The Conversation – Canada – Page 98

July 5, 2025

‘Canada is not for sale’ — but new Ontario law prioritizes profits over environmental and Indigenous rights

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Martina Jakubchik-Paloheimo, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Environmental and Urban Change, York University, Canada

Despite provincewide protests, Ontario’s Bill 5 officially became law on June 5. Critics warn of the loss of both environmental protections and Indigenous rights.

The law empowers the province to create special economic zones where companies or projects don’t have to comply with provincial regulations or municipal bylaws.

Bill 5, also known as the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, reduces the requirements for environmental assessment. By doing so, it weakens ecological protection laws that safeguard the rights of Indigenous Peoples and at-risk species.

Indigenous rights and Indigenous knowledge are critical for planetary health. But the bill passed into law with no consultation with First Nations. Therefore, it undermines the duty to consult while seemingly favouring government-aligned industries.

Indigenous Peoples have long stewarded the environment through sustainable practices that promote ecological and human health. Bill 5’s provisions to allow the bypassing of environmental regulations and shift from a consent-based model to one of consultation violate Aboriginal and Treaty rights. Métis lawyer Bruce McIvor has described the shift as a “policy of legalized lawlessness.”

Compounding environmental threats

Wildfires that are currently burning from British Columbia to northern Ontario are five times more likely to occur due to the effects of climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

On the federal level, Bill C-5, called the Building Canada Act, was introduced in the House of Commons on June 6 by Prime Minister Mark Carney. This bill further compounds the threat to environmental protections, species at risk and Indigenous rights across the country in favour of resource extraction projects.

It removes the need for the assessment of the environmental impacts of projects considered to be of “national interest.”

Ring of Fire — special economic zone?

Ford and Carney want to fast-track the so-called Ring of Fire mineral deposit within Treaty 9 territory in northern Ontario by labelling it a “special economic zone” and of “national interest.” The proposed development is often described as a potential $90 billion opportunity.

But scientists say there are no reliable estimates of the costs related to construction, extraction, benefit sharing and environmental impacts in the Ring of Fire.

The mining development could devastate traditional First Nations livelihoods and rights. It could also worsen the effects of climate change in Ontario’s muskeg, the southernmost sea ice ecosystem in the world.

Northern Ontario has the largest area of intact boreal forest in the world. Almost 90 per cent of the region’s 24,000 residents are Indigenous. The Mushkegowuk Anniwuk, the original people of the Hudson Bay lowlands, refer to this area as “the Breathing Lands” — Canada’s lungs. Cree nations have lived and stewarded these lands for thousands of years.

Journalist Jessica Gamble of Canadian National Geographic says the James Bay Lowlands, part of the Hudson Bay Lowlands, are “traditional hunting grounds” and “the largest contiguous temperate wetland complex in the world.”

This ecosystem is home to 200 different migratory bird species and plays a critical role in environmental health through carbon sequestration and water retention. The Wildlands League has described the area as “home to hundreds of plant, mammal and fish species, most in decline elsewhere.”

Northern Ontario, meantime, is warming at four times the global average.

Jeronimo Kataquapit is a filmmaker from Attawapiskat who is spearheading the “Here We Stand” campaign in opposition to Bill 5 with Attawapiskat residents and neighbouring Mushkegowuk Nations and Neskantaga First Nation. As the spokesperson for Here We Stand, he said: “Ontario’s Bill 5 and Canada’s proposed national interest legislation are going to destroy the land, pollute the water, stomp all over our treaty rights, our inherent rights, our laws and our ways of life.”

Endangered species — polar bears

An estimated 900 to 1,000 polar bears live in Ontario, mostly along the Hudson Bay and James Bay coasts.

But there has been a 73 per cent decline in wildlife populations globally since the 1970s, according to the World Wildlife Fund. In Canada, species of global concern have declined by 42 per cent over the same time. Canada’s Arctic and boreal ecosystems, once symbols of the snow-capped “Great White North,” are now at risk.

Polar bears, listed as threatened under the Ontario Endangered Species Act and of “special concern” nationally, are particularly sensitive to human activities and climate change. Polar bears and ringed seals are culturally significant and serve as ecological indicators for ecosystems.

Melting sea ice has already altered their behaviour, forcing them to spend more time on land.

Cree First Nations in Northern Ontario’s biodiverse Treaty 9 territory are collaborating with federal and provincial governments and conservationists to protect polar bears. Right now, there is recognition of the importance of Cree knowledge in planning and the management of polar bears.

The new Ontario law removes safeguards protecting the province’s endangered species, such as the Endangered Species Act. It strips key protections for at-risk wildlife, such as habitat protections, environmental impact assessments and ecosystems conservation.

Climate change and weaker environmental protections will lead to irreversible damage to our environment and biodiversity. The ecosystem services that each animal, insect and plant provides — like cleaning the air we breathe and water we drink — are essential for a healthy province.

The impact of Bill 5 and C-5 on these species is likely to be severe.

Short-term gains at the expense of long-term damage

Ontario could benefit from improved infrastructure and economic growth, but development requires careful planning and collaboration. It should rely on innovative science-based solutions, especially Indigenous sciences. And it should never infringe on Indigenous rights, bypass environmental assessments or threaten endangered species.

While Bill 5 commits to the duty to consult with First Nations, it falls short of the free, prior and informed consent required by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Since becoming Canadian law in June 2021, the federal government has been obligated to align its laws with UNDRIP.

With Bill 5 in place, some of Ontario’s major projects may be fast-tracked with minimal safeguards. Both Bill 5 and the proposed C-5 prioritize short-term economic gains that will cause irreversible environmental damage and violate legal obligations under UNDRIP.

Lawrence Martin, Director of Lands and Resources at the Mushkegowuk Council, contributed to this article.

Martina Jakubchik-Paloheimo works in the Faculty of Environmental and Urban Change (EUC) at York University as a Postdoctoral Fellow, facilitating a collaborative project on human-polar bear coexistence in Hudson Bay and James Bay.

– ref. ‘Canada is not for sale’ — but new Ontario law prioritizes profits over environmental and Indigenous rights – https://theconversation.com/canada-is-not-for-sale-but-new-ontario-law-prioritizes-profits-over-environmental-and-indigenous-rights-258553

July 5, 2025

Is Mark Carney turning his back on climate action?

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Deborah de Lange, Associate Professor, Global Management Studies, Toronto Metropolitan University

The G7 summit in Alberta, hosted by Prime Minister Mark Carney, has ended with only passing mention of fighting climate change, including a statement on wildfires that is silent on the pressing need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This is puzzling. Canadians didn’t opt for Conservative Pierre Poilievre, considered by some to be an oil and gas industry mouthpiece, in the last federal election. Instead, voters gave Carney’s Liberals a minority government.

Carney was the United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance and was behind the UN-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance, so some Canadians might have assumed he’d prioritize climate action if he won the election. Instead, Carney has described developing fossil fuel infrastructure as “pragmatic.”

But it’s unclear how a country grappling with abysmal air quality due to wildfires fuelled by global warming will benefit from further global fossil fuel development and its related emissions.

