Category: The Conversation – Canada

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

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

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

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

The Alaska summit

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

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

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

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

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

Ceasefire demand evaporated

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zelenskyy’s visit to Washington

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

Carefully orchestrated

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

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

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

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

Hope versus reality

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

Mark Carney’s labour dilemma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defying the law is rare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Work and gender

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A retreat disguised as progress

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why this matters

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

The myth of meritocracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What can organizations do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The way forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Gail Low, Associate Professor, Chair International Health, MacEwan University

Late midlife adults are one of Canada’s largest yet most under-recognized and over-extended resources. They quietly tend to the health and well-being of millions of younger and older people, in person or from a distance.

From August 2024 to July 2025, Canada’s late midlife adults — those between the ages of 55 and 64 — collectively worked more than 100 million hours per month in a wide range of occupations like retail, law, engineering and health care.

In addition, Statistics Canada estimates they’re contributing 552 million hours per year formally volunteering, such as in crisis centres and schools. Late-to-midlife adults across Canada spent another 1.342 million hours doing unpaid informal volunteering.

Across Canada, baby boomers spent 1,219,000 hours of their 1,342,000 informal volunteer work hours directly helping family members like a parent or a sibling. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a good number were adding another 20 caregiving hours to their work week, whether in their own home or in a family member’s.

Aging and caregiving

Both of us research population and individual aging. We have watched our own siblings feeling caught between supporting parents and supporting their children, deferring their own health needs in the process. This is no surprise, because about one in five midlife women are caring for a child and more than one-third are providing care for an adult.

A typical caregiver has been providing 35 hours of care per week for more than four years. Adding three more hours per week would put them at the tipping point for anger and depression or just giving up.

In today’s economy, most people work to earn a living, as opposed to funding leisure and future retirement.

For nearly half of Canada’s caregivers, full-time work isn’t optional. For six out of 10 of them, neither is figuring out how to find formal supports.

Research indicates four in 10 working caregivers worrying about paying their bills. It is not hard to fathom why many caregivers start their day tired and anxious.

Elongated caregiving is on the rise on the home front as well. More young adult children in their early 20s to mid-30s are living with a parent. With persons 55-64 years of age holding two-thirds of household wealth in Canada, young adults are more likely to save for the future under their parents’ roofs.

A recent study estimates that 18 per cent of young adults self-identify with high anxiety and another 13 per cent with depression while almost half worry about losing their jobs.

Canada’s late midlife adults were also significantly mentally distressed, more so than older Canadians, during the pandemic. They also felt judged and more alone than older Canadians. Family conflicts and breakdowns were a source of stress, which other researchers identified as a risk factor for family conflicts, with anxiety and even suicidal thinking.

Research tells us this demographic is unlikely to use community support services for things like meal preparation or fitness for themselves. Around one in four who needed health services had trouble accessing them. Others reported that they either did not get around to accessing services or wanted to go it alone. Research about how they stayed afloat during COVID-19 was lacking and remains largely absent.

How people look at aging

In his book about psychosocial development, Life Cycle Completed, psychologist Erik Erikson remarked that historic change has the power to make people stop and rethink what old age looks like.

Across 20 countries, at age 60, health satisfaction has had a great deal to do with how people see themselves aging.

Before COVID-19, we designed a study that surveyed more than 500 Canadians in their 50s. They were feeling most pessimistic about aging physically, including their state of health. When it came to loss, what resonated most was difficulty making friends and seeing “old age” as a depressing time.

For these 50-somethings, being caught between helping younger generations and tending to their own growth was detrimental to self-confidence. Making time for activities that help people learn about and see good in themselves is time well spent.

In the aftermath of COVID-19, late midlife adults are looking at an uncertain future. Statistics tell us that they currently anticipate poor health as early as age 71, and their own demise around age 81.

Recent surveys further reveal they’re juggling an average of $300K in debt and are worried about household essentials, with with one in three also unprepared for the soaring cost of living, particularly for basic expenses and if already living paycheque to paycheque. Some even link historic shifts in co-residing young adults with older adults’ increasing debt loads.

Meanwhile, federal funding priorities focus on programs for youth and on raising potential midlife caregivers’ awareness of older people’s support needs.

