Business + Economy – The Conversation

What’s the No. 1 MBA? Why business deans invest in rankings, knowing they miss a lot

2025-11-02T13:01:00Z

When Harvard Business School tumbled to sixth place in the U.S. News MBA rankings in 2020, the reaction was swift. Critics questioned the methodology, picking up on earlier critiques of rankings.

Some ranking skeptics continue to point to low response rates — for example, in 2025, U.S. News disclosed that approximately only half of the ranked schools participated in peer assessment surveys, which gauge how top administrators regard other institutions.

Yet behind closed doors, business school deans across North America have nuanced conversations about rankings — ones that reveal an uncomfortable truth about how rankings shape their institutions.

I interviewed four Canadian business school deans about the influence of MBA rankings on strategic planning during 2021-22, using semi-structured questions. These deans represent about a quarter of management schools from research-intensive universities in Canada. I discovered something striking: these leaders simultaneously dismiss rankings as flawed measures, while dedicating significant institutional resources to improving them.

The ranking obsession is real

Despite their public skepticism about rankings, every dean I interviewed could point to concrete ways their schools invest in them.

One noted that “all the data collection happened within the school” and identified a dedicated data analyst whose job centres on ranking submissions. Another described having “a senior staff member who is in charge of gathering the data” and co-ordinates with media relations teams.

The contradiction becomes starker when you examine what deans say versus what they do. In interviews, I heard statements like “we can never rank so it’s a waste of our time” and “the ranking itself, if that aligned with your mission, who cares?” Yet these same leaders described conducting internal “education campaigns” to help stakeholders understand rankings and carefully select which ranking systems to participate in based on where their programs might perform well.

Deans described different ways of investing energy and resources in rankings. (Ruthson Zimmerman/Unsplash)

What rankings miss

The deans’ skepticism is founded. Current MBA ranking methodologies have significant blind spots that leaders recognize but feel powerless to address.

Take the Financial Times Global MBA Ranking, which heavily emphasizes post-graduation salary data and international diversity. Or QS World University Rankings that weighs “thought leadership” through media mentions and research publications. These metrics favour certain types of programs while potentially disadvantaging schools serving different missions or regional economies.

One dean told me bluntly: “The faculty that understand the rankings care less.” This observation cuts to the heart of the problem — those closest to the educational mission see rankings as measuring the wrong things.

Rankings measure what’s easy to count, not what matters. Teaching quality, mentorship, curriculum innovation — none show up in the formulas. Neither does information on whether graduates become ethical leaders or build meaningful careers over decades rather than months.

As the Rockefeller Institute found, when schools chase rankings, they end up “working toward improving their performance as measured by ranking factors rather than toward actual improvement of the academics and educational experience.”

Academic research shows ranking systems distort institutional behaviour, while studies of business schools demonstrate rankings “blindly follow the money,” ignoring social impact and educational quality.

The financial pressure driving the paradox

So why do deans continue playing a game if they know it’s flawed?

Canadian universities increasingly depend on international student tuition as government funding has declined. Between 2000 and 2021, tuition revenue at Canadian universities grew from 14.4 per cent to 25.6 per cent of total revenue.

For MBA programs, while program costs vary, international students pay significantly more than domestic students: for example, at Rotman School of Management at University of Toronto, domestic students pay around $70,000 while international students pay around $109,000.

As one dean explained to me: “By accepting international students, we are helping domestic students from the funding cuts.” Another noted that “rankings are mostly important for international students” who use them as key decision-making tools when evaluating programs from abroad.

This creates a compelling justification: pursue better rankings to attract international students, whose higher tuition subsidizes domestic students and program quality. It’s a rationale that allows academic leaders to reconcile their intellectual skepticism with market reality.

As deans make sense of the landscape where they lead, they interpret the ranking landscape — while also shaping how stakeholders understand it. This reflects a broader paradox: deans must simultaneously embrace contradictory demands — dismissing rankings publicly while investing privately. A dynamic tension persists.

