Category: The Conversation

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Naomi Andrews, Associate Professor of Child and Youth Studies, Brock University

Picture this: a group of girls are sitting at a table in the lunchroom when a boy walks by. One girl turns to another girl and laughingly says: “Oh, isn’t that your boyfriend? You should go kiss him!”

A different girl chimes in: “Yeah, go give him a big kiss!” The girl in question responds: “Shh, stop that. I don’t want him to hear you!” and she smiles, but her face goes red. Her friends continue, making kissing noises and laughing. The others in the group join in laughing as well.

How should the girl interpret that behaviour? Were the teasers being playful — or taunting her in an aggressive way?

The answer to that question is: it depends. Teasing is a common but complex behaviour that can serve pro-social functions, such as bonding, signalling relational closeness. But it can also have anti-social functions and harm the targeted person.

Like all complex social behaviours, teasing interactions are influenced by a number of factors, like the relationship between teaser and target, the content of the tease and the local and broader context.

Study about harmful or playful teasing

In our recent study, we developed a model that organizes these various factors and the links between them.

The study used semi-structured interviews with 27 university students, who we asked to describe a teasing interaction from their adolescence that they experienced as harmful and playful.

---

Read more:
Too many kids face bullying rooted in social power imbalances — and educators can help prevent this

---

Based on the interviews with participants, we developed a model to capture the many dynamics involved in teasing (such as the relationship between parties) and profiles of both harmful and playful teasing that shows where these factors differ.

Power differences, motives

As described by research participants, harmful teasing often includes content that is sensitive to the target, and might include a power difference between teaser and target based on factors like gender or sexuality, culture or racialization, as well as wealth or popularity. Some harmful content expressed was about sexuality (more than one participant mentioned homophobia) and ethnicity or religion (one participant was teased about wearing her hijab).

---

Read more:
Girls in hijab experience overlapping forms of racial and gendered violence

---

Playful teasing, on the other hand, often happens between close friends and is based on positive motives (for example, to be friendly, for encouragement). However, there is also substantial overlap between playful and harmful teasing.

Teasing can also start out as playful but “cross the line” to become harmful. Our systematic review of existing research about peer teasing revealed that youth consider a few key factors to determine what “crosses the line.”

The teaser’s body language, facial expressions and tone of voice combine to indicate the meaning behind the tease. Intent is important, and a teaser whose intent is clearly playful is less likely to cross the line.

Changes across development

The interplay between relationships and teasing content is also important. Youth in our study indicated that friends should know what to say and what not to say. That is, given their closeness, friends should know what specific content would cross the line. That said, teasing from friends can still hurt, particularly because they can have intimate knowledge of the target’s vulnerabilities.

Other research also points to important changes across children’s development. For example, researchers have noted that teasing is almost always interpreted as harmful by younger children. It isn’t until adolescence that youth recognize the potential for teasing to be playful.

This suggests that advances in cognitive, social and emotional skills across the transition to adolescence may better help youth understand the complexity and nuance that can be a part of these interactions.

For adults working with youth — or thinking about their own lives — it’s important to remember a social interaction may look harmless from the outside, but can still have negative consequences for those involved.

As for the distinction between teasing and bullying, what our research shows is that some harmful teasing can be considered bullying as it meets the hallmarks of that negative behaviour (power differential, intent, repetition), but not always.

Limits of playful teasing

Based on findings from our review and across our multiple studies, we suggest some insights around the limits of playful teasing that could be relevant for youth or adults in their own lives — or adults supporting children and youth.

1. A good starting place for playful teasing is when the teaser has a positive, close relationship with the person they are teasing. The person being teased should feel comfortable enough to ask for the teasing to stop if they want; and then the teasing should stop right away.

2. Teasing shouldn’t involve part of the target’s identity or involve sensitive topics. This is why having a close, positive relationship is a good prerequisite, so that the teaser knows what topics are “off-limits.”

3. We should always be careful about teasing around an audience, as this can amplify the harm — even when the audience involves other friends.

4. Check in with the person you’re teasing and pay close attention to their reaction. Often playful teasing is reciprocal.