Late midlife adults represent one of our nation’s major resources, given the socioeconomic and health-related roles they play as caregivers to young and old. But resources can become depleted: they need care, respect and sensitivity themselves in order to continue in those roles.

It’s time to ask late midlife Canadians about the burdens they’re carrying, if the load is becoming too heavy, and how they are managing the load. This is a conversation well worth having.

Gail Low receives funding from the RTOERO Foundation, University of Alberta, and MacEwan University. She works for MacEwan University and volunteers for the Gateway Association.

Gloria Gutman is Professor Emerita at Simon Fraser University. She is a Past-president of the International Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Canadadian Association on Gerontology, and International Network for Prevention of Elder Abuse.

– ref. Midlife adults are overextended with multiple roles – https://theconversation.com/midlife-adults-are-overextended-with-multiple-roles-246886

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Rama Shankar Singh, Professor (Emeritus) of Biology, McMaster University

In 1871, Charles Darwin introduced his theory of sexual selection by female choice in The Descent of Man. He suggested females of a species would exhibit a preference for beauty and ornamentation when choosing mates, leading to a prevalence of those traits.

Darwin claimed this explained the evolution of the peacock’s long tail. More than 150 years later, evidence from peafowl research challenges Darwin’s theory.

Our research on the peacock’s long tail discovered a simple developmental rule that explains its symmetry, complexity and beauty. It suggests peahens choose their mates on the basis of size, vigour and beauty, not beauty alone, as Darwin had thought.

Darwin’s assumptions

Darwin saw the peacock’s impractically long tail as maladaptive; it was too long to be explained by his grand theory of natural selection that held that species evolved only traits that could help them survive.

As he wrote to a fellow scientist: “The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!”

Darwin made two implicit assumptions that, our research shows, undermine his sexual selection theory. First, Darwin could not see that maladaptation can also be a product of adaptation since trade-offs between traits are common in nature.

Peacock tails here refer to the long, irridescent feathers that trail behind. Taller trains (the height when the feathers are fanned out) can be beneficial to males in securing mates, but at the same time, long tails are maladaptive because, for example, they may hinder escape from predators.

Second, Darwin assumed peahens admired the peacock tail “as much as we do” and the birds assessed mates on the basis of esthetic appeal. He argued that birds have a feel for beauty. Later, this explanation would set the stage for research exploring how females assess beauty in their mates.

Researchers focused on the tail’s brightly coloured eye-shaped spots, but a large number of studies have been done over the last 30 years and no uncontroversial support for eyespot-based female choice has been found.

Complexity and vision

As a fruit fly geneticist interested in the variation and evolution of sex and reproduction-related genes, I unexpectedly stumbled on the evolution of the peacock’s long tail. I noticed its excessive complexity and wondered if peahens saw what we see.

I examined museum specimens of peacock tails and made two important discoveries. First, I found that a zigzag/alternate arrangement of follicles gave rise to the symmetry, complexity and beauty of the peacock’s train. It is remarkable that this alternate arrangement, the densest form of spherical packing known, would produce such wonderful effects when applied to living things.

Second, because feathers and eyespots are parts of the same structure, the size of the train and the number of eyespots are developmentally correlated. Peahens cannot see eyespots and train size as separate traits, as we do; peahens react only to the green-blue colour of the eyespots and the eyespots are too small to see from distance. Therefore peahens view the tails as one complex trait that combines train size and some aspects of the eyespot colours.

What this means is that females cannot see eyespots without seeing the train first, which raises the possibility of direct selection based on the train and not the indirect result of selection through the attractiveness of the eyespots.

Since sexual selection and mate choice are an important part of the standard evolutionary processes involved in natural selection, there is no need for a separate sexual selection theory. Darwin was wrong in this respect.

Addressing beliefs

For a variety of reasons, the sexual selection theory found scant support during Darwin’s time. Naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer of natural selection, was among those who argued sexual selection was subsumed under natural selection.

But Darwin had other reasons to push his sexual selection theory. He used it to solve three problems at once. First, of course, to explain the evolution of secondary and often exaggerated sexual traits, particularly in birds, including peafowl.

Second, he used his theory to explain race formation in humans, arguing for inherent race-specific standards of beauty that worked as a means of isolation between races.

Prevailing Victorian views, however, held women as weak and unable to exercise decisive preference on males. They also saw appreciation of beauty as an exclusively human trait not shared with other animals. This led Darwin to craft a theory attributing beauty-based female choice in birds and beauty-based male choice in humans.