What this means for the future

Rankings have transformed from a strategic choice into an operational necessity. What began as optional marketing has become embedded in how business schools function and communicate.

For prospective MBA students: treat rankings as one data point among many. Review official employment reports, which detail hiring companies and placement rates. Connect with alumni through LinkedIn or school events to hear about actual experiences. Investigate which companies recruit at different schools and which program culture matches your preferences.

For business education more broadly, the ranking paradox reveals a system increasingly shaped by external accountability measures that may not align with core educational missions.

Until ranking methodologies evolve to better capture what makes business education valuable — or until institutions find ways to communicate quality that don’t depend on rankings — deans will continue walking this tightrope, publicly dismissing what they privately work hard to improve.

Catherine Heggerud 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.

Lasting peace and recovery in Gaza depends on local participation, not just ceasefires

2025-11-02T12:51:21Z

Two years into the Israeli war in Gaza, world leaders recently gathered in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, to deliberate on a long-awaited peace plan to end the conflict.

As part of this plan, both Israel and Hamas agreed to another ceasefire agreement — the latest in a series of truces that have repeatedly collapsed since the war began in late 2023.

The meeting, involving Egypt, Qatar, Turkey and the United States, marks the most concerted diplomatic effort yet to halt a conflict that has killed more than 67,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, and at least 1,200 Israelis, according to Israel. It’s also displaced nearly 400,000 Palestinians.

Yet even if the fighting does stop, fundamental questions persist: how, when and by whom will Gaza be rebuilt? The recovery and reconstruction of the Gaza Strip will undoubtedly be an immense and complex undertaking, but the history of past conflicts sheds light on the way forward.

The scale of destruction

A February report from the World Bank estimated that recovery and reconstruction needs in Gaza and the West Bank will cost US$53.2 billion. Around US$20 billion of this is required to restore essential services, rebuild infrastructure and revitalize the economy — an amount exceeding the annual GDP of Belarus and Slovenia.

The scale of devastation is staggering. An estimated 84 per cent of the Gaza Strip and up to 92 per cent of Gaza City has been destroyed, with satellite data showing 292,904 homes destroyed or damaged. More than 60 million tonnes of debris — equivalent to 24,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools — is awaiting removal.

The conflict has devastated Gaza’s economic sectors. Up to 96 per cent of agricultural assets and 82 per cent of businesses were damaged or destroyed, halting production and eliminating key income sources.

Years of Israel’s blockade on Gaza — which predates Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023 attacks on Israel — have further restricted the movement of goods and people in and out of Gaza, severing access to international markets and vital raw materials. As a result, there has been near-total economic collapse and the private sector faces complete paralysis.

Beyond the physical and economic devastation, Gaza’s population faces severe psychological trauma. High rates of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety, coupled with displacement and community breakdown, risk creating an intergenerational cycle of suffering through the psychological and epigenetic transmission of trauma.

Trump’s controversial peace plan

In an attempt to jump-start Gaza’s recovery, U.S. President Donald Trump introduced a 20-point peace plan envisioning interim governance by a committee of Palestinian technocrats under a “Board of Peace.” Authority would later be transferred to the Palestinian Authority following institutional reforms.

The plan outlines an economic development program to be designed by experts who “helped birth some of the thriving modern miracle cities in the Middle East.” It also includes the creation of a “special economic zone” and temporary security provided by International Stabilization Forces made up of U.S., Arab and international partners.

Under the proposal, Hamas, which has governed Gaza for nearly two decades, would be expected to disarm, accept amnesty and transfer control to international forces. Yet even if Hamas disarms, experts estimate up to 100,000 members could remain in Gaza’s political landscape and reconstitute under new forms to maintain influence.

While the peace plan outlines a framework for recovery, past post-conflict settings shows that externally designed plans rarely succeed without active local engagement.

