Category: The Conversation

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

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.

---

Read more:
Wildfire smoke can harm your brain, not just your lungs

---

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.

---

Read more:
A sustainable, circular economy could counter Trump’s tariffs while strengthening international trade

---

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.

---

Read more:
While the U.S. threatens tariffs and builds walls around its economy, China opens up

---

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.

---

Read more:
Why Canada’s Strong Borders Act is as troublesome as Donald Trump’s travel bans

---

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.

---

Read more:
California is planning floating wind farms offshore to boost its power supply – here’s how they work

---

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.

---

Read more:
Mark Carney wants to make Canada an energy superpower — but what will be sacrificed for that goal?

---

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

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.”

---

Read more:
‘Parental rights’ lobby puts trans and queer kids at risk

---

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.

---

Read more:
How Project 2025 became the blueprint for Donald Trump’s second term

---

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

---

Read more:
5 things to know about Drag Queen Story Time

---

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.

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

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.

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.

---

Read more:
Why is there so much concern over Iran’s nuclear program? And where could it go from here?

---

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:

1. 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.

2. 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