Last, Darwin used peacock feathers to challenge the religious establishment and open the door to the esthetic appreciation of the animal world — beauty, intelligence and morality, which were taken as God-given.

This research provides reasons to reflect on why sexual selection theory is controversial, even after a century and a half. Sexual selection as a process of mate choice is common sense, but sexual selection as a theory is wrong.

Rama Shankar Singh received funding from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada He is affiliated with Centre for Peace Studies, McMaster University.

– ref. Size matters, but so does beauty and vigour — at least when it comes to peacocks – https://theconversation.com/size-matters-but-so-does-beauty-and-vigour-at-least-when-it-comes-to-peacocks-261070

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Catherine Frost, Professor of Political Science, McMaster University

Canada and the United Kingdom have said they will recognize Palestinian statehood during the United Nations General Assembly in September, provided certain conditions are met.

Canada’s position is premised on seeing political and military reform from the Palestinian Authority, the governing body responsible for the autonomous Palestinian territories.

The U.K., responding to a severe food crisis in Gaza, said it would extend recognition unless the Israeli government agrees to a ceasefire, takes steps to “end the appalling situation in Gaza” and commits to a “long-term, sustainable peace.”

---

Read more:
Why UK recognition of a Palestinian state should not be conditional on Israel’s actions

---

These cautious, conditional endorsements reflect the workings of a dated international system that governs the birth of states. France, by contrast, has opted to recognize Palestine without conditions. What explains these different approaches?

Officially, state recognition is governed by international law. In practice, it is subject to a complex mix of national, global and moral considerations.

This process grants existing states significant discretion in recognizing new ones, with the expectation that such decisions serve international peace. But this can result in an uneven statehood process for aspiring nations.

How states are born

The 1933 Montevideo Convention outlines the core criteria for statehood recognition: a permanent population, control over a defined territory, a functioning government and the capacity to open relations with other states.

When recognition is given on this basis, it is essentially acknowledging that these qualities are already in place. Yet these requirements are not iron clad, and some experts have argued that recognition can also be extended on humanitarian or moral grounds, such as in response to human rights violations.

In such cases, recognition becomes more of a statement that a state should have the opportunity to exist, rather than a confirmation that it already does. The classic case would be a group facing colonial domination. The American colonies appealed to this principle in the 1776 Declaration of Independence, for example.

Because individual states decide when such exceptions apply, these measures provide uncertain relief for aspiring nations.

As a final step, new states can apply for membership in the UN. This application is first considered by the UN Security Council. If nine states agree, and none of the council’s permanent members object, the application continues to the UN General Assembly for approval.

But a single veto from any of the five permanent members — China, France, Russia, the U.K. and the United States — can paralyze statehood at the start. In 2024, for example, the U.S. vetoed Palestine’s request for full UN membership.

Statehood in waiting

To date, 147 of 193 states in the United Nations recognize Palestinian statehood. Palestine has also had special observer status at the UN since 2012, and before that it had limited standing before international courts typically reserved for states.

But Palestine is not the only instance where the international system has struggled to address atypical or contested statehood.

After a wave of recognitions in post-colonial Africa and post-Second World War Europe, the recognition of new states slowed to a crawl toward the end of the 20th century. This trend suggests there is a conservative quality to the recognition system.

Wary of rewarding violent separatism, international bodies have traditionally favoured negotiated solutions for state birth, including upholding a parent-state veto over any independence efforts.

This principle was most clearly articulated by the Canadian Supreme Court in a 1998 advisory opinion. It warned that an independent Québec, without first agreeing on terms of exit with the rest of Canada, was unlikely to gain international recognition.

There is wisdom to this approach, but such rules cannot prevent political breakdown in every case. A growing number of unrecognized states have left millions stranded in political limbo.

This includes Somaliland, which split from Somalia in 1991 and has been operating as a de facto state ever since without receiving formal recognition from any other country.

Palestine is not an instance of state breakup, but rather an unresolved case of colonization and occupation. Decades of negotiations with Israel, the occupying power, have failed. Yet formal statehood has still proven elusive. A cumbersome recognition system may be helping to keep the problem alive.

Cracks in the system

Even when recognition occurs, the results can be disappointing.