Learning from past failures

As an expert in disaster and emergency management, I am conducting an ongoing systematic literature review (not yet published) analyzing recovery processes across post-war settings in Europe, Asia and Africa.

Experiences from Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate that it’s naive to assume economic, administrative and security frameworks can succeed without genuinely engaging the local population.

This research shows that externally driven recovery plans often fail, and underscores the importance of adapting lessons from places where recovery has been effective.

My developing review suggests several critical factors for sustainable recovery:

Developing local capacities
Building strong and transparent institutions
Implementing gradual and sequenced reforms
Ensuring there is a deliberate transition from external to local leadership

Conversely, over-relying on external powers, neglecting capacity-building and failing to address social exclusion and power imbalances can undermine long-term outcomes.

Rebuilding hope through local participation

A common theme across nearly all the studies I looked at is the importance of restoring household livelihoods. This can be done by revitalizing economic production, supporting small businesses and implementing reforms that empower communities and restore hope.

After financing more than US$6.2 billion across 157 post-conflict operations in 18 countries, the World Bank concluded in 1997 that “without economic hope, we will not have peace.” This underscores the central role of economic recovery and livelihood restoration in post-war reconstruction.

An analysis of 36 post-civil war peace episodes (1990–2014) highlights the need for co-ordinated international efforts focused on administrative restructuring, judicial reform and local government elections.

Successfully integrating diverse political voices in post-war governance promotes transparency, accountability and local ownership, while helping to restore hope among populations affected by war.

In contrast, top-down reforms implemented without local engagement, as seen in Cambodia and Pakistan, can deepen divisions and undermine peace and development.

Toward a people-centred reconstruction

Although each post-war context is unique and requires its own approach, research consistently shows that actively including survivors in recovery efforts is essential.

Gaza’s reconstruction will only succeed if its people regain hope and play a central role in shaping a safe, peaceful and prosperous future for themselves and their communities.

Any international coalition or political initiatives aimed at rebuilding Gaza must recognize that survivors are not passive victims. They are central agents of their own recovery, whose voices must guide the reconstruction process.

Once immediate humanitarian needs are met through international support, all subsequent decisions about Gaza’s long-term development must be made through inclusive, democratic processes.

Fair and transparent elections must follow the urgent restoration of security, food, clean water, health care and education. Only through such an inclusive and locally grounded process can Gaza move toward genuine recovery, lasting peace and sustainable development.

Mahmood Fayazi 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.

Why DEI needs depth, not death

2025-11-02T12:32:38Z

The Conservative Party of Canada and leader Pierre Poilievre have begun circulating a petition calling for the elimination of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and the reinstatement of “the merit principle,” arguing DEI spending and government waste “need to die.” The petition echoes Elon Musk’s infamous “DEI must DIE” social media post two years ago.

Similarly, in 2024, Conservative MP Jamil Jivani launched a petition to end DEI and focus on affordability, without acknowledging that inequity and unaffordability are deeply connected. Building on this momentum, Jivani has since launched his Restore the North Tour, which seems like a Canadian version of Charlie Kirk’s movement, given its aim to appeal to disaffected young men.

Inevitably, commentary on these measures has cast them as Canada’s version of America’s culture wars. While there are obvious parallels, this framing obscures Canada’s own history of injustice.

Systemic inequality

DEI initiatives, like all frameworks for social change, are not perfect. Pointing to their perceived limitations to revive the illusion of meritocracy and historical denial is hardly new. But these criticisms are being weaponized at a moment when equity work is needed most.

Recent portrayals of DEI as “anti-merit and anti-individual,” “hollow signalling” or “flawed and illiberal” are textbook examples of what the late American philosopher Charles Mills described as “white ignorance” — a deliberate and organized refusal to see how systemic inequality works.

The late Charles Mills delivers a speech on racial injustice and liberalism in 2012 (Stony Brook University).