5. Repeated teasing — even about seemingly benign topics — is more likely to feel harmful.

Lastly, even if a teaser means to be playful, being teased can still hurt. Be prepared to make amends and engage in relationship repair if the playful tease “crosses the line” and harms someone.

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. Is teasing playful or harmful? It depends on a number of factors – https://theconversation.com/is-teasing-playful-or-harmful-it-depends-on-a-number-of-factors-273676

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jennifer Guthrie, Assistant Professor of Microbiology and Immunology, Western University

Norovirus outbreaks have repeatedly shadowed major international events, and the Olympics are no exception. When thousands of athletes from around the world gather in one place, attention is usually on records broken and medals won. Yet the size and intensity of the Games can create conditions that allow infectious microbes to spread.

The outbreak at the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Games has already affected several teams, illustrating the real-world impact of such infections. Highly contagious and able to survive for days on surfaces, norovirus is one example of a pathogen that can move efficiently in these environments.

While norovirus outbreaks are often reported on cruise ships and in schools, global sporting events present additional challenges. Meals are served in centralized facilities, training and recreational spaces are shared and participants travel from countries around the world. In these environments, norovirus can spread rapidly through shared spaces and close contact.

Outbreaks at events like the Olympics are more than logistical setbacks. They reveal how the virus’s biology and the realities of mass gatherings make containment difficult.

What is norovirus?

Norovirus is a highly contagious virus that causes acute gastroenteritis, an inflammation of the stomach and intestines. It is the leading cause of food-borne illness worldwide, causing hundreds of millions of cases each year.

Although infections are often brief, typically lasting 24 to 72 hours, symptoms can be intense. Sudden onset vomiting, watery diarrhea, nausea, stomach cramps and sometimes low-grade fever or body aches are common. Most healthy adults recover quickly, but young children, older adults and people who become dehydrated can experience serious complications.

One reason norovirus spreads so efficiently is its extremely low infectious dose: fewer than 20 viral particles may be enough to cause illness. By comparison, many other viruses require far higher doses to trigger infection.

In practical terms, microscopic contamination on food, surfaces or hands can be enough to make someone sick. The virus spreads primarily through the fecal–oral route, via contaminated food or water, direct person-to-person contact or touching contaminated surfaces and then the mouth.

Norovirus is also remarkably resilient. It can survive on surfaces for days, withstand freezing temperatures and resist many common disinfectants. It is not reliably killed by alcohol-based hand sanitizers, making thorough hand-washing with soap and water essential. Adding to the challenge, infected individuals can spread the virus before symptoms appear and may continue shedding it for days after recovery.

These characteristics of high infectivity, environmental persistence, and the ability to spread before and after symptoms appear make norovirus particularly difficult to control, especially in settings where large numbers of people live, eat and interact in close proximity.

Why the Olympics are a perfect storm

The Olympic Games bring together thousands of athletes, coaches, support staff and spectators for several weeks of intense competition. With back-to-back events, team meetings and travel between venues, athletes are in near-constant contact with teammates, competitors and staff. In the shared spaces of the Olympic Village, even small exposures can allow infections to move quickly.

The rapid turnover of participants and the arrival of athletes from multiple countries further increase the risk. Different viral strains can be introduced, and those infected may unknowingly carry the virus to others or even back home.

In this environment, speed is everything: norovirus can cause illness within a day or two of exposure, allowing outbreaks to spread quickly and challenging even the most well-prepared health teams.

Containment challenges during major sporting events

Isolation, sanitation and rapid testing are critical but difficult at scale. Containing norovirus during a global event like the 2026 Winter Olympics highlights the practical hurdles organizers face. In early February, a norovirus cluster among the Finland women’s hockey team forced the postponement of their opening game against Canada, as more than a dozen players were either ill or quarantined, showing how quickly an infectious outbreak can disrupt competition plans.

Testing is a key limitation. Norovirus is often diagnosed based on symptoms, and although laboratory tests are available, results may be delayed and capacity strained during a massive event. Because people can spread the virus before symptoms appear, transmission may already be underway by the time cases are confirmed.

Sanitation must also intensify quickly. Norovirus survives on surfaces and requires chlorine-based disinfectants applied thoroughly to high-touch areas across venues and athlete housing. Scaling these measures across large facilities demands rapid co-ordination and staffing.

Isolation is another essential tool. Separating symptomatic or exposed athletes can interrupt transmission but may disrupt team routines. After one player on Switzerland’s women’s hockey team tested positive, the entire team entered precautionary isolation and missed the opening ceremony, showing how a single case can have wide-reaching effects.

Containment ultimately depends on co-ordination among organizers, medical teams and public health authorities, along with clear communication to safeguard both health and competition.

Beyond the Games

The Olympics showcase the best of global unity, but they also reveal how tightly interconnected our world has become.

Managing infectious diseases at events of this scale requires constant preparedness, reminding us that public health planning is as essential as athletic preparation.

Jennifer Guthrie receives funding from the Canada Research Chairs program, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

– ref. When norovirus hits the Olympics: The science behind the spread – https://theconversation.com/when-norovirus-hits-the-olympics-the-science-behind-the-spread-275782

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Adam Ali, Assistant Professor, School of Kinesiology, Western University

On Feb. 12, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) banned Ukrainian skeleton athlete Vladyslav Heraskevych from competition for wearing a helmet that featured images of fellow Ukrainian athletes who had been killed in Russia’s invasion of his home nation.

According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, close to 15,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed and 40,000 have been injured since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022.

Over the past four years, more than 450 Ukrainian athletes — including those adorned on Heraskevych’s helmet — have been killed, with many more injured or left with long-term disabilities.

The IOC’s decision has once again placed the Olympic movement at the centre of a longstanding debate over neutrality, political expression and human rights.

Neutrality and expression

The IOC stated that Heraskevych violated the athlete expression guidelines, saying:

“It is a fundamental principle that sport at the Olympic Games is neutral and must be separate from political, religious and any other type of interference. The focus at the Olympic Games must remain on athletes’ performances, sport and the harmony that the Games seek to advance.”

The IOC’s current rules on athlete expression stem from Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter, which doesn’t permit any kind of “demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda” in Olympic areas.

The IOC’s decision has already been decried as unlawful and discriminatory by legal and human rights experts, who argue that it is inconsistent with the IOC’s application of its own policies in other instances.

For example, Italian snowboarder Roland Fischnaller displayed a Russian flag on his helmet, even though Russia’s national symbols were officially banned at the Games.

After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the IOC initially barred Russian athletes from competing under their national flag but later permitted some to participate as neutral athletes. This has drawn criticism, particularly in cases where Russian athletes have been linked to activity supporting the war in Ukraine.

While some might justifiably point to contradictions in the application of Olympic rules on athlete expression, as well within the policies themselves, the IOC’s decision illuminates a longer-standing concern.

As many scholars, activists and others have argued for decades, the IOC, with its current structure, is ill-equipped to provide global leadership in promoting peace and human rights through sport.

The limits of the Olympic Truce

This contradiction can be traced as far back as the Olympic Truce, first instituted in the 9th century BC in ancient Greece. In its contemporary form, the truce is intended to protect “as far as possible, the interests of the athletes and sport in general, and to harness the power of sport to promote peace, dialogue and reconciliation.”

In practice, however, peacemaking has been more of a rhetorical than actualized endeavour within the Olympic movement. The IOC frequently emphasizes sport’s perceived ability to help athletes and fans from different parts of the world overcome prejudice and discrimination through the Olympic Games.

Yet this key part of the Olympic mission is complicated by the IOC’s wish to maintain its image as an “essentially apolitical international organization, as political scientist Liam Stockdale has noted.

Maintaining a politically neutral stance while claiming to promote peace in global conflicts — such as the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine — is both contradictory and a purposeful form of naivete that allows the IOC to “sportswash” its way to further fill its financial coffers.

Although the IOC has often remained silent — and at times restricted athletes’ voices — on matters of social justice and human rights, its sanctions on Russia demonstrate that it is willing to take explicit positions when it deems necessary.

This stands in stark contrast to its banning of Heraskevych for highlighting the costs of Russia’s military adventure — Ukrainian lives.

Double standards at play

The debate over neutrality has also extended beyond Ukraine. The IOC has faced intense criticism over its continued silence towards Israel’s military campaign in Palestine following the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas.

Israel’s actions have been described as constituting genocide by human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, an independent United Nations commission and academic experts.

Hundreds of Palestinian athletes have been killed in Israeli attacks, according to the Palestine Olympic Committee and the Palestinian Football Association.

Committees, sport clubs, scholars and other advocates have called for Israel to be banned from the 2024 Paris Games and the current Winter Games in Italy.

To date, however, the IOC has not imposed restrictions on Israeli athletes or officials, maintaining its position that the Games must remain politically neutral. This reveals the IOC’s double standards in determining whose human rights and livelihoods are worth speaking up for, and whose they consider disposable.

Such actions mean it’s that much more imperative for athletes like Heraskevych to continue using one of global sport’s largest spectacles to shed light on atrocities taking place in Ukraine, Gaza and elsewhere, while athletic feats are celebrated on the ice, slopes and half-pipes in Italy.

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

– ref. The IOC’s ban of a Ukrainian athlete over his helmet reveals troubling double standards – https://theconversation.com/the-iocs-ban-of-a-ukrainian-athlete-over-his-helmet-reveals-troubling-double-standards-275896

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Gwendolyn Blue, Professor, University of Calgary

The Canadian government’s recent approval of the first gene-edited animal to enter the food system has reignited debates over whether foods produced using genetic engineering techniques should be labelled.

Gene-edited animals, including faster-growing fish, heat-tolerant cows and disease-resistant pigs, have already been approved in the United States, Japan and several countries in South America. These decisions, including Canada’s approval, were made with limited public awareness and input.

Advocacy groups such as the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, political parties including the Bloc Québécois and organic pork producers are calling for mandatory labelling of gene-edited meat in Canada.

Public demand

Public opinion research indicates that many Canadians view labelling gene-edited foods as essential. Polling commissioned by the Canadian Health Food Association suggests many Canadians want greater transparency about the use of gene editing for food production.

Studies in the United States also suggest that consumer acceptance increases when the benefits of gene editing are clearly communicated.

Similarly, a survey commissioned by the company that developed Canada’s first approved gene-edited pig found that many Canadians would consider purchasing gene-edited pork if health and environmental benefits were delivered.

Why label gene-edited meat?

Food labelling serves multiple purposes: it provides information about a product’s ingredients and the production methods involved. Labels also play a democratic role by promoting transparency and accountability. This in turn allows consumers to make choices that reflect health considerations as well as their ethical, political and environmental values.

Debates over the labelling of gene-edited meat often hinge on tensions between ethical principles such as protection and autonomy. On the one hand, governments are tasked with protecting the food supply and ensuring food safety. On the other hand, individual consumers have the right to know how food is produced and to make choices accordingly.

Proponents of labelling argue that consumers have a fundamental right to know what’s in their food, how it was produced and what potential risks are involved.

With gene-edited meat, public concerns include health and safety risks, as well as environmental consequences, animal welfare, corporate control of the food system via patents and licensing and threats to food sovereignty.

For example, gene-edited animals could potentially be harmed by unintended consequences, including off-target side effects. It is imperative to ensure traceability in commercial settings with clear mechanisms to report on animal health and welfare.

By enhancing consumer choice, labelling can also foster market competition.

Opponents of labelling argue that gene-edited foods are scientifically proven to be safe and that labelling could mislead consumers into assuming there is a risk where none exists. They argue that labels can create fear and confusion, potentially undermining the adoption of breeding techniques that could enhance health, reduce environmental impacts and improve food security.

Labelling also has political consequences. Market-based approaches shift responsibility to individual consumers, which can foreclose other avenues for collective decision-making about how food systems should be governed.

Mandatory versus voluntary labelling

Canada currently doesn’t require the labelling of genetically modified (GMO) or gene-edited foods. Under the Food and Drugs Act, labelling is mandated only when a product poses a health or safety concern.

This is at odds with approaches elsewhere. For example, the U.S. National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard requires companies to label genetically engineered foods, while decisions about the labelling of gene-edited foods are made on a case-by-case basis.

In Canada, voluntary labelling is permitted provided it’s truthful and not misleading. The Canadian Standards Board, scheduled soon to cease operations due to budget cuts, provides guidance on voluntary labelling for genetically engineered foods. Notably, its definition of genetic engineering excludes both conventional breeding and gene editing.

The Canada organics sector relies on voluntary non-GMO food labelling. Similar to international organic standards, certified organic products in Canada prohibit the use of genetically engineered and gene-edited seeds, feed and food.

Following Health Canada’s approval of gene-edited pigs in January, organic pork producer duBreton introduced Canada’s first verified non-gene-edited and non-cloned meat label.

This proposed label was also a response to a now-paused federal proposal to exclude cloned animals from the definition of novel foods, a move that would allow cloned meat to enter the market without consumer or government notification.

A lack of public engagement

The labelling of gene-edited meat raises several questions. Food labels can support consumer autonomy and transparency, but labels are not good at conveying complicated information. Labels also privilege market forces for making collective decisions, instead of other democratic processes such as public deliberation and stringent regulation.

In a regulatory context that largely promotes biotechnology while offering few opportunities for meaningful public engagement, it remains unclear whether labelling is the most effective democratic approach to gene-edited meat in Canada.

As gene-edited animals potentially become more common in global food systems, the question is not just whether to label these products, but which political opportunities labelling creates or restricts — and for whose benefit.

Gwendolyn Blue receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. She is also affiliated with the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council funded training program, Genome Editing for Food Security and Environmental Sustainability (GEFSES).

– ref. Gene-edited meat in Canada: To label or not to label? – https://theconversation.com/gene-edited-meat-in-canada-to-label-or-not-to-label-274904

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Tamara Krawchenko, Associate Professor, School of Public Administration, University of Victoria

In the past year, leaders of Alberta’s main separatist organization have travelled repeatedly to Washington, D.C., for quiet meetings with senior American government officials in the Treasury and State departments. They’ve reportedly discussed everything from adopting the American dollar to building an independent Alberta military.

These highly unusual interactions — which prompted Canada to warn the Donald Trump administration to respect Canadian sovereignty — are unfolding just as a new Angus Reid poll shows 29 per cent of Albertans would vote, or are inclined to vote, for separation if a referendum were held today.

This is a clear minority, but it’s also an indication of some discontentment. The more interesting question is why a province that has long been among Canada’s richest feels so hard done by that some are willing to contemplate breaking up the country.

---

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

---

Alberta defies the usual template

Andrés Rodríguez‑Pose, a professor of economic geography at the London School of Economics, argues that populist eruptions are rooted in regions suffering persistent economic decline, demographic loss and a pervasive sense that they have been “left behind” in a globalized economy.

In Europe and the United States, voters in deindustrialized regions have used the ballot box to punish political leaders for abandoning them. The core grievance is material and territorial: my region is poorer, ignored and slipping further behind.

Alberta does not fit that template.

Its economy has grown faster than any other province since 1950, and it still sits near the top of Canada’s income and employment league tables, even after oil price shocks.

In fact, a central anomaly of Canadian federalism is that Alberta’s economic heft far exceeds its population and representation in Ottawa, feeding a sense of under‑recognized importance rather than marginality.

Alberta is not a place that “doesn’t matter” economically; the anger of those who want to separate stems from believing it matters a great deal and is nonetheless disrespected.

A long history of grievance politics

To understand today’s sovereigntist turn, we need to situate it in Alberta’s political culture. For nearly a century, Alberta political leaders have fused populism, “western alienation” and oil politics into a powerful narrative about Ottawa exploiting the province’s resources.

---

Read more:
Alberta has long accused Ottawa of trying to destroy its oil industry. Here’s why that’s a dangerous myth

---

From Social Credit premiers William Aberhart and Ernest Manning through to Progressive Conservative Peter Lougheed, provincial governments portrayed hard‑working Albertans as besieged by federal political leaders and eastern “money powers” siphoning off “their” oil wealth.

That story hardened during the National Energy Program in the 1980s and was revived against former prime minister Justin Trudeau’s climate policies and carbon pricing, which UCP governments portrayed as an attack on a fossil‑fuel‑based way of life.

Recent scholarship shows how this individualism, free‑market ideology and fossil‑fuel identity has been continually updated through the Reform Party, the “firewall” letter, Jason Kenney’s “Fair Deal Panel” and, most recently, Premier Danielle Smith’s Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act.

Alberta’s sovereigntist politics are therefore less an aberration than a radicalization of longstanding themes: populist anti‑elite rhetoric, resentment of Ottawa and a deep attachment to oil and gas.

The Alberta Prosperity Project

The Alberta Prosperity Project (APP) crystallizes this paradox. Its leaders speak the language of hardship and urgency — “we see the writing on the wall” — and claim Alberta must seize “freedom, prosperity and sovereignty” from a confederation that no longer shares its “values” and “entrepreneurship.”

Their draft fiscal blueprint, The Value of Freedom, promises that independence would unleash tens of billions in savings, eliminate personal income tax, slash other taxes and transform Alberta into “the most prosperous country in the world.”

Central to this case is the complaint that Albertans pay too much to Ottawa and get too little back in return — especially through equalization and other transfers. In this telling, sovereignty — or at least a radically “restructured” relationship with Canada — is the only way to stop Ottawa from siphoning off the fruits of Alberta’s oil.

Yet this narrative glosses over Alberta’s own choices. During boom years, successive Conservative governments — strongly backed by many of the same constituencies now drawn to sovereigntist rhetoric — cut taxes, kept royalties comparatively low and resisted building a large, Norway‑style savings fund.

---

Read more:
Alberta budget means Albertans are trapped on a relentless fiscal rollercoaster ride

---

At the same time, Alberta chronically under-invested in health care, education and social services relative to its fiscal capacity, leaving systems stretched even before the COVID-19 pandemic. When oil prices fell, the result was not simply federal neglect but the exposure of a model that had privileged low taxes and immediate consumption over long‑term resilience.

In other words, the Alberta Prosperity Project is right that Albertans feel squeezed — but its account of who did the squeezing is selective. Sovereigntists who blame Ottawa and equalization for every shortfall ignore the role of provincial policy in creating the ongoing boom-and-bust cycle in Alberta.

‘Fossilized’ regionalism

Another source of discontent lies in the collision between Alberta’s oil‑dependent economy and the global climate transition.

Scholars say Alberta regionalism is “fossilized” — decades of political and economic investment in oil and gas have locked in expectations about jobs, identity and provincial autonomy.

As federal and international climate policies intensify, many Albertans interpret decarbonization as a threat. In a 2023 poll, three in five Albertans said they believe the province is right to resist the federal government’s net-zero goals.

The fear is not that Alberta has been excluded from growth, but that it will be deliberately left behind in the next economy while its existing wealth is constrained or stranded.

The Alberta Prosperity Project’s fiscal plan doubles down on hydrocarbons, promising prosperity through continued or expanded oil and gas development while railing against “externally imposed limits” on emissions.

Idiosyncrasies

The Alberta Prosperity Project embodies the idiosyncrasies of this approach. It calls for an independent, low‑tax petro‑state, denounces federal redistribution and promises world‑leading prosperity. Yet it rarely acknowledges that the same political camp has historically opposed higher royalties, stronger stabilization funds and robust social investment when times were good.

It presents the climate transition as an illegitimate imposition rather than a predictable structural shift that responsible governments could have prepared for.

Recent revelations that APP leaders have been workshopping state‑building with senior U.S. officials shows this isn’t just a symbolic protest, but an attempt to secure external backing for an oil‑centred future that Canada’s constitutional order and climate obligations cannot sustain.

Alberta’s sovereigntist discontent is a three-way collision: long‑cultivated politics of grievance against Ottawa; a self‑inflicted fiscal and social vulnerability rooted in decisions made during boom years; and a global energy transition that threatens a deeply embedded regional identity.

The danger? In insisting on a future of perpetual oil‑funded prosperity while railing against transfers and federal authority, movements like APP offer Albertans a superficially compelling story that cannot be reconciled with either Canada’s Constitution or the realities of a warming world.

Tamara Krawchenko is a Research Lead with the University of Victoria-led Accelerating Community Energy Transformation initiative; a Research Fellow with the Institute for Research on Public Policy; an expert panelist with the Canadian Climate Institute and; a board member with Ecotrust Canada.

– ref. As Alberta separatists court the U.S., prosperity is fuelling a sovereigntist turn – https://theconversation.com/as-alberta-separatists-court-the-u-s-prosperity-is-fuelling-a-sovereigntist-turn-274914