South Sudan, the UN’s newest member, was universally recognized in 2011 under close UN supervision and with the consent of its parent state, Sudan. Yet it quickly descended into civil war — a conflict it has yet to fully emerged from.

Kosovo was recognized by states like the U.S. and Canada when it declared independence in 2008 following the breakup of Yugoslavia, but it still has fewer recognitions than Palestine.

A handful of states like Togo and Sierra Leone even began de-recognizing it under pressure from Kosovo’s one-time parent state, Serbia, although there is a broadly accepted principle that once a state is recognized, barring any complete disaster, it should remain recognized.

Meanwhile, rising sea levels threaten to leave some island states like Tuvalu without the territorial requirements for normal statehood. The International Court of Justice has signalled the statehood of such nations should survive, but has not said how.

---

Read more:
The Australia-Tuvalu deal shows why we need a global framework for climate relocations

---

These examples suggest the current state recognition system is ill equipped to face today’s changing world.

Allowing established states to set the rules for who qualifies is unlikely to solve these current problems. While setting special terms for new entrants may have value in the short term, the longer term need is for a more fair and transparent system.

Experts are working on ways to make the system more inclusive for aspiring states and unrepresented peoples, including by opening up access to diplomatic venues. If successful, these measures could change the way future states are born.

Catherine Frost receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. Canada and the U.K.’s conditional recognition of Palestine reveals the uneven rules of statehood – https://theconversation.com/canada-and-the-u-k-s-conditional-recognition-of-palestine-reveals-the-uneven-rules-of-statehood-262418

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Katie Mehr, Assistant Professor, Marketing, Business Economics, and Law, University of Alberta

Imagine you’re looking to buy a new grill. You want to make sure you purchase a well-built, easy-to-use grill for you and your family. How can you determine which one is best to purchase?

On the one hand, you can rely on information the manufacturer provides to understand things like what material the grill is made from, how big it is and whether it has additional features like a grease management system. But this information doesn’t really tell you what it’s like to own the grill, or whether the grill will work well for your summer barbecue aspirations.

For that, you probably want to hear from people who have bought and used the grill and can speak to its quality.

This example highlights the appeal of product ratings and reviews: by providing insight from people who actually bought and used the grill, aspiring grill owners learn more about what owning it will be like.

Predicting experience

People rely on reviews because they want to predict what their experience will be like with a product. They see reviews as a good source of information for making this prediction.

Reviews are also plentiful and almost costless to produce and access, bolstering the likelihood that people use them. And, people can sort through reviews to find information about specific attributes and benefits of the product (for example, whether a grill evenly cooks steak), which can help address specific queries or concerns.

Taken together, these benefits lead people to rely on reviews to determine whether they should buy a given product.

In fact, reviews are so heavily relied upon that they influence product sales and even stock prices. Given up to 98 per cent of consumers read reviews before making a purchase, the out-sized role reviews have makes sense.

But should people rely so heavily on reviews? The answer to this question is much more nuanced. On the one hand, product reviews are easy to access, provided by a third party (not the same entity trying to sell the product) and are often written with good intentions.

On the other hand, academic research, including my own, has shown there are many reasons to suspect reviews are not quite as valuable as they may seem.

Bias in reviews

Many of these reasons stem from a common argument, which is that reviews may not provide an objective, unbiased measure of product quality. Indeed, a number of seemingly irrelevant factors affect the star ratings and reviews that are given.

For example, asking raters to fill out both an overall rating and several attribute ratings leads them to give a higher overall rating when their experience with the product was subpar. Additionally, filling out a review on a smartphone leads reviewers to provide more emotionally driven, less specific reviews.

The context of product use can also affect ratings given; a winter jacket is rated more favourably when the outdoor temperature is warmer because raters attribute their comfort not to the warm temperatures, but to the coat. And, receiving a special designation, like being a “Superhost” on Airbnb, can actually decrease average ratings, as raters now compare their experience to higher expectations when determining what rating to give.

Previous research has also documented how the way reviews are displayed affects review readers’ product perceptions. For instance, people often make categorical distinctions between favourable and unfavourable ratings, while being insufficiently sensitive to differences between ratings of the same valence (for example, between 1 and 2 stars or 4 and 5 stars).

Additionally, people often heavily weigh a product’s average rating, at the expense of considering important quality signals, like the number of ratings and price.

AI and fake reviews

More recently, additional concerns have been raised about review quality. Fake reviews can make up a sizeable proportion of available reviews, and businesses that are more affected by these reviews, like smaller, independently owned restaurants, are more likely to engage in review fraud.

Additionally, the proliferation of AI has led to an increase in chatbot-authored product reviews, which can be difficult for both companies and consumers to filter out.

Taken together, reviews can be a useful source of information, but have a number of important flaws and limitations. In theory, providing information about what owning a product is actually like from a neutral, third-party source is extremely useful.

In practice, however, the execution of this vision leaves room for improvement and future research.

Katie Mehr 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. Online reviews influence what we buy, but should they have that much power over our choices? – https://theconversation.com/online-reviews-influence-what-we-buy-but-should-they-have-that-much-power-over-our-choices-261162

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Chelsea Rochman, Assistant Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto

Representatives at the recent United Nations conference in Geneva have once again failed to negotiate a binding global treaty to tackle plastic pollution. The Switzerland gathering was the sixth round of talks in less than three years and was held after countries failed to reach agreement at a 2024 meeting in South Korea. Chair of the negotiating committee, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, said countries will now work on finding a date and location for another meeting.

Plastic pollution is a global crisis. An estimated 23 million metric tons of plastic waste enters global aquatic ecosystems annually. This massive amount is expected to more than double by 2030 if we don’t change our relationship with plastic. To avoid this fate, we cannot focus just on prevention or cleanup — all actions to tackle plastic pollution must occur together.

Urgent and co-ordinated action is needed to reduce plastic production, redesign plastics to manage toxic chemicals and increase recyclability, improve waste management systems and clean up pollution.

Among these strategies, cleanup — recovering plastic waste from the environment — is often considered a lower priority compared to prevention at the source. Preventing plastic pollution is imperative, but we must not forget that plastic left in the environment does not disappear. It persists, accumulates, breaks apart into micro- and nanoplastics and continues to cause harm.

As long as we are producing plastics there will be leakage into the environment. As such, cleanup is needed to mitigate ecological, economic and social impacts of plastic pollution now and in the future.

---

Read more:
Three reasons plastic pollution treaty talks ended in disagreement and deadlock (but not collapse)

---

Scaling up cleanup solutions

Cleanup efforts are most often carried out by hand through volunteers. These can range from a couple of people cleaning their local park or beach to large groups coming together for an event.

Cleanups remove millions of kilograms of trash from the environment each year. However, with plastic pollution becoming an ever-growing problem, we need to increase cleanup efforts by orders of magnitude.

International collaboration is necessary to tackle this global problem. At the University of Toronto Trash Team, we came together with Ocean Conservancy to found the International Trash Trap Network (ITTN), a global network of local groups working together to clean up plastic pollution using trash traps.

What is a trash trap?

Trash traps are technologies designed to clean up plastic waste from aquatic ecosystems. They range in design from simple river booms to roaming robots that clean beaches.

Trash traps are increasingly used to supplement manual cleanup efforts. They can work around the clock to target pollution, both on land and in waterways, cleaning areas that are unsafe or inaccessible for humans.

Some trash traps can also clean up small plastic waste, such as microplastics, that humans often miss as they are difficult to see.

With every trash trap program in the network, local stakeholders come together to clean up plastic waste, monitor local sources and pathways, engage and inform communities about the issue, and contribute to an open-source global cleanup database to inform and motivate upstream solutions to prevent plastic pollution.

The ITTN serves as a platform for anyone using a trash trap to share their local impact and facilitate knowledge exchange to motivate and empower global action to clean up, monitor and prevent plastic pollution.

Benefits of cleanup efforts

Although cleanup primarily addresses the symptoms of plastic pollution, it can address the root causes through its additional benefits. Citizen scientists have recorded data on the weight and count of items they collect during cleanup events. This is evident in the extensive datasets compiled by organizations such as Ocean Conservancy, which has logged 40 years of data from volunteer-led International Coastal Cleanup events.

Using this data, we can better understand local sources of pollution, identify prominent pollutants and prioritize specific solutions that will have the greatest impact. Policies to reduce single-use plastic consumption in Canada, and in U.S. states like California and Maryland, have been developed based on evidence from cleanup data.

Cleanup data collection is a means for developing baselines and to measure policy efficacy. In the United States, shoreline cleanup data was recently used to demonstrate that plastic bag policies significantly reduced the proportion of plastic bags in shoreline litter.

Cleanup also serves as a powerful platform for public communication about plastic pollution. A significant driver of our plastic pollution crisis is human behaviour. As such, we must also consider how public understanding and perception of plastic pollution affects behaviour change and support for policy change.

Bringing communities together to clean up and share information facilitates community engagement and inspires hope. What’s more, by allowing individuals to encounter the problems caused by plastic pollution firsthand, this experience often changes their perspective on the issue from being just another news story to a reality.

The hands-on nature of cleanup empowers communities to act, reduce the issue and motivates calls for social and policy change.

Although cleaning your local park, beach or waterway might seem like a small act, it is an important tool for reducing plastic pollution, increasing awareness and informing polices that have lasting impact.

By strategically increasing cleanup efforts, we can target areas of greatest impact, incite behavioural change, and collect and share monitoring data. This can inform baselines, trends over time, reduction targets and solutions for plastic pollution — reducing the harm of plastic pollution while we work locally and globally to prevent it.

Chelsea Rochman receives funding from Canadian government institutions and some local partners – PortsToronto, Waterfront BIA, Nieuport Aviation, and others – to fund cleanup work on the Toronto Waterfront.

Britta Baechler and Hannah De Frond do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. As negotiations on a global plastics treaty stall, cleanup efforts are more vital than ever – https://theconversation.com/as-negotiations-on-a-global-plastics-treaty-stall-cleanup-efforts-are-more-vital-than-ever-262875

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Amina Yousaf, Associate Head, Early Childhood Studies, University of Guelph-Humber

The start of the school year brings excitement and new routines. But for many neurodiverse children, it also marks the return of being misunderstood.

Parents may notice their child struggling with transitions, overstimulated by noisy classrooms or labelled “disruptive” after a few days. Educators, meanwhile, may not be equipped to interpret behaviours that fall outside the expected norms.

Some education programs, like Ontario’s Kindergarten Program, emphasize play-based curricula and encourage assessment of students’ development across varied domains of learning. However, traditional notions of school “readiness” can still linger.

In my experience as an educator and mentor to student teachers, I’ve sometimes observed this “readiness” being narrowly interpreted as sitting still, following routines and complying with adult directions.

For many neurodiverse children — those with autism, ADHD, sensory processing differences or other cognitive variations — these misunderstandings can lead to missed supports, exclusionary practices and long-term inequities in education and life outcomes.

When systems fail to understand and accommodate neurodivergent individuals early on, these challenges often persist into adulthood, affecting quality of life and social inclusion.

---

Read more:
What exactly is ‘neurodiversity?’ Using accurate language about disability matters in schools

---

Racialized children are overlooked

Although public awareness of neurodiversity is growing, many children in Canada are still diagnosed too late to benefit from early intervention.

According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, while the median age of autism diagnosis is around 3.7 years, only 54 per cent of children are diagnosed before age five, meaning nearly half miss the most critical developmental window.

But diagnosis is only part of the issue. Many neurodiverse children are never identified at all, either because their behaviours are misread or because their families face systemic barriers to health-care and assessment services.

Research shows that South Asian immigrant families, especially in Ontario, often experience delays in autism diagnosis due to stigma, language barriers, cultural misunderstandings and difficulties navigating complex or unfamiliar systems.

First Nations, Inuit and Métis families are also underrepresented in autism data. These communities often face a “frozen in time” response from health and social services — a term that reflects outdated or inflexible systems with little culturally relevant support and/or screening tools to support their needs.

As a result, many racialized children are disproportionately diagnosed late, or not at all, and are denied the early support that could transform their lives.

School-related distress

School transitions can be stressful for neurodivergent students when environments emphasize rigid behavioural norms and overlook diverse ways of learning. Emerging research suggests that these challenges often begin in the early years and continue to shape students’ educational pathways.

Research also shows students with Autism Spectrum Disorder experience school transitions as periods of heightened stress because of changes in relationships, routines and expectations, primarily when individual needs are not adequately supported.

Without adequate training in neurodiversity, many educators feel unprepared and rely heavily on diagnoses to guide support. When educators aren’t prepared, this can result in exclusionary teaching practices, and missed supports and long-term inequities for students. School-related distress is overwhelmingly concentrated among neurodivergent students, and it’s often linked to environments that are inflexible or unresponsive to their needs.

These systemic gaps contribute to the growing school attendance crisis and underscore the need for more inclusive, neuroaffirming educational practices.

Often, educational settings focus on changing the child rather than adapting the system. School systems must shift away from deficit-based approaches, which regard neurodivergent children in terms of what they lack. These approaches overlook systemic barriers, blame students for their challenges and overlook their strengths.

Instead, school systems should focus on transforming the learning environment itself. A neuro-inclusive model reframes behaviours not as problems within the child but as a sign the school environment may not be supportive of their needs. This perspective prioritizes belonging, flexibility and universal support, starting with how we design classrooms, not how we label children.

Neurodiversity is not a problem to fix

Rather than seeing neurodivergence as a problem to diagnose, educators should approach it as a difference to understand. Neurodiversity, first popularized by autistic advocates in the 1990s, recognizes that neurological differences are part of natural human variation.

From this lens, behaviours like fidgeting, stimming or requiring extra transition time are seen as expressions of self-regulation and cognitive needs. A recent educational psychology article reframes stimming as a bodily practice that supports focus and emotional processing in environments designed for neurotypical norms.

Educational systems often create barriers because schools are not built with diverse ways of knowing and being in mind. Neurodiversity is not a problem to fix; it’s a dimension of human diversity to embrace.

Inclusion should not depend on labels; it should be a proactive strategy. Designing classrooms for cognitive and sensory differences from the start ensures all children, especially those from racialized and underserved communities, feel like they belong and can thrive.

What educators and families can do

Creating inclusive classrooms doesn’t require waiting for a diagnosis, it requires a mindset shift. Frameworks like universal design for learning (UDL) offer educators multiple ways for children to engage, express themselves and participate. In early years settings, this might look like:

• visual schedules and picture cues to support transitions;
• flexible seating, movement breaks or calming corners;
• storybooks and materials that reflect neurodiversity as part of everyday life;
• observing strengths before jumping in to “fix” perceived deficits.

Research supports these approaches. An inclusive preschool study found that using UDL strategies such as choice-making, varied materials, flexible seating and multimodal activities, led to better skill development, emotional regulation and engagement in both diagnosed and undiagnosed children.

Another 2023 study found that UDL-informed circle-time practices — like predictable routines, participation options and movement supports — fostered greater student participation and a sense of belonging in early-year classrooms.

When classrooms are intentionally designed for neurodiversity, they serve everyone better, from day one.

A call to start September differently

As the new school year starts, educators must shift from asking “is this child ready for school?” to “is the school ready for this child?” This reframing challenges deficit-based notions of readiness and calls for schools to adapt their environments, practices and mindsets to welcome all learners equitably.

This change means educators must slow down, listen to behaviours with curiosity and remember that all children communicate differently. It also means school boards, education ministries and provincial governments need to give educators the tools, time and training to recognize neurodiverse learners with care.

When support is no longer conditional on a formal diagnosis or a child being regarded as having exceptional needs, schools open the door to educational equity. When neurodiverse children are seen and valued from the start, rather than excluded or expected to be fixed, they are more likely to thrive.

As Ontario’s own policy documents show, school systems already have a strong foundation for inclusive practice. What’s needed now is the will to put those principles into action, starting in September.

Every child deserves to feel like school is a place for them.

Amina Yousaf 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. ‘Fixing’ neurodivergent kids misses the point — it’s the schools that need to change – https://theconversation.com/fixing-neurodivergent-kids-misses-the-point-its-the-schools-that-need-to-change-258267

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By John Gradek, Faculty Lecturer and Academic Program Co-ordinator, Supply Network and Aviation Management, McGill University

The union representing Air Canada flight attendants issued a 72-hour strike notice to the company, setting the stage for a potential work stoppage on Aug. 16.

In response, the airline issued a 72-hour lock-out notice to Air Canada flight attendants, stating it had begun preparations to suspend flights in anticipation of the strike.

Taken together, these actions have effectively set the stage for the first complete shutdown of Air Canada due to labour strife since Air Canada pilots held an 11-day strike in 1998.

A shutdown would have a significant impact on Air Canada’s passenger travel plans during the height of the summer travel season.

Impact on passengers during peak travel

Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge carry approximately 130,00 passengers a day, and about 25,000 of these travellers include those returning to Canada from abroad.

All of these passengers are covered by Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Rights, which airlines are obligated to implement in the event of flight cancellations. These regulations are intended to ensure passengers are treated fairly and have recourse when things go wrong.

The concern during this peak travel season is the availability of seats on other carriers that Air Canada is obligated to secure for passengers on its cancelled flights.

The resulting shortage of capacity will undoubtedly result in cancelled vacations or family gatherings, with Air Canada offering refunds to those passengers for whom it will be unable to find acceptable travel arrangements.

Negotiations at an impasse

The airline and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) have been negotiating a new collective agreement since March. Air Canada said recently negotiations have reached an “impasse” over issues like wages and labour conditions.

The wages issue has been highlighted as a major negotiation item by CUPE, with examples of junior flight-attendant salaries that are substantially below the Canadian minimum wage.

Based on my analysis of collective agreement wage rates for Air Canada CUPE flight attendants, I estimate current wages would need to rise by about 32 to 34 per cent to match the 2025 purchasing power of what flight attendants earned in 2014, after adjusting for inflation.

According to CUPE, Air Canada only pays flight attendants when the aircraft’s brakes are released at departure until the brakes are applied on arrival, meaning any work they do before boarding and after deplaning isn’t compensated.

The union says flight attendants in Canada perform about 35 hours of unpaid duties every month.

Efforts to address unpaid work

Several attempts have been made by labour groups over the years to address the practice of unpaid duties for flight attendants. This culminated with the introduction of private member’s Bill C-415 in October 2024 by NDP MP Bonita Zarrillo.

The bill proposed amending the Canada Labour Code to require employers to pay flight attendants for all time spent on pre-flight and post-flight duties, as well as for mandatory training programs at their full rate of pay.

Bill C-415 received First Reading in Parliament, but did not progress beyond, expiring at the end of the parliamentary session in January 2025.

But support for such legislation remains strong, as demonstrated by a letter sent by the Leader of the Opposition to the Minister of Labour on Aug. 5.

A February 2025 article in The Conversation Canada noted the efforts of organized labour in obtaining ground pay for flight attendants and concluded:

“With contract negotiations underway, CUPE’s airline division has an opportunity to push for better working conditions and pay structures that reflect all hours worked. Canadian airlines must address the issue of unpaid labour and, ultimately, implement more equitable workplace standards for flight attendants.”

A number of airlines have implemented flight attendant pay that goes beyond the traditional “flight pay.” Delta Airlines was the first carrier to introduce the practice in 2022, followed by American Airlines in 2024.

United Airlines has included a similar provision in a proposed contract now awaiting ratification. In Canada, both Porter Airlines and Pascan Aviation offer flight attendants pay for work performed during the boarding process.

High stakes for both sides

It is worth noting the collective agreement negotiation strategies of both CUPE and Air Canada. CUPE has been quite transparent in its goals for its Air Canada members, citing wage increases needed to return to a living wage — for junior flight attendants, in particular — and the need to obtain pay for currently uncompensated work.

These goals have remained steadfast through the eight months of dialogue with Air Canada, and have been supported by a 99.7 per cent vote in favour of a strike if negotiations fail.

Air Canada’s negotiation strategy mirrors its 2024 negotiations with pilots, when it relied on government intervention to pressure them to reach an agreement, but ultimately yielded late in the process to most of the pilots’ demands.

---

Read more:
Potential Air Canada pilot strike: Key FAQs and why the anger at pilots is misplaced

---

This may yet be Air Canada’s plan this time as well, with a strike deadline looming in the early hours of Saturday, Aug. 16.

Is is worth noting that previous collective agreement negotiations with Air Canada and its flight attendants have been characterized by significant political intrigue, which many in the industry had believed to be a thing of the past. It remains interesting reading.

If a strike does proceed, Air Canada could face financial losses in the range of $50 to $60 million a day — a sum that will undoubtedly have Air Canada back at the negotiation table within the week.

John Gradek 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. Air Canada flight attendants have issued a strike notice: Here’s what you need to know – https://theconversation.com/air-canada-flight-attendants-have-issued-a-strike-notice-heres-what-you-need-to-know-263171