They suggest a refusal to acknowledge well-documented histories of Indigenous dispossession, gendered and racial injustice, institutional racism and generations of what geographer Ruth Wilson Gilmore terms “organized abandonment” — when the state and capital abandon communities through neglect, privatization and degradation of the environment.

In other words, these criticisms do not represent an innocent ignorance, but a dangerous refusal to know.

Economics versus equity

The Conservative petition claims that $1.049 billion was wasted in DEI funding. This claim conceals a deeper truth about the way public money actually circulates.

In 2023, the total operating budget for all police services was $19.7 billion, an increase of six per cent from the previous year. Policing in Canada has a long history of surveillance and criminalization, from Indigenous land defenders to Muslims and pro-Palestinian supporters.

Fatal encounters with police also disproportionately affect Black and racialized people and continue to rise.

Other forms of public spending go almost unquestioned — from billions in fossil fuel subsidies to the steady expansion of border surveillance — resulting in environmental injustice and border violence, respectively.

In contrast, DEI’s $1.049-billion price tag was spent over several years. The claim of wasteful equity spending reflects a broader pattern of scapegoating DEI for systemic economic failures. What is deemed a waste may reveal who, and what, our society values.

Racial capitalism

What’s known as racial capitalism — a system where racial inequality is built into how wealth and power are produced and shared — sheds light on how class exploitation and racial domination are interconnected. As Black radical theorist Cedric Robinson explained, capitalism did not emerge separate from racial hierarchy, but through it.

Understanding racial capitalism helps explain why equity work must extend beyond representation and inclusion. British-American race scholar Arun Kundnani has argued that DEI programs focusing on unconscious bias, racial awareness training and increasing representation do not tackle the economic and institutional root causes of inequity.

DEI programs therefore need to address racial capitalism; if they don’t, they may end up supporting it by using racialized people as resources and judging success only by numbers.

In other words, the economy cannot be “fixed” without unraveling the racial, classist, ableist and gendered hierarchies that it requires to function. Inequality is not really a flaw in the system but its organizing principle.

Sharper DEI

Policymakers should work to defend DEI initiatives from far-right attacks, Donald Trump’s MAGA movement and economic scapegoating. But DEI measures also need to be critiqued and improved in ways that honour their historical trajectory and acknowledge their limitations.

Doing so requires confronting and untangling the deep layers of injustice and exploitation that are the foundation of many organizations and institutions.

Anti-DEI rhetoric can be considered an expression of anti-Blackness and, by extension, other forms of racism. It is also bound up with sexism, ableism, transphobia, homophobia and classism.

Instead of abandoning DEI, Canada should strengthen and reshape it to better promote the structural equity our communities deserve.

The future of equity in Canada depends on moving beyond simply counting racialized people in power and must instead examine how power works, upholds injustice and can be collectively transformed for real systemic change.

Marycarmen Lara Villanueva 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.

Do mega-sporting events like the World Series pay off? Here’s the economic reality behind them

2025-10-31T23:26:50Z

Whether it’s the World Series, the FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games, the hope for hosting mega sporting events is that the economy will emerge as the true winner.

A quick search shows how expensive World Series tickets are, or how much it costs for accommodations, food and transportation. Similar spending patterns can be predicted for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, which Canada is hosting with Mexico and the United States.

Visitor spending provides direct economic benefits, generating revenue for businesses and providing jobs. There are also indirect benefits through suppliers and staffing, and induced benefits as staff spend their wages locally.

Mega-events can also generate significant reputations benefits for host cities and countries, including heightened global media exposure, enhanced national branding and greater confidence among international investors who see the city as capable of managing large-scale events.

These intangible outcomes can translate into sustained tourism growth, increased economic vitality and a lasting “feel-good” effect that boosts civic pride among residents and visitors.

While hosting large sporting events appears to be great for communities, research suggests the actual financial outcomes are often more modest than anticipated. Nonetheless, many politicians remain eager to host them.