Warming rapidly

Canada is warming faster than most of the globe. Its leaders should be laser-focused on mitigating climate change by reducing fossil fuel use to the greatest extent possible, as soon as possible.

This decades-long understanding of how to approach climate action has been repeatedly explained by experts and is well known to governments globally. Canada’s prime minister was once one of those experts.

Carney now has a tremendous opportunity to lead by steering Canada in a clean direction.

Canada is at the forefront of clean technology, with numerous business opportunities emerging, particularly in areas like circular economy international trade. These opportunities not only support Canada’s commitment to meeting its Paris Agreement targets but also help expand and diversify its global trade.

Eco-industrial parks

Canada already has exemplar eco-industrial parks — co-operative businesses located on a common property that focus on reducing environmental impact through resource efficiency, waste reduction and sharing resources. Such industrial communities are in Halifax and in Delta, B.C. They represent significant investment opportunities.

Vacant urban land could be revitalized and existing industrial parks could boost their economic output and circular trade by building stronger partnerships to share resources, reduce waste and cut emissions.

Canada would benefit economically and environmentally by building on existing expertise and expanding successful sustainability strategies to achieve economic, environmental and social goals.

But by continuing to invest in fossil fuels, Canada misses out on opportunities to diversify trade and boost economic competitiveness.

The secret to China’s success

Real diversification makes Canada less vulnerable to economic shocks, like the ones caused by the tariffs imposed by United States President Donald Trump.

Fossil fuel reliance increases exposure to global economic risks, but shifting to cleaner products and services reduces climate risks and expands Canada’s global trade options. China’s economic rise is partly a result of this strategy.

That’s seemingly why Trump is so fixated on China. China today is a serious competitor to the U.S. after making smart trade and economic decisions and forging its own path, disregarding American pressure to remain a mere follower.

Investing in its huge Belt and Road Initiative, China also aligned itself with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. It’s building diplomatic bridges with many Belt and Road countries in southeast Asia as Trump’s America alienates its partners, pulling out of the Paris Agreement and cutting foreign aid.

As another one of America’s mistreated partners, Canada was poised to forge its own path under Carney. Instead, Carney is supporting American oil and gas by encouraging Canadian pipeline projects.

Clean innovation is the path forward

Canadian oil and gas is a concentrated industry controlled by a wealthy few, primarily Americans. More pipelines would therefore mean more sales of fossil fuels to other countries, with the beneficiaries mostly American.

Fossil fuel investments reduce Canada’s diversification because the resources used to further these projects could go elsewhere — toward clean diversification. With almost unlimited clean economy options across many sectors, clean diversification would broaden Canada’s economic and trade portfolios and reduce American control.

This is International Business 101, and would make the Canadian economy more competitive through innovation, while reducing the country’s climate risk.

California, often targeted by Trump for its policies, has been a leader in clean innovation, making its economy the envy of the world.

My recent research shows that clear, decisive choices like those made in California will be key to Canada’s future success. Canada must make choices aligned with goals — a core principle of strategic management.

My research also suggests Canada must restructure its energy industry to focus on renewable energy innovation while reducing fossil fuel reliance. Increased renewable energy innovation, as seen in patent numbers, leads to higher GDP.

Contrary to common beliefs, pollution taxes boost the economy in combination with clean innovation. But when the government supports both the fossil fuel industry and clean industries, it hinders Canada’s transition to a cleaner future.

Trapped by the fossil fuel industry?

Do Canadian taxpayers truly want to keep funding an outdated, polluting industry that benefits a wealthy few, or invest in clean industries that boost Canada’s economy, create better jobs and protect the environment? To differentiate Canada from the United States, it would make sense to choose the latter.

Carney should consider refraining from pushing for the fast-tracking of polluting projects. If he doesn’t, Canada will become more uncompetitive and vulnerable, trapped by the fossil fuel industry.

Carney’s support for pipelines may have stemmed from Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s implicit support for Alberta sovereignty. She made veiled threats to Canada at a critical juncture, when Trump was making repeated assertions about annexing Canada.

Missed opportunities

Alberta didn’t vote for Carney. But Canadians who care about mitigating climate change did.

Banks that felt pressure to at least recognize sustainable finance during the Joe Biden administration joined Carney’s Net-Zero Banking Alliance.

But as soon as Trump came to power a second time and walked away from the Paris Agreement, many American banks abandoned the alliance. Canadian banks followed suit, and Carney remarkably missed another moment to show Canadian leadership by stopping their exit.

In fact, Carney seems to have abandoned his own organization to appease Trump as the president made multiple 51st state threats. The prime minister had the chance to differentiate Canada and demonstrate his own leadership. Instead, he seems to have easily turned his back on his principles under pressure from Trump.

Deborah de Lange receives funding from SSHRC and ESRC. She is affiliated with The Liberal Party of Canada and The Writers’ Union of Canada.

– ref. Is Mark Carney turning his back on climate action? – https://theconversation.com/is-mark-carney-turning-his-back-on-climate-action-258737

July 5, 2025

Misogyny has become a political strategy — here’s how the pandemic helped make it happen

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Brianna I. Wiens, Assistant Professor of Digital Media and Rhetoric, University of Waterloo

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, more overt forms of gendered hate have jumped from obscure internet forums into the mainstream, shaping culture and policy.

Social media doesn’t just reflect sexist, anti-feminist views; it helps to organize, amplify and normalize them.

Backlash against women and LGBTQ+ communities has become more overt, co-ordinated and is gaining political traction. As the United States rolls back reproductive rights and passes anti-LGBTQ+ laws, it is important to understand how digital culture fuels this regression.

While these shifts may seem distant, Canadian politics are not immune. Similar rhetoric has emerged in debates over education, gender identity, health care and so-called “parental rights.”

Our ongoing research maps how the pandemic accelerated the rise of online misogyny, especially through “manosphere” influencers and far-right rhetoric.

Drawing from more than 21,000 podcast episodes and digital artifacts, we are investigating how everyday online content works to erode women’s and LGBTQ+ rights. This rhetoric normalizes misogynistic, transphobic and homophobic views and repackages gender inequities as common sense.

How the pandemic fuelled digital misogyny

COVID-19 lockdowns set the stage for a surge in online radicalization. Isolated men and boys increasingly turned to social media for connection — spaces where manosphere personalities like English-American social media influencer Andrew Tate and American conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro gained momentum.

These figures blend anti-feminist messaging with broader pandemic-era anxieties, turning gender roles into moral and political battlegrounds.

Conservative influencers who once focused on vaccine skepticism began pivoting to anti-gender content. Steve Bannon’s podcast, for example, moved from pedalling public health disinformation to pushing narratives that feminism and LGBTQ+ rights are threats to western civilization.

Before the internet, radicalization usually required personal contact. Now, people can self-radicalize online, engaging with algorithm-driven content and communities that reinforce extremist beliefs, often without ever interacting with a recruiter. This shift coincided with a marked rise in reported online hate speech and offline hate crimes.

Misogyny as a mobilizing force

Meanwhile, women’s experiences during the pandemic — over half of whom are caregivers in Canada — involved increased labour at home and in front-line jobs. This left little time or energy for the organizational work necessary to combat the rising tides of sexism and misogyny.

Instead, public discourse began to increasingly valourize “tradwife” ideals and homemaking. This ensured traditional gender roles were brought back into the mainstream, not just as personal preferences, but as broader cultural expectations.

Though this misogyny appears to be fringe, it echoes mainstream policies that threaten reproductive health care, restrict gender expression and paint feminism as a threat to national stability.

Project 2025, the well-known policy platform from U.S. conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, lays out an agenda to repeal reproductive rights, undermine LGBTQ+ protections and expand state control over gender and family life.

How misogynist narratives are normalized

These misogynist ideas are reinforced in popular culture. In May 2024, NFL player Harrison Butker used his commencement address at Benedictine College to tell women graduates that their true calling was to become wives and mothers.

Such rhetoric serves to re-establish patriarchal hierarchies by narrowing women’s roles to domestic life. But this isn’t about family values, it’s about power. Moves in the U.S. to restrict women’s reproductive autonomy and democratic access to vote make this abundantly clear.

While feminists pushed back, manosphere podcast influencers rushed to Butker’s defense. American white supremacist Nick Fuentes celebrated the speech as a manifesto, while Shapiro framed it as uncontroversial truth.

Our analysis of podcast episodes from Shapiro and Fuentes, among others, shows how misogynist and racist narratives are reinforced through repetition and emotional framing. In episodes focused on Butker’s commencement speech, there were significant concentrations of hate speech and misogyny in the episodes.

Both Shapiro and Fuentes positioned feminism as a threat and framed motherhood as women’s true vocation. Shapiro downplayed the backlash against Butker as liberal outrage through calculatedly mainstream language that used sanitized, “family values” language.

Fuentes promoted an extreme theocratic vision rooted in white Catholic nationalism. In Episode 1,330 of his America First podcast, he said, “I want women to be veiled. I don’t want them to be seen. I want them to be listening to their husbands.”

These talking points consistently align with Butker’s original sentiment and reflect broader political efforts to erode gender equity, as seen in political documents like Project 2025.

Other public figures like Texan megachurch pastor Joel Webbon went even further, advocating for the public execution of women who accuse men of sexual assault — a horrifying example that circulated in manosphere circles.

From the fringes to the mainstream

What’s happening online is not just cultural noise; it’s a co-ordinated effort by conservative political organizations, media outlets and right-wing influencers to shape gender norms, undermine equality and roll back decades of feminist progress.

When misogyny becomes a political strategy, it doesn’t stay confined to podcasts or memes. It seeps into everyday vernacular, court rulings and public policy, and it’s global in scope.

This isn’t new, either. In 2012, Australia’s then-prime minister, Julia Gillard, called out sexist language in parliament, including being labelled a “witch” and subjected to dismissive catcalls. Her speech highlighted the normalization of misogynistic vernacular in politics, but also triggered public backlash, including having anti-immigration remarks misattributed to her.

Similarly, in the lead-up to Germany’s 2021 federal election, Greens party candidate Annalena Baerbock faced co-ordinated disinformation and smear campaigns from foreign entities aimed at undermining her credibility and questioning her “maternal suitability” in the public eye. Digitally altered nude photos, fake protest images and disinformation graphics were circulated.

These campaigns reflect how misogyny is weaponized to influence elections, and how such campaigns can be a threat to national security.

A 2022 #MeToo litigation analysis showed how, despite increasing awareness around sexual assault and harassment, U.S. courts often use legal language that reinforces victim-blaming by placing victims in the grammatical subject position of sentences. For example, phrases like “the victim failed to resist” or “the victim did not report the incident immediately” shift focus onto the victim’s behaviour rather than the perpetrator’s actions.

These details continue to affect broader legal narratives and public acceptance.

Digital platforms are battlegrounds

Recognizing these connections is crucial. As far-right movements gain ground by repackaging ideas about gender as nostalgic “truth” or “tradition,” we need to recognize that digital platforms are not neutral, nostalgic spaces.

Rather, they are conversational battlegrounds where power is contested and jokes, tweets and speeches carry real political weight.

In the fight for gender equity, the internet is not just a mirror that reflects multiple realities. It’s a tool built by the tech industry that was never intended to democratize communication, labour or social roles. Right now, that tool is being weaponized to signal and reassert patriarchal control.

Brianna I. Wiens receives research funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Nick Ruest receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Shana MacDonald receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

– ref. Misogyny has become a political strategy — here’s how the pandemic helped make it happen – https://theconversation.com/misogyny-has-become-a-political-strategy-heres-how-the-pandemic-helped-make-it-happen-256043

July 5, 2025

How discussion becomes discord: Three avoidable steps on the path to polarization

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Emma Lei Jing, Assistant Professor, People and Organizations, Neoma Business School

From tariffs and sovereignty to politics and conflict, there’s no shortage of controversial topics for us to grapple with. (Shutterstock)

Many of us have become immersed in debates with family about a contentious political issue, or found ourselves on the other side of a political divide than our friends. In these contentious times, it can be all too easy for courteous debate to devolve into polarized discord.

From tariffs and sovereignty to politics and conflict, there’s no shortage of controversial topics for us to grapple with. Canada just emerged from a divisive federal election, while in the United States, President Donald Trump signed a record 143 executive orders in his first 100 days in office, many of which touched on contentious topics.

We recently conducted a study on the debate around harm reduction. Here in Canada, supervised consumption sites is one issue that has generated support and opposition from community members, healthcare and government agencies, police, addiction services and many others. And it has led to some becoming entrenched in polarized positions.

Our research traced a path which led participants farther apart. Eventually, opposing camps became deeply divided and unwilling to engage with anyone holding different views, and it didn’t happen at random.

What went wrong, and what set opposing groups on the path to discord?

Signposts on the path to polarization

Through an in-depth qualitative case study of addiction services in Alberta, our analysis showed that when the topic of harm reduction was first introduced, arguments were based mostly on evidence and reason.

Harm reduction proponents pointed to the life-saving benefits of harm reduction and the inadequacies of traditional approaches, whereas opponents talked about the effectiveness of more traditional approaches.

We saw genuine, and sometimes successful, efforts to persuade those who disagreed to change their minds.

However, we identified a systematic progression from civil discourse to the formation of echo chambers. From that, we offer ways to steer conversations from developing into irreconcilable echo chambers.

a woman and man on a sofa argue — When emotions rise, people talk less about the pros and cons of an approach and more about what should be the right approach.
(Shutterstock)

Phase 1: Emotion deepens the divide

In the case of the harm reduction debate, an opioid crisis shook Alberta. A steep increase in overdose deaths heightened urgency and intensity around the debate and ushered in more emotionally charged arguments. Before long, a moral component developed in the debate.

When emotions rise, people talk less about the pros and cons of an approach and more about what should be the right approach.

Disagreements escalate as the discussion veers away from logic and arguments become more morally and emotionally charged. This heightened a sense of being right, and the opposite view being wrong, provides fertile ground for polarization.

This phase is where there is the greatest opportunity to change course. Be aware of the rising emotional energy. If the debate is getting heated, avoid framing arguments in terms of what’s right and wrong and stay focused on evidence and reason.

Phase 2: Heightened hostility

This is where things get personal.

As emotional rhetoric takes hold, participants pull farther apart and animosity grows. They start characterizing people on either side of the debate as morally right or wrong.

Just as we saw in phase one, a watershed event deepened the divide in Alberta. A newly elected provincial government took a distinctly different approach than the previous government, leaving advocates on one side feeling vindicated and their opponents shocked, dismayed and angry.

In phase two, the issue itself takes a back seat, and participants started blaming their opponents for making matters worse. There is less dialogue about an approach being right or wrong, and more about the people involved being right or wrong.

This is possibly the last chance to turn things around. At this point, we should be mindful about the importance of neutral and respectful language. One way to do this is by avoiding making things personal, such as blaming one another for a situation.

people in an office stand around a table arguing — Disagreements escalate as a discussion veers away from logic and arguments become more morally and emotionally charged.
(Shutterstock)

Phase 3: Disdain, disgust and self-isolation

By now, logical arguments have been abandoned, replaced with intense expressions of disgust and disdain for opponents. No longer interested in persuading the other side, the focus shifts to solidifying a position as both sides withdraw from debate and only engage with like-minded people.

In our study, this phase, like the previous phases, was brought on by a distinct event. A second provincial election ushered in an abrupt reversal in leadership and harm reduction policies. Any attempts to work together were abandoned and participants started entrenching themselves in self-constructed echo chambers.

In this most devastating and possibly irreparable phase, we noted that the rhetoric wasn’t even about what was right or wrong anymore. It was more about expressing disgust toward one another, leaving no room for facts, evidence or even different opinions, firmly establishing two entrenched sides.

Moral convictions and emotions play a critical role in escalating disagreements. The damage caused when civil arguments are subtly replaced with moral convictions and moral emotions can impact how we co-operate and interact with one another, even in our day-to-day conversations with families and friends.

In the context of addiction services in Alberta, there has now been an extended period of “cooling down” where both sides are taking a wait-and-see approach. We suggest that this is creating a climate where an engaged discussion with fact-based arguments can again be possible.

But even better would be a more proactive approach where participants of a debate recognize the warning signs and take actions early.

Trish Reay received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council that supported this research.

Elizabeth Goodrick, Emma Lei Jing, and Jo-Louise Huq 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. How discussion becomes discord: Three avoidable steps on the path to polarization – https://theconversation.com/how-discussion-becomes-discord-three-avoidable-steps-on-the-path-to-polarization-257709

July 5, 2025

World Refugee Day: Prolonged refugee separation is harming families — and Canada’s economy

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Christina Clark-Kazak, Professor, Public and International Affairs, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

As World Refugee Day approaches on June 20, advocates and health experts are calling on the Canadian government to urgently address prolonged family separation for refugees. With wait times for family reunification now averaging more than four years, critics say the delays are causing irreparable harm to refugee families and imposing long-term costs on the health-care system and the Canadian economy.

The significant health, social and economic costs of prolonged family separation merit urgent action. These costs are borne by refugees and their families as well as municipal, provincial and federal governments.

People seeking refugee protection whose claims are accepted in Canada receive protected person status and are allowed to apply for permanent residence. They are permitted to include dependent children and spouses who are outside Canada on their permanent residence applications.

While accepted refugees and their family members are legally eligible for permanent residence in Canada, they must be admitted under the immigration levels for Protected Persons in Canada and Dependants Abroad. Because the number of people applying under these levels exceeds the number of spaces available, family separation currently lasts 50 months.

In 2024, the government of Canada announced major reductions in immigration levels starting in 2025. These reductions will further delay family reunification, prolonging refugees’ bureaucratic limbo.

Mental and physical health costs

Studies document the several mental health consequences of the separation of children from their parent(s), and of spouses from their partner. These challenges intensify as the duration of the separation increases.

Medical associations around the world say family separation is a traumatic event that can cause developmental regression and higher rates of unexplained illness in children.

This trauma may stem from the sense of abandonment that children experience while being separated from their parents. In one study from 2005, an interviewee said:

“It was hard at first … .The children thought that I had abandoned them. They considered me a traitor.”

Despite the time and efforts invested in long-distance relationships, family breakdown may result from prolonged family separation, necessitating counselling or child protection services.

These mental health consequences not only have human costs. They also represent a financial burden for the Canadian government through the Interim Federal Health Care (IFHC) Program. After protected people transition away from IFHC, provincial and territorial governments pay for health costs associated with family separation.

Some children may also require school-based interventions, mental health services and counselling, the costs of which are also borne by provincial governments.

Economic costs

Protected people separated from their families also pay to maintain two households: one in Canada and one overseas. In a 2019 study, a refugee said that “sending remittances was more expensive than if they lived together in Canada.”

Remittances not only represent a financial challenge to refugee families, they also result in indirect economic losses to Canada as funds leave the country instead of being invested in Canada.

Research shows that family separation also inhibits integration. The inability to find affordable child care in a single-parent household, for example, limits the ability to learn official languages, participate in community groups and find work opportunities.

For example, one woman from Afghanistan who had been waiting more than six years for reunification with her husband told researchers:

“In night I sometimes cannot sleep and I just walk and walk around the lobby of my apartment building. […] I can no longer take care of my children when they’re missing all the time their father. They need their father. Even sometimes my family asking ‘where is he?’ and other kids at my children’s schools are asking.”

This stress caused severe mental and physical health issues for this woman and her family, further limiting her ability to work.

These integration challenges mean fewer people can work to their full capacity, limiting participation in the Canadian economy. Delayed economic integration due to family separation results in lower tax revenues for all levels of the Canadian government.

Family unity provides refugees with the necessary support to manage the stresses of resettlement. Family reunification increases flexibility to adjust to a new country and culture without additional challenges.

As refugees and their families integrate, Canada benefits. They find work, pay taxes and contribute to their communities.

An easy administrative fix

The United Nations declared June 20 to be World Refugee Day almost 25 years ago. Although it’s just one day, it reminds us to honour refugees from around the world.

It is a good time for the Canadian government to work towards issuing temporary visas to eligible family members, allowing them to live in Canada while they await permanent residence.

The right to family unity is protected by international law. Canada’s reputation as a leader in refugee protection is at risk if family reunification continues to be delayed.

The social, health and economic costs of family separation are both inhumane and unnecessary.

Chloé Bissonnette, undergraduate student in Conflict Studies and Human Rights at the University of Ottawa, contributed to this article.

Christina Clark-Kazak receives funding from the Social Sciences Humanities and Research Council (SSHRC).

– ref. World Refugee Day: Prolonged refugee separation is harming families — and Canada’s economy – https://theconversation.com/world-refugee-day-prolonged-refugee-separation-is-harming-families-and-canadas-economy-258441

July 5, 2025

Pride, pages and performance: Why drag story time matters more than ever

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Phillip Joy, Assistant Professor, Applied Human Nutrition, Mount Saint Vincent University

June is Pride month. It is a time for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, Two-Spirit, intersex and other sexuality- and gender-diverse (LGBTQ+) communities to come together to celebrate identities, build communities and advocate for justice and equality.

This year’s pride carries added weight. As American legal scholar Luke Boso writes, “fear has taken hold in private, interpersonal, and public reactions,” following the rhetoric and policies promoted by United States President Donald Trump.

His current term has been marked by a growing push to erase LGBTQ+ identities and limit queer expression in public life. Within this month of Pride, the Trump administration is planning to rename the USNS Harvey Milk naval ship, named after the late civil rights leader Harvey Milk.

The implications of such actions, however, aren’t limited to the U.S. Similar patterns of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric have been documented across democratic countries, where drag events and other expressions of queer visibility have become flashpoints for harassment as far-right groups try to build support and spread anti-LGBTQ+ views.

But with fear also comes hope. Even as events like drag story times have become targets of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and protests, communities continue to organize, resist and affirm their right to public joy and visibility.

Our research, recently funded by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, explores drag story times with the hope to learn more about how drag story time leaders select books, and how these events can foster best practices in literacy and inclusive education.

Drag story time as educational event

Drag story times are more than just community events. They are creative, educational spaces often held in public venues such as libraries, schools or community centres. Typically led by a drag performer, these sessions invite children, along with parents, caregivers and educators, to enjoy storybooks that highlight themes like acceptance, self-expression, diversity and joy.

Reading aloud with children serves as an avenue for the development of language and literacy. Young children can engage with vocabulary, content and ideas to construct meaning through texts that they may not, yet, have the skills to read on their own.

At their core, drag story time events offer opportunities for child-centred literacy practices, such as dialogue and interactions throughout the “read aloud,” to encourage children to consider ideas and connect them as the story moves along.

Reading aloud to children is a powerful way to nurture emotional, social and cognitive growth. Stories offer children what literacy scholars call mirrors (reflective ways to see themselves), windows (into understanding others) and “sliding glass doors,” — vantages for imagining new perspectives. When children encounter characters and families who reflect a range of lived experiences, it opens the door to conversations about empathy, acceptance and identity.

What books are being read?

A recent content analysis, by information sciences researcher Sarah Barriage and colleagues of 103 picture books read during drag story times in the U.S. found that few explicitly featured LGBTQ+ identities.

The lead characters were predominantly white, cisgender, heterosexual and able-bodied, with only seven per cent of books featuring trans, non-binary or intersex leads, and another seven per cent portraying same-sex or undefined relationships. While this represents an increase in LGBTQ+ representation compared to other studies of story time books and classroom libraries, the overall percentage remains low.

The findings of this study, while based on a small sample size, suggest that contrary to popular perception, drag story times, while featuring drag artists leading read-aloud sessions, are not consistently grounded in explicitly LGBTQ+ narratives.

Rather, the books may be story-time favourites, (such as selections from Mo Williams’ Pigeon series), or texts that tend to promote broadly inclusive and affirming messages of individuality, confidence, empathy, inclusion and imagination (such as Todd Parr’s It’s Okay to Be Different).

Books representing range of experiences

This gap highlights the importance of thoughtfully selecting books that reflect a wider range of experiences, including LGBTQ+ main characters and stories. When children are shown diverse characters and stories, they begin to understand the world from multiple perspectives.

Researchers with expertise in children’s early literacy recommend that books for interactive read-alouds with children should reflect both the children’s communities and communities different from their own. Such books can spark meaningful conversations, encourage critical thinking and help cultivate empathy and respect for difference. This prepares young readers for life in a multicultural society and helps build a more inclusive and compassionate world view.

Euphoria: being gender-aligned, authentic

Apart from the specific book content shared with children at drag story time, these events provide opportunities for children and families to engage with diverse gender and sexuality expressions in a safe, inclusive setting with their caregivers. Such exposure does not cause confusion in children, but rather supports healthy development by fostering empathy, self-awareness and acceptance.

This may come from or be expressed through the euphoria or joy that comes from feeling aligned and authentic in your gender. The idea of “gender euphoria” comes from within the trans community as a way to push back against the narrow narrative that trans lives are defined only by dysphoria, trauma or discomfort.

Instead, gender euphoria highlights the positive side that come with expressing or affirming one’s gender identity. It can look different for everyone, from a quiet sense of contentment to a powerful feeling of joy.

A smiling person with outstretched and raised hands in a multicoloured dress with what looks like a paper teacup on their head. — Communities affirm their right to public joy and visibility. Drag Queen Barbada de Barbades, who has led story times, seen in Montréal.
(Jennifer Ricard/Wikimedia), CC BY

Queer joy

Queer joy is also a feature of drag story time, and is more than just feeling good. it is about living fully, even in the face of adversity. It is an act of resistance to a world that often tells queer and trans people they should not exist. Children still die because of hateful anti-LGTBQ+ speech.

Together, gender euphoria and queer joy remind us that LGBTQ+ lives can be full of strength, creativity, connection and celebration.

When children see diversity reflective in creative, positive and affirming ways, such as through stories, role models and community engagement, they are more likely to feel a sense of belonging and develop confidence in expressing their own identities. In this way, drag story times contribute meaningfully to both individual well-being and broader efforts towards inclusion.

Best literacy and inclusion practices

As part of our research, we plan to attend drag story times to learn more about current practices in Nova Scotia. At the national level, we will talk with performers about their experiences, practices, support and training needs and their goals and motivations.

Then we’ll co-host a workshop with performers and educators to share knowledge and build skills that combine the artistry of drag with best practices in literacy and inclusive education.

Drag story times can be a healthy and supportive way for children to develop their sense of gender and sexuality identity, both within themselves and others.

Phillip Joy receives funding from The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

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

Conor Barker receives funding from the Social Studies and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

– ref. Pride, pages and performance: Why drag story time matters more than ever – https://theconversation.com/pride-pages-and-performance-why-drag-story-time-matters-more-than-ever-258508

July 5, 2025

Why Israel and the U.S. are sure to encounter the limits of air power in Iran

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

The United States has apparently answered Israel’s call to to become involved in the war between Israel and Iran.

President Donald Trump had signalled a willingness for the U.S. to become involved in the conflict. He went so far, in fact, to suggest in social media posts that he could kill Iran’s supreme leader if he wanted to.

Segment on Trump’s threats against Iran’s leader. (BBC News)

The American military can certainly make an impact in any air campaign against Iran. The problem from a military standpoint, however, is that the U.S., based on its forces’ deployment, will almost certainly seek to keep its involvement limited to its air force to avoid another Iraq-like quagmire.

While doing so could almost certainly disrupt Iran’s nuclear program, it will likely fall short of Israel’s goal of regime change.

In fact, it could reinforce the Iranian government and draw the U.S. into a costly ground war.

Israel’s need for American support

The initial stated reason for Israel’s bombing campaign — Iran’s nuclear capabilities — appears specious at best.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has argued several times in the past, without evidence, that Iran is close to achieving a nuclear weapon. U.S. intelligence, however, have assessed that Iran is three years away from deploying a nuclear weapon.

Regardless of the veracity of the claims, Israel initiated the offensive and requires American support.

Israel’s need for U.S. assistance rests on two circumstances:

While Israel succeeded in eliminating key figures from the Iranian military in its initial strikes, Iran’s response appears to have exceeded Israel’s expectations with their Arrow missile interceptors nearing depletion.
Israel’s air strikes can only achieve so much in disrupting Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Most analysts note that Israel’s bombings are only likely to delay the Iranian nuclear program by a few months. This is due to the fact that Israeli missiles are incapable of penetrating the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, which estimates place close to 300 feet underground.

The United States, however, possesses munitions that have reportedly destroyed the Fordow facility. Most notably, the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (more commonly known as a bunker buster) has a penetration capability of 200 feet and was reportedly used in the attack.

Romanticizing air power

Nonetheless, the efficacy of air power has been vastly overrated in the popular media and various air forces of the world. Air power is great at disrupting an opponent, but has significant limitations in influencing the outcome of a war.

Specifically, air power is likely to prove an inadequate tool for one of the supposed Israeli and American objectives in the war: regime change. For air power to be effective at bringing about regime change, it needs to demoralize the Iranian people to the point that they’re willing to oppose their own government.

Early air enthusiasts believed that a population’s demoralization would be an inevitable consequence of aerial bombardment. Italian general Giulio Douhet, a prominent air power theorist, argued that air power was so mighty that it could destroy cities and demoralize an opponent into surrendering.

Douhet was correct on the first point. He was wrong on the second.

Recent history provides evidence. While considerable ink has been spilled to demonstrate the efficacy of air power during the Second World War, close examination of the facts demonstrate that it had a minimal impact. In fact, Allied bombing of German cities in several instances created the opposite effect.

More recent bombing campaigns replicated this failure. The U.S. bombing of North Vietnam during the Vietnam War did not significantly damage North Vietnamese morale or war effort. NATO’s bombing of Serbia in 1999, likewise, rallied support for the unpopular Slobodan Milosevic due to its perceived injustice — and continues to evoke strong emotions to this day.

Iran’s political regime may be unpopular with many Iranians, but Israeli and American bombing may shore up support for the Iranian government.

Nationalism is a potent force, particularly when people are under attack. The attacks on Iran will rally segments of the population to the government that would otherwise oppose it.

Few positive options

The limitations of air power to fuel significant political change in Iran should have given Trump pause about intervening in the conflict.

Some American support, such as providing weapons, is a given due to the close relationship between the U.S. and Israel. But any realization of American and Israeli aspirations of a non-nuclear Iran and a new government will likely require ground forces.

Recent American experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq show such a ground forces operation won’t lead to the swift victory that Trump desires, but could potentially stretch on for decades.

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. Why Israel and the U.S. are sure to encounter the limits of air power in Iran – https://theconversation.com/why-israel-and-the-u-s-are-sure-to-encounter-the-limits-of-air-power-in-iran-259348

July 5, 2025

Alberta youth have the right to school library books that reflect their lives, including sexuality

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

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has expressed fondness for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, most recently wagering a a friendly public bet on the NHL hockey playoffs. In 2023, she said she wanted Albertans to enjoy some of the same freedoms available to citizens in certain American states, including Florida.

Her government’s latest proposal aims to take more than a page from DeSantis’s playbook, setting its sights on how Florida has targeted school library books, effectively purging and banning many.

Alberta Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides recently announced the province will move ahead to develop provincial standards “to ensure the age-appropriateness of materials available to students in school libraries.” This followed a public engagement survey related to what he said were concerns about “sexually explicit” books in Edmonton and Calgary schools.

The province says the survey results show “strong support” for a school library policy, even while the majority of respondents don’t want the government setting standards for school library books.

This marks the Alberta government’s latest effort to restrict the rights of 2SLGBTQIA+ children and youth.

New proposed school library standards

Like Florida’s statute on K-12 instructional materials, Alberta’s proposal centres on age-appropriateness and increasing parental choice in learning materials.

Despite claiming a need for new standards, Nicolaides has acknowledged there are already mechanisms in place in Alberta’s school jurisdictions for parents to challenge materials. Many school boards already have policies governing school library materials.

Additionally, librarians are trained professionals who follow established practices around organizing materials that reflect developmental appropriateness.

Florida school book purges

Florida’s statute, framed by DeSantis as empowering parents to object to obscene material, has targeted 2,700 books. More than 700 were removed from libraries in 2023-24.

Confusion and a climate of fear caused by the bill has led Florida teachers and librarians to self-censor. Florida’s Department of Education urged districts to “err on the side of caution” to avoid potential felony charges.

Such fear and surveillance lead to unnecessary restrictions on students’ rights.

Targeting 2SLGBTQIA+ books

Nicolaides has emphasized that developing the new standards in Alberta is not a question of “banning certain books,” and has acknowledged he does not have that authority.

However, as PEN Canada notes, the implications of the proposed policies raise alarm bells, with the government’s actions “paving the way to a new era of government-sponsored book banning.” Singling out books has the same effect as a ban, according to the CEO of the St. Albert Public Library.

By labelling four books as inappropriate — three of which include 2SLGBTQIA+ authors and themes — Nicolaides suggests these books don’t belong in K-12 schools. One of the books, the graphic novel Flamer, has won several awards, including the Lambda Literary Award for LGBTQ Young Adult Literature in 2021.

PEN America interview with Mike Curato, author of ‘Flamer.’

The education minister refuted the idea that singling out the books is anti-queer or anti-trans, and did so in an inflammatory manner, characterizing concern as being about protecting children from seeing porn, child molestation and other sexual content.

Nicolaides also said the proposed policy is focused on sexual content, so themes and depictions of graphic violence are “probably not” an issue.

Rolling back trans, queer rights

Alberta has already rolled back the rights of trans and non-binary children and youth to use different pronouns, access gender-affirming care and participate in sports.

Queer and trans identities are also absent from all subjects in the K-12 program of studies, including recently updated K-6 curriculum. New sexual health resource guidelines prohibit the use of learning materials that primarily and explicitly address sexual orientation or gender identity unless they have been vetted and approved by Alberta Education (except for use in religion classes).

Survey amplifies moral panic

Through specific communication tactics, the minister’s public engagement works to exacerbate moral panics about sexuality as a threat to childhood innocence. This influences broader messages about 2SLGBTQIA+ inclusion.

The government-created survey shared illustrations and text excerpts on their own, without context or consideration of their narrative purpose in each book. Although the excerpts flagged by the minister make up between 0.1 to two per cent of the total page count in each book, the books as a whole are labelled “extremely graphic.”

In a media appearance, Nicolaides stated the books in question were available to “elementary-aged” students. This is misleading because K-9 schools include junior high students.

In a social media post, the minister’s press secretary said “these problematic books were found in and around books like Goldilocks,” suggesting targeted books are alongside children’s storybooks. But the image he shared showed Flamer near the graphic novel Goldilocks: Wanted Dead or Alive, aimed at middle-grade readers aged nine to 12 years old.

Survey respondents

The survey reported 77,395 responses by demographics, including parents, teachers, school administrators, librarians and other interested Albertans.

Forty-nine per cent of parents of school-aged children were not at all or not very supportive of the creation of government guidelines, compared to 44 per cent of the same demographic who were somewhat or very supportive (eight per cent were unsure). Across each other demographic, most respondents expressed that they didn’t support the creation of new government standards. But the ministry plans to move ahead anyway.

Socially conservative lobby

The Investigative Journalism Foundation reports two conservative activist groups have taken credit for giving the Alberta government names of books believed to be inappropriate.

Parental rights groups and far-right activists have long asserted that 2SLGBTQIA+ inclusion in schools “indoctrinates” and sexualizes children.

We’re concerned the Alberta government may be reinforcing this message to manufacture a greater public consensus in support of wider policies against 2SLGBTQIA+ rights.

Since at least 2023, United Conservative Party (UCP) members have embraced socially conservative “parental rights” rhetoric and supported motions for purging school libraries and mandating parent approval of changes to kids’ names and pronouns.

Traditionalist ‘parental rights’

Far-right activist groups like Take Back Alberta have shaped the UCP government’s policies alongside special interest groups like Action4Canada and Parents for Choice in Education.

A common thread among such groups is parental authority over one’s own children framed in traditionalist or hetero-normative terms. Significant mobilizing has happened against the inclusion of sexual orientations and gender identities in school curricula, trans-inclusive health care, drag shows, conversion therapy bans and more.

Queer and trans identities are viewed as a social contagion threatening to change anyone exposed to them, and efforts for inclusion are labelled “gender ideology.”

These misconceptions, combined with political and religious biases, frame queerness and transness as “adult topics” that will confuse or harm children. However, research confirms ignoring these topics is of far greater concern when children may already experience discrimination about their gender expression by the age of five.

Earlier learning about diverse forms of gender expression and relationships can reduce victimization, and prevent young children from becoming perpetrators of, or bystanders to, anti-2SLGBTQIA+ harassment and violence.

The United Nations recognizes that governments need to resist political pressure “based on child protection arguments to block access to information on [2SLGBTQIA+] issues, or to provide negatively biased information.”

Access to self-selected literature is important for all students, and can be a lifeline for 2SLGBTQIA+ students who don’t see themselves in the curriculum.

If Alberta Education will not prepare students for the world they live in — where we queer and trans people exist, flourish and are loved — then students should be able to seek out stories that reflect that world. It’s a matter of protecting their freedom of expression.

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

Tonya D. Callaghan receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Killam Trusts.

Caitlin Campbell and Nicole Richard 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. Alberta youth have the right to school library books that reflect their lives, including sexuality – https://theconversation.com/alberta-youth-have-the-right-to-school-library-books-that-reflect-their-lives-including-sexuality-258265

July 5, 2025

Indigenous engagement is essential for small modular nuclear reactor projects

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Rhea Desai, Post Doctoral Fellow, Department of Biology, McMaster University

Urban Indigenous gathering for community well-being, showing the importance of interconnectedness in Indigenous Communities in Hamilton, Ont. in August 2021. This way of being must be reflected in nuclear projects to better work alongside Indigenous Peoples. (Michelle Webb)

With climate change-fuelled natural disasters becoming more frequent and devastating for communities around the world, the need for cleaner energy solutions is more urgent than ever.

When it comes to transitioning away from fossil fuels, much of the focus tends to be on solar, wind or hydroelectricity. However, small modular reactors (SMRs) are an emerging technology showing promise globally.

SMRs are a specific type of nuclear reactor that, as the name suggests, are small in energy output and modular in their manufacturing. Provinces like New Brunswick, Alberta and Saskatchewan have made progress on strategic plans to make SMRs part of their provincial climate action plans.

Unlike traditional nuclear reactors that generally produce more than 1,000 megawatts of electricity, SMRs are designed to produce as low as five megawatts. The modularity of such reactors allows for manufacturing off-site and installation at the desired location. This can decrease construction time, manufacturing costs and certain environmental costs associated with building on site.

This means SMRs are more feasible for many off-grid communities that lack reliable access to electricity, many of which are Indigenous. In 2023, the Canada Energy regulator said there were 178 remote Indigenous and northern communities not connected to the North American electricity grid and natural gas infrastructure.

In an effort to shift reliability from carbon-emitting resources to nuclear power, SMRs provide an exciting alternative, but implementation needs effective engagement with Indigenous communities to flourish.

a graphic outlining how many megawatts of power a large, small and micro nuclear reactor can generate. — Small modular reactors (SMRs) could be relatively feasible way to generate power for many off-grid communities.
(A. Vargas/IAEA)

Engaging Indigenous communities

Much of Canada’s electricity is already generated from low-carbon emission sources. However, there are still areas in northern Canada that are reliant on diesel, and therefore SMR plans are often aimed at providing electricity to these communities.

While on paper, this might sound like the perfect solution, there’s a lot to consider about SMR siting from an environmental perspective in these remote communities. These considerations include but are not limited to potential locations, source term, refuelling and waste management.

As research continues into the engineering and science behind SMR technology, meaningful community engagement with Indigenous communities is also required.

Thoughtfully considered and integrated consultations are necessary to ensure projects respect treaties, land rights and the surrounding environment. Consultation is needed to understand the needs and goals of the community for creating an energy transition plan.

In addition, incorporating traditional ecological knowledge in environmental risk assessments is vital. Ultimately, projects designed alongside Indigenous communities should strive for Indigenous sovereignty over growing infrastructure.

Why community engagement is important

Indigenous communities continue to face challenges as a result of colonization. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) seventh Call to Action highlights the need to eliminate educational and employment disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians.

A direct way to address in terms of Canada’s nuclear landscape is to train members of those communities in technical roles related to the planning, deployment and sustained use of a nuclear facility. Specifically, training today’s Indigenous youth so they can fulfil these roles in their future careers.

The TRC’s Call to Action 92 calls on Canada’s corporate sector to engage in meaningful consultation, respectful relationship-building and equitable access to training and education opportunities that will contribute to long-term benefits from any economic development projects.

Through understanding the need for this relationship-building, there is a lot that western practices can learn from adopting Indigenous ways of knowing. Indigenous people have a long history of sustainable practices in their culture and traditions, and although western science now consider sustainable practices, it is not deeply woven into community and industrial initiatives.

As nuclear projects advance in Canada, it’s vital to respect Indigenous knowledge through weaving with western science. Projects can adopt a Two-Eyed seeing approach. This refers to viewing a problem with one eye using an Indigenous knowledge perspective and the other with a western knowledge lens. There is much to learn from understanding the philosophy behind Indigenous ways of knowing that can be applied to protect the environment.

Indigenous knowledge varies across Canada and comes with different insights, but a commonality is the teaching that all living things are interconnected and must be respected and cared for. This perspective is necessary for the future of nuclear projects to ensure the environment is sustained to support the biodiversity of regions throughout Canada.

This informed approach of protecting the environment, together with an ecosystem approach that considers the uniqueness and interconectedness of each organism, will ultimately lead to improved nuclear policies and safety.

The actions that institutions and private industry take today to build strong relationships with Indigenous communities and work towards an increasingly sustainable future will support already resilient communities so they can see growth well beyond the deployment of SMRs. A path to a cleaner future is in reach, but only if we walk beside Indigenous leaders, knowledge holders, community members and, especially, youth.

The authors 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. Indigenous engagement is essential for small modular nuclear reactor projects – https://theconversation.com/indigenous-engagement-is-essential-for-small-modular-nuclear-reactor-projects-252134

July 5, 2025

Catholic school board’s regressive flag policy sets back reconciliation in a post-Papal visit Canada

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Erenna Morrison, PhD Candidate, Curriculum and Pedagogy, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto

Following the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 Calls to Action in 2015, some Catholic school boards have made commitments to reconciliation in education. These boards include the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (DPCDSB).

However, the DPCDSB — located in the Greater Toronto area — has also introduced a flag policy that raises serious questions about a commitment to the wider progress being made in welcoming all students and promoting reconciliation.

On Jan. 28, 2025 — following advocacy in different parts of Ontario and the country against the presence of the Pride flag — the board’s trustees voted in nine to one to add more restrictions to its flag policies. These restrictions stipulated that only flags representing Canada, the provinces, territories and the school board can be be displayed inside schools or other DPCDSB facilities.

Acts of erasure

The developments in Peel Region follow earlier policy changes to restrict the presence of the Pride flag and other flags at schools.

Advocates from the board defending flag restrictions have said that in Catholic schools, the icon of the cross is the only symbol that should be promoted and that this represents inclusion and acceptance of all.

However, members of the 2SLGBTQI+ community and opponents of restrictive flag policies argue that the Pride flag is needed to signal a welcoming environment. They say its removal is an act of erasure and that it calls into question how the board affirms the rights, dignity and visibility of 2SLGBTQI+ people and how it fosters their safety. The board says, and believes, its practices and policies comply with the Ontario human rights code, adding that supports are available for students who identify as 2SLGBTQI.

The erasure of the Pride flag has the simultaneous effect of banning other important flags, such as Every Child Matters flags, Indigenous Nation flags and MMIWG2S flags (drawing attention to ending violence, disappearance and murder of First Nations women, girls and two-spirit people).

In our analysis, this restrictive flag policy expresses colonial violence. We rely on the work of Sandra Styres, researcher of Iethi’nihsténha Ohwentsia’kékha (Land), Resurgence, Reconciliation and the Politics of Education, who examines how colonial violence is expressed in academic settings through “micro-aggressions, purposeful ignorance, structural racism, lateral violence, isolation” and also in “representations and spaces.”

Crucial time for righting relationships

Our concern is informed by our combined research and personal engagement focused around reconciliatory education in elementary Catholic schools (Erenna) and Anishinaabe Catholic expressions of self-determination in the Church (Noah). Erenna is a settler and Noah is a member of Michipicoten First Nation.

We are married writing partners who travelled to Québec City in July 2022 to witness the long-awaited penitential pilgrimage of the late Pope Francis. We left with an awareness that this is a critical time for the righting of relationships that have been severely fractured by a Church complicit in genocide.

The DPCDSB flag policy speaks to an unwillingness of many to sever emotional attachments to the white imperialism that preserves a western way of thinking, doing and being, in the name of faith.

When a major Catholic entity like the DPCDSB introduces policies that may cause harm, concerned people, regardless of creed, must pay attention to such injustices.

Revised flag policy

Delegate Melanie Cormier, representing the DPCSB’s Indigenous Education Network, shared a statement relaying that the board’s restrictive flag policy fails to acknowledge the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation whose traditional and treaty territory where the board resides. She states: “Your flag policy is in violation of our jurisdiction. To say that any of our flags can not be flown in our own territories is unacceptable.”

Brea Corbet, the only trustee with voting power who did not vote to restrict the Pride flag, told an earlier bylaw policies meeting: “When we remove rainbow flags and heritage flags, we are not protecting our Catholic identity; we are revealing institutional fragility. The Pride flag does not threaten Catholic education, policies of exclusion do.”

Three student trustees also opposed the restrictive policy, but their votes unfortunately aren’t counted. We argue this too speaks to the suppression of student voice within the board.

This fragility disproportionately threatens the safety of Indigenous, 2SLGBTQI+ and marginalized students and staff as they are overlooked and dismissed by the flag policy.

Nurturing all students

Kanienʼkehá:ka (Mohawk) education professor Frank Deer speaks of educational programming “that is congruent with the identity of the local community.” This programming, he writes, must go beyond curricula to address the school environment as well. Student safety, inclusion and identity affirmation must be prioritized in all aspects of school life.

Jennifer Brant, a Kanienʼkehà:ka interdisciplinary scholar, speaks in depth about how silence during times like these equates to complicity in accepting injustices that are taking place within “the communities in which we live, the broader society and global communities.”

Inaction in response to this policy is negligent.

Detrimental ramifications may also extend to reconciliation efforts in religious spaces more generally. This regressive policy poses lingering questions about the longevity of Catholic schools if they fail to protect and nurture all students.

Impacts on reconciliation

The primary target of the DPCDSB’s sweeping flag policy is the 2SLGBTQI+ community. In addition, the flag ban attacks Indigenous sovereignty and Anishinaabek nationhood, perpetuating attitudes tied to the Doctrine of Discovery still present in the Catholic ethos.

Flying the flags of First Nations (at their request) is not only a matter of inclusion, it is a matter of respect — respect for the land, the people and the treaties that connect us.

In denying this step towards relationality, this governing body of a Catholic school board sets back the Church’s reconciliation efforts riding on the momentum of the papal visit.

The board’s ignorance of how this policy risks damaging relationships with students, families and staff at the board, as well as the broader public, partly reflects an indifference that Pope Francis warned Catholics about during his visit:

“I trust and pray that Christians and civil society in this land may grow in the ability to accept and respect the identity and the experience of the Indigenous Peoples. It is my hope that concrete ways can be found to make those peoples better known and esteemed, so that all may learn to walk together.”

Walking together in solidarity

As we write this piece, we can see through the window a local Toronto Catholic Distric School Board elementary school, where an Every Child Matters flag is flown alongside a Pride and Canadian flag.

Catholic education, despite its sordid history and contested perspectives about interpreting and practising Church doctrine, can be a tool to drive reconciliation.

Catholics cannot let a narrow vision overshadow Pope Francis’s pilgrimage and the global Church movement he, the Church’s bishops and Catholic lay people have participated in — via a global synod — to respond to the call to walk together in solidarity with Indigenous, 2SLGBTQI+ and other marginalized people.

Counter-narratives of hope and possibility

We wish to continue to hear counter-narratives of hope and possibility for Catholic education. We wish to see active changes that move the DPCDSB, as scholar Sheila Cote-Meek of the Teme-Augama Anishinabai, writes, “to a drastically different way of being, doing and working.”

As other Catholic boards in Ontario initiate flag debates of their own, we are left with the lingering question. What is the future of Catholic education if it’s not intended to support the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual well-being of all those entrusted to its care?

– ref. Catholic school board’s regressive flag policy sets back reconciliation in a post-Papal visit Canada – https://theconversation.com/catholic-school-boards-regressive-flag-policy-sets-back-reconciliation-in-a-post-papal-visit-canada-256765