Ontario and Alberta international and domestic students.

Our findings echo recent studies showing that limited institutional services and resources, combined with poor governmental policy co-ordination, have left international students disproportionately vulnerable to exploitation and discrimination in housing markets.

Many turn to digital platforms, such as Facebook Marketplace, Kijiji and other rental agencies, in addition to social media, for housing information and resources. However, as several students from Nigeria, China and Cambodia reported, many online housing options are scams, including listings with false information and demands for six to 12 months of rent paid upfront. There is clearly an urgent need for safer and more reliable digital student housing infrastructure.

In the survey, international students reported greater stress during their housing search, heightened financial anxiety and more negative housing experiences compared to their domestic counterparts.

Key takeaways

1. International students’ lived experiences must be central to multi-level interventions. Their perspectives should be prioritized in shaping future housing policies and services.

2. Higher education institutions are in the best position to provide pre-/post-arrival online resources and guides to support international students in navigating safe and appropriate housing and protecting their housing rights.

3. Social integration and connections with the wider community help shape students’ well-being. Universities and colleges should facilitate opportunities for civic participation and community building through both on-campus and off-campus housing arrangements. This requires engaging community organizations and non-governmental organizations in building long-term partnerships focused on shared housing, digital infrastructure, legal protection and rights advocacy.

4. The fragmentation between immigration, education and housing policies requires special co-ordination. This project calls for an intergovernmental student housing task force as a platform for federal, provincial and municipal governments to work in tandem with universities and colleges.

5. Student housing developments should be incentivized, as current housing approval processes are often lengthy, complex and inconsistent. Fast-track reviews and standardized guidelines are needed. Current zoning regulations in many jurisdictions primarily recognize higher education institutions as legitimate student housing developers, requiring other private or non-profit developers to seek zoning amendments or institutional partnerships.

These rules should be expanded to allow private and non-profit developers, multi-tenant buildings and the reuse of commercial or office spaces. Student housing should also be developed near campuses with shared space designs to help students connect socially.

International students contribute significantly to Canada’s culture, prosperity and global standing. Urgent action is needed to protect these students’ rights and well-being while fostering community cohesion and long-term sustainability.

Zhixi Zhuang receives funding from Migrant Integration in the Mid-21st Century: Bridging Divides, a research program funded by the Government of Canada through the Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF).

– ref. Nowhere to stay: Canada needs a rights and responsibility approach to international student housing – https://theconversation.com/nowhere-to-stay-canada-needs-a-rights-and-responsibility-approach-to-international-student-housing-267080

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Blayne Haggart, Associate Professor of Political Science, Brock University

Over the past year, few words have been abused as much as “sovereignty,” particularly in relation to Canadian digital policy and artificial intelligence. In early December, Microsoft promised to invest more than $7.5 billion over the next two years to build “new digital and AI infrastructure” in Canada. This investment is backed by a pledge that it will “stand up to defend” Canadian digital sovereignty.

Framing the investment in terms of protecting Canadian sovereignty isn’t incidental. Politically, countries are increasingly worried that tech companies based in the United States are vulnerable to pressure from the increasingly authoritarian government of President Donald Trump to turn over foreign citizens’ data, trade secrets, emails and any activity or metadata produced on their systems to the U.S. government.

If you’re wondering how investments in essential digital infrastructure from a U.S. company can help protect Canadian sovereignty, you’re not alone. It can’t and it won’t, for the simple reason that Microsoft — and other tech companies based in or that do business in the United States — are promising something that’s beyond their control to deliver.

Data sovereignty

Sovereignty, in its simplest terms, refers to the ability of a state to control what happens within its borders and what crosses those borders. It has other aspects, such as whether a state is recognized by other states, but at heart it’s about control.

In June 2025 testimony before a French Senate committee examining the issue of government procurement and digital sovereignty, Microsoft France’s director of public and legal affairs, Anton Carniaux, was asked if he could guarantee under oath that data could not be transmitted to the U.S. government without the French government’s approval. He replied: “No, I cannot guarantee that, but, again, it has never happened before.”

Carniaux’s response reminds us that the U.S., through its 2018 CLOUD Act, has claimed the right to exercise control over data collected by U.S. companies, even if it’s stored outside the country. In other words, American law explicitly requires that U.S. law takes precedence over other countries’ laws.

This is a clear infringement of any definition of sovereignty in terms of control. In response, Microsoft has promised to write “into contracts that Microsoft will challenge any government demand for Canadian data where it has legal grounds to.”

While meant to sound reassuring, Microsoft’s promise is less than it appears. Not only does their commitment leave it up to Microsoft and U.S. courts to determine the validity of any demand, but the law itself is only half of the problem.

Mass surveillance

The mass illegal surveillance of global communications by U.S. intelligence agencies, revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013, was abetted by American tech companies. The U.S. National Security Agency collected vast amounts of data on people around the world, including non-American citizens, by tapping into internet firm servers.

American companies are uniquely beholden to pressure from the U.S. government. They depend on the government to negotiate favourable international agreements, and also as a major purchaser of their goods and services.

As research by York University criminology professor Natasha Tusikov has shown, the U.S. also engages in “shadow regulation,” putting pressure on private companies to fulfil government objectives that go beyond what’s required by law — even, as Tusikov discusses, pursuing policies that have been explicitly rejected by democratically elected legislatures.

All that happened before the Trump era. And given his clear contempt for the principle of sovereignty and American tech companies’ close ties with the government, U.S. abuse of the non-American data held by its tech companies is certainly a possibility.

Carney government vague about sovereignty

As misleading as Microsoft’s promises may be, it’s the Canadian government that’s playing the loosest with digital sovereignty talk. Prime Minister Mark Carney arguably won the federal election on his promise to protect Canadian sovereignty against a rapacious United States.

While the prime minister has promised a “Canadian sovereign cloud,” it is unclear what exactly this means. Evan Solomon, Canada’s minister in charge of promoting AI, has expressed openness to including U.S. companies like OpenAI (a Microsoft partner) in Canada’s sovereign cloud, indicating that it could include “hybrid models” with “multiple players.”

Solomon has also argued that “sovereignty does not mean solitude … we can’t look at AI as a walled-off garden. Like, ‛Oh, we cannot ever take money from X or Y.’”

It’s true that sovereignty is never absolute. The real world is much messier than a world divided into neat, discrete packages that the principle of territorial sovereignty implies. No community or state is fully self-sufficient.

We live in a global world of economic and social connections. Global governance involves a mix of domestic laws, international agreements and formal and informal cross-border working relationships. Countries benefit when they can draw on expertise and resources they lack at home.

But Microsoft’s and Solomon’s comments elide the deeper issue that come from focusing too much on abstract notions like “sovereignty.” Canada’s problem isn’t a loss of Canadian sovereignty in the abstract. It’s a U.S. that has violated Venezuela’s sovereignty, threatened others (including Canada) with annexation and is led by a president who has declared himself above international law.

Reasserting control

Sovereignty is about control. In the digital era, power lies with those who control the software and the data. Canada’s problem is that American companies control enormous swaths of Canada’s essential digital infrastructure, including emerging AI technologies and cloud services, but also email and the increasingly networked office software that underpin our entire society.

There’s a reason why France and Germany are collaborating on an alternative to Google Docs.

So long as the U.S cannot be trusted to respect domestic and international laws, companies based or working in the U.S are vulnerable to political pressure. This could potentially include capturing Canadians’ data for political and economic reasons, and cutting off our access to their products or limiting their functionality.

These hard facts about control, rather than abstract musings about sovereignty, should be our starting points for discussions about Canadian digital policy.

Blayne Haggart has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. Microsoft’s AI deal promises Canada digital sovereignty, but is that a pledge they can keep? – https://theconversation.com/microsofts-ai-deal-promises-canada-digital-sovereignty-but-is-that-a-pledge-they-can-keep-272890

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Shirin Khayambashi, Assistant Professor, Sociology, Toronto Metropolitan University

For Iranians, the past year has meant contending with everyday necessities slipping further and further out of reach. The cost of living has surged beyond what many households can manage, and what felt like economic strain became an economic freefall.

On Dec. 28, 2025, the Iranian rial plummeted to a historic low of 1.4 million rials per American dollar. The unprecedented inflation ignited nationwide protests demanding economic stability.

The movement began with a peaceful sit-in at Tehran’s Grand Bazaar but was immediately met with violent response by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The grassroots initiative — made up of merchants, shopkeepers, university students and anti-regime members of the general public — expanded rapidly to other major cities, drawing protesters from across Iran to the streets. The call for economic stability quickly evolved into a political demand for emancipation and freedom.

Iranians have been expressing their dissatisfaction with the current regime for decades. And although the recent protests were initiated in response to the dire economic crisis, the country’s future will depend more on whether authoritarian repression and political fragmentation — both inside its borders and across the diaspora — can be overcome.

Violence, fear and the tools of repression

Political upheaval in Iran often follows a predictable cycle: the public participates in peaceful protests in response to corruption, which are then silenced by IRGC forces through the threat or use of violence, including arrests, indefinite prison sentences and mass executions.

In the recent political unrest, the IRGC used force to control, intimidate and silence protesters. Hospitals have reportedly been instructed to reject injured protesters or face consequences, and a new law has been introduced to classify any civil disobedience as a capital crime punishable by death.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian responded to the new citizen-driven movement with a similarly callous dismissal, referring to protesters as victims of western influence. This claim has been used to justify the nationwide digital blackout.

Iranians who relied on various social media platforms to raise awareness about government violence now encounter censorship. This digital silence also affects reporters inside Iran, limiting transparency and preventing unfiltered news from being distributed out of the country.

Monarchist narratives divide the movement

The grassroots movement, however, has been hijacked by a small faction of monarchists demanding the return of Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the former shah, as the Shah of Iran. This suggestion has been met with criticism as many question both the dismissal of the real concerns of the movement inside Iran and the credibility of Pahlavi as the leader of a country in crisis.

Various groups in Iran have shown leadership and organization as they demand recognition and cultural autonomy from the government. Elevating an outside figure diminishes Iranians’ own role in driving change.

While the national protest movement requires direction and leadership, Pahlavi is seen as creating division rather than cohesion. Many argue that a return to monarchy would leave Iran in a weakened political state vulnerable to outside influences.

These concerns are tied to the 1953 coup d’état, orchestrated by the CIA and MI5, against Iran’s first democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. The shah, relying on support from the United States, removed Mossadegh from power, which strengthened the Shah’s unilateral authority.

Many political activists are wary of the dangers of a monarchy and the potential of imperialist influence over Iranian politics.

This is heightened by the fact that Pahlavi has openly requested support from U.S. President Donald Trump and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu to reinstate him as the Shah of Iran. He held a news conference in Washington ⁠D.C. on Jan. 16 to call for political, economic and military ⁠pressure on Tehran.

Disapora politics and the cost of exclusion

Shared grief and solidarity have pushed the Iranian diaspora to raise awareness and speak out for their homeland.

During the digital blackout, they used various social media platforms to amplify information about the ongoing protests. Simultaneously, Iranians abroad physically joined the global movement by participating in rallies and marches across the world.

However, the movement within the diaspora has seen some challenges.

The domination of the monarchist movement as the primary opposition to the Islamic Republic has created a divide among the communities in the diaspora. The overall friction presented as a form of in-group Islamophobia and patriarchal attitudes that stem from classism within the community.

Divisive rhetoric has also resurfaced as criticism of Pahlavi, Trump or Israel is often met with hostility and name-calling.

During the Woman, Life, Freedom uprising, the Iranian diaspora was more cohesive and welcoming to different perspectives.

---

Read more:
Iran on fire: Once again, women are on the vanguard of transformative change

---

But the current movement has become divided. An us-versus-them tension has developed in the diasporic community, as many perceive the movement as an expression of support for the monarchy. This divisive atmosphere has left many members of Iranian diasporas in a state of despair.

History suggests that moments of liberation in Iran do not fail for lack of courage, but for lack of political cohesion. The question now is whether the grassroots movement can sustain its momentum and legitimacy, and whether its demands won’t be overshadowed by external political frictions and agendas.

Shirin Khayambashi 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. What Iran’s latest protests tell us about power, memory and resistance – https://theconversation.com/what-irans-latest-protests-tell-us-about-power-memory-and-resistance-273432

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Adam Davies, Associate Professor, College of Arts, University of Guelph

Heated Rivalry, the Bell Media-produced Canadian gay hockey romance based on the novel by Rachel Reid, has taken the world by storm.
The series stars Hudson Williams as Shane Hollander, a Japanese Canadian hockey player for the Montréal Metros, and Connor Storrie as Ilya Rozanov, a Russian hockey player for the Boston Raiders.

With much of the series was filmed in Guelph, Ontario and other Canadian locations, the series highlights both Canadian hockey and queer representation and desires.

Heated Rivalry explores the growing sexual tension and eventual romance between Hollander and Rozanov as they navigate the highly masculinized and heteronormative social pressures of playing in a professional hockey league.

While the series has become a huge audience success and received largely positive critical evaluations of its acting, production and characterization, it has gained widespread attention for its representation of queer romance, particularly gay sports romance.

The show has also received media commentary for its large following of women who are fans of the show and its actors. Many have been debating and discussing the show on social media.

Given the current climate of anti-LGBTQ legislation and increased political and social transphobia and homophobia, Heated Rivalry could signal crucial queer representation during a politically dangerous time.

Hockey’s culture of masculinity

Hockey is a very heteronormative and masculinized sport and continues to face serious issues related to sexual violence and racism — problems that have been widely reported on over the past several years.

In 2022, Hockey Canada faced numerous public controversies amid reports that it paid $8.9 million for sexual abuse settlements to 21 complainants since 1989.

---

Read more:
High-profile sex assault cases — and their verdicts — have consequences for survivors seeking help

---

Research has also documented persistent racial inequities within Canadian hockey that fuel the erasure of Black Canadians’ contributions to the establishment of ice hockey in Canada, as well as historical and ongoing experiences with taunting, harassment and exclusion of racialized hockey players in Canadian hockey leagues.

Against this backdrop, Heated Rivalry offers a rare interruption to hockey’s normative culture, even as it remains constrained by many of the sport’s dominant values.

Visibility versus structural change

Whether Heated Rivalry will meaningfully impact the willingness or safety of professional players to come out is an open question. Currently, there are no openly queer hockey players in the National Hockey League.

Former Canadian hockey player Brock McGillis, who is often noted as one of the first out gay professional hockey players, has expressed skepticism. He has argued the show is “more likely to have an adverse effect on a player coming out.”

McGillis said that he enjoys the show while also explaining: “I don’t believe that many hockey bros are going to watch it. And I don’t think, if they are watching it, they’re talking about it positively.”

Meanwhile, the NHL has previously banned rainbow Pride coloured hockey stick tape. Given the popularity of Heated Rivalry, the NHL released a statement articulating its hope that the series will act as a “unique driver for creating new fans.”

Whether such symbolic gestures will translate into structural changes that address the ingrained homophobia within hockey remains to be seen.

Representation and intersectionality

Within my research, I analyze issues related to gender and sexuality, often particularly as it pertains to the experiences of gay and queer men.

For many gay men, navigating masculinity is complicated in terms of both in-group and out-group discrimination. It is not uncommon for white, muscular and masculine-presenting gay men to receive the most media attention and be positioned as highly desirable within gay men’s communities.

Heated Rivalry provides valuable representation for gay male romance and sexualities, but it also raises important questions about both its potential and its limitations.

Shane Hollander’s character gestures toward the intersections of race and sexuality through his experiences as an Asian hockey player, although this storyline could have been explored further in the series. Ilya Rozanov’s narrative, meanwhile,
explores family-based and nationalistic homophobia through his background as a Russian-born queer man.

Although both characters benefit from financial and gender-based privileges that many LGBTQ people do not share, their experiences navigating identity and homophobia as it intersects with family, state-sanctioned homophobia and race and ethnicity, are meaningful for viewers.

However, much of the storyline still focuses on the experiences of two men who are traditionally attractive, fit and muscular, and masculine-presenting. This echoes much of the mainstream queer representation, which glorifies fit male bodies and gay gym cultures.

The limits of mainstream representation

Many mainstream representations of queer identities, such as the 2018 film Love Simon, fail to represent the nuances and complexities of multifaceted queer experiences and identities outside of white, masculine and upper-middle class norms.

Gay media platforms such as Grindr, the well-known gay hook-up app, are known for emphasizing fit bodies, muscular physiques and gym or beach selfies. These norms can lead to forms of discrimination or prejudice against app users who do not conform, as well as body dysmorphia and body image issues that disproportionately affect gay and queer men.

Gay men’s sexualities, dating and relationships are often shaped through shame and secrecy, fuelling tropes that gay men are unable to form healthy and meaningful long-term romantic relationships.

Much of Heated Rivalry emphasizes secrecy, shame and risk as the two main characters wrestle with their romantic feelings for each other.
While this might reflect the realities many queer men face, positioning such experiences as normative risks reinforcing longstanding negative stereotypes.

Queer joy — and what’s still missing

Heated Rivalry’s creator and writer, Jacob Tierney — himself a gay writer, actor and producer — has emphasized that the end of the first season is intended to be more celebratory than earlier episodes.

“For these last two episodes,” he told journalist Philiana Ng, “you’re going to finally get the joy that we wanted from the beginning – just queer joy, pure happiness and sweetness and love and all that other good stuff.”

However, there has been controversy about the show’s stars’ and creator’s resistance towards publicly identifying the lead actors’ sexual orientations. Given the common practice of having straight and cisgender actors play queer and trans characters in film and media, questions regarding authenticity in LGBTQ representation continue.

It’s worth noting, however, that Heated Rivalry does feature openly queer performers. François Arnaud, who plays Scott Hunter, is openly bisexual, and trans actor Harrison Browne — a former professional hockey player — stars in a minor role.

Tierney has pushed back at questions about the main actors’ sexual orientations, saying “I don’t think there’s any reason to get into that stuff.” He noted that what matters is an actor’s enthusiasm and willingness to do the work, and questions about actors’ sexuality are legally off-limits in casting.

Advocates for casting queer actors in queer roles acknowledge that while respecting actors’ privacy is essential, choices can be made through the casting and production process to create a more inclusive industry.

Queer romance on the ice

Beyond questions of representation, Tierney has been clear about the show’s thematic focus. Highlighting the love story between the two main characters, he has noted how “a gay love story set in the world of hockey … is an act of rebellion” and that audiences “deserve to have a gay show that is sexy and horny and fun.”

Still, audiences deserve to have gay shows that are sexy, horny, fun and representative of a variety of lived experiences and bodies.

With Heated Rivalry renewed for a second season, whether the show “scores” in terms of shifting conversations about masculinity, sexuality and sport is still up in the air.

Adam Davies receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

– ref. ‘Heated Rivalry’ scores for queer visibility — but also exposes the limits of representation – https://theconversation.com/heated-rivalry-scores-for-queer-visibility-but-also-exposes-the-limits-of-representation-271253