The math doesn’t always add up

Tourism and event scholars suggest being cautious about the so-called multiplier effect. This is the idea that mega-events ripple throughout the economy, providing benefits for others.

Meta-analyses of such events show highly variable economic outcomes and frequent overestimation of long-term benefits. A lot of spending is lost due to export leakage, where additional gain goes to non-local businesses, event organizers and ticketing agencies instead of local businesses.

Often, mega sporting events cause tourism displacement, as regular tourists avoid the destination due to crowds and high prices, sometimes even after the event finishes.

Politicians, tourism offices and event organizers are quick to claim large economic benefits when bidding for and hosting events.

Yet some academics warn that “most economic impact studies are commissioned to legitimize a political position rather than to search for economic truth.” In other words, government-commissioned studies are often biased toward positive results.

A World Series boost — but for how long?

The Toronto Blue Jays post-season run and the World Series produced a concentrated burst of spending: sold-out home games, fuller hotels at higher prices, restaurants and bars crowded for watch parties and heavy merchandise sales.

Local media and business surveys commonly report measurable upticks in hospitality and retail during playoff runs, and small business owners cite increased footfall and merchandise revenue.

Sports economists, however, urge caution in extrapolating short-term spikes into lasting gains. They describe playoff-driven forecasts as “overstated,” pointing to limited duration, substantial leakage and limited job creation beyond temporary hospitality shifts. While people may spend more on a game night, they often spend less elsewhere, meaning net spending is usually smaller than headline numbers suggest.

A World Series may be excellent for civic morale and a short retail bump, but it rarely transforms a city’s economic trajectory on its own.

Canada’s FIFA World Cup moment

The FIFA World Cup is a multi-week, globally televised event with millions of spectators and huge international attention. For Canada’s co-host role in 2026, official and municipal assessments project substantial economic benefits.

A City of Toronto impact assessment projects roughly $940 million in positive economic output for the Greater Toronto Area, including hundreds of millions in GDP and several thousand jobs from June 2023 to August 2026.

British Columbia also estimates significant provincial output and thousands of roles tied to hosting in Vancouver. These are significant short-term impacts that reflect visitor spending and operational expenditures.

But will hosting the World Cup add much to cities that are already well-known? Some are doubtful, but the visibility can help achieve tourism marketing objectives and support bids for future international events often central to destination strategies.

Counting the real costs

Mega-events often come with significant financial and environmental costs. While they can create jobs, these are typically short-term, low-wage positions concentrated in hospitality and service sectors.

Public funds directed at event staging or stadium upgrades could finance affordable housing, transit or health services with potentially higher social returns for local residents. There have also been repeated cases where promised mega-event legacies failed to materialize.

Environmentally, mega-events produce significant carbon footprints from global fan travel, temporary construction, energy use and waste, with many events having more negative than positive environmental outcomes. This is particularly relevant for transnational tournaments that attract long-distance travellers and temporary stadium retrofits.

Cities seeking to maximize gains should prioritize local community benefits and measure net economic impact, not gross receipts, by accounting for displacement and export leakage.

For the World Series, that meant leveraging short-run enthusiasm into repeat visitation and accrued local spending habits. For FIFA 2026, the focus should be on converting global attention into long-term tourism and business flows while ensuring community benefits and limiting environmental costs.

Only then will the reputational windfall translate into durable economic value.

Measuring the real impact of mega-events

Sports events can deliver meaningful short-term revenue, reputational exposure and long-term benefits, but those outcomes are neither automatic nor evenly distributed.

Thoughtful policy design, transparent evaluation and binding community and environmental safeguards determine whether a World Series run or a World Cup week becomes a fleeting headline or a lasting city asset.

The main benefactor of the World Cup will be FIFA, not host cities. As The Economist noted in its review of economist Andrew Zimbalist’s Circus Maximus, there is “little doubt that under current conditions, prudent city governments should avoid the contests at all costs.”

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.

Major Canadian banks’ digital emissions stay massive while they disclose less and less

2025-10-27T15:57:10Z

In early 2025, some of Canada’s largest banks — including those with the highest digital emissions and greatest responsibility — withdrew from the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative.

These major institutions, with digital carbon footprints that are disproportionately large, cited regulatory complexity and competitive pressures for their departure. This move has intensified questions from investors, policymakers and the public about their commitment to sustainability.

At the same time, Bill C-59, adopted in late 2024, introduced new provisions under the Competition Act to strengthen accountability for greenwashing and misleading environmental claims.

The timing is striking: as Ottawa tightens disclosure rules, the same large banks that dominate digital emissions are stepping away from voluntary climate commitments. This tension between voluntary pledges and federal accountability underscores the growing pressure on financial institutions to prove — rather than simply promote — their environmental performance.

Digital carbon footprint

For decades, banks have presented themselves as leaders in sustainability through renewable energy financing and ambitious environmental, social and governance commitments. Yet their recent departure from climate coalitions — coupled with their outsized digital carbon footprints — represents an alarming reversal.

We recently conducted a study of the environmental impact of nine Canadian banks including the big five: CIBC, TD Bank, Scotiabank, Royal Bank of Canada and BMO. Our recent study sought to quantify banks’ environmental impact through their digital carbon footprint.

Banks are pillars of our economy and society, possessing both the power and responsibility to lead the transition toward a more sustainable economy. However, their recent withdrawal from the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, coupled with ongoing concerns about greenwashing, raises legitimate questions about their true commitment to sustainability.

In this context, our goal as researchers is to provide both bank clients and financial institutions with crucial information about their environmental impact. Understanding the environmental footprint of banks’ digital operations is essential, as this often-overlooked aspect constitutes a significant portion of their overall carbon footprint.

We analyzed public data from 2024 to measure the carbon impact of Canadian banks’ digital practices. Our study examined two main dimensions:

1) Website usage (the energy consumed by website loading, data transfers and hosting) and;

2) Traffic acquisition, which includes all marketing activities that bring visitors to these sites, such as email marketing, paid advertising search engine optimization and social media campaigns.

The objective was to compare carbon emissions among different banks, assess their efficiency per visit and provide transparent information to the public. By identifying the most polluting areas in digital operations, we provide recommendations for improvement.

Social media activity

Our study uncovered significant findings about Canadian banks’ digital environmental impact. Most strikingly, we found a performance gap where the worst bank emits twice as much carbon per visitor as the best; just three banks account for two-thirds of total emissions.

To clarify, “traffic acquisition” refers to the process of attracting visitors to a website — whether through paid ads, organic search results, or social media content. Organic traffic comes from users who find a bank’s site naturally through search engines, social media or content marketing, while paid traffic is generated through advertising placements.

The data reveals that 77 per cent of digital emissions come from traffic acquisition versus only 23 per cent from website usage. Paid traffic drives 95 per cent of traffic emissions despite being a small fraction of total traffic, while organic traffic accounts for just five per cent of emissions.

Paid social media is particularly problematic — responsible for 58 per cent of emissions while generating only one per cent of total traffic.

In other words, social media ads are highly inefficient from a carbon perspective: a visitor coming from online advertising emits 418 times more carbon dioxide than one coming from organic sources.

These results expose online advertising — especially social media campaigns — as major hidden pollution sources.

A hidden source of pollution

These findings highlight how online advertising — particularly social media campaigns — can become a major source of digital pollution. The reality is clear: every click has a carbon cost.

Banks can improve their inbound marketing, meaning strategies that attract users organically through relevant content, search optimization and user experience improvements rather than through paid ads.

Transparency and sustainable digital practices are essential for greener banking — practices that reduce emissions without sacrificing innovation or competitiveness.

After withdrawing from the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative and maintaining public net-zero commitments, many banks continue to generate significant emissions through their digital operations.

This raises a critical question for regulators, investors and consumers alike: will banks leverage their considerable resources to lead on sustainability, or continue to delay meaningful action?

Our next study will assess whether these institutions uphold their commitments or persist in their current practices, despite the escalating climate urgency.

Victor Prouteau, who at the time of this study was an M. Sc. student at HEC Montréal, co-authored this article.

Remote work reduced gender discrimination — returning to the office may change that

2025-10-27T15:49:50Z

Return-to-office mandates are spreading across North America, with Canada’s major banks, the Ontario government, Amazon and Facebook calling employees back into the office.

These moves reverse the flexibility that became widespread during the COVID-19 pandemic, when remote work became the new norm as public health measures emphasized staying home and avoiding large gatherings.

Supporters of these policies often cite collaboration, innovation and mentorship as reasons to bring workers together in person.

But our research shows that these mandates don’t affect everyone equally. For many women, returning to the office means stepping back into environments where gender bias is more pronounced.

Everyday discrimination at work

When people think about gender discrimination, many imagine pay gaps or barriers to promotion. But discrimination also plays out in routine interactions — what we refer to as “everyday gender discrimination” in our study.

These are regular slights and offences that can chip away at women’s confidence and sense of belonging over time. They might include being ignored in meetings, being asked to perform administrative tasks outside one’s role, receiving inappropriate comments or having one’s ideas credited to others.

While each single incident might seem trivial, their cumulative effect can make women feel frustrated, dissatisfied with their jobs and more likely to leave their organizations.

As organizations reassess where and how people work in the wake of the pandemic, we decided to examine whether everyday discrimination looks different in remote versus in-person settings.

Clear differences by location

To investigate how location shapes everyday gender discrimination, we surveyed 1,091 professional women in the United States with hybrid jobs, or roles that involved both in-person and remote work. Our design allowed us to compare the same person’s experiences across work locations and pinpoint the impact of location itself.

The results were striking. Women were significantly more likely to experience everyday gender discrimination when working on-site than when working remotely.

In a typical month, 29 per cent of respondents reported experiencing discrimination in the office, compared to just 18 per cent when working from home. These patterns held across types of discrimination, from being underestimated to being excluded from social activities and experiencing sexual harassment.

The contrast was especially sharp for two groups: younger women (under 30) and women who worked mostly with men. Among younger women, the likelihood of experiencing discrimination dropped from 31 per cent on site to just 14 per cent when remote.

Similarly, women who interacted primarily with men saw their likelihood of experiencing discrimination fall from 58 per cent on site to 26 per cent remotely. For these groups, remote work provides a meaningful reduction in exposure to everyday gender discrimination.

The trade-offs of remote work

Still, remote work is no silver bullet for gender inequality. Our findings highlight a key advantage — reduced exposure to everyday discrimination — but there are important trade-offs that need to be considered.

One challenge is that working remotely can limit informal interactions that are crucial for building relationships. It can also reduce access to mentors and feedback and make it harder for women to be considered for high-profile assignments.

Remote work can also make it harder to tell where the office ends and home begins, pulling family duties into the workday and intensifying family obligations even during work hours.

These factors are crucial for career advancement, especially for women. While remote work offers an environment with less everyday gender discrimination, working off-site may also limit women’s professional opportunities.

Understanding these trade-offs is essential as organizations craft return-to-office policies. Rather than treating remote work as inherently good or bad, leaders need nuanced strategies that combine the benefits of both in-person and remote work.

What employers and policymakers can do

As companies and governments push employees to return to the office, they risk overlooking how much location matters for women’s workplace experiences. Here are three steps organizations can take to address this issue:

1. Offer flexibility where possible.

Giving employees the option to work remotely empowers women to choose the environment where they feel most respected and productive. Some companies have adopted remote-first policies, framing them as tools for talent retention. Such policies allow employees to make decisions about the work location that suits them best.

2. Import best practices from remote meetings.

While virtual meetings tend to be less engaging, they are also more efficient and focused, with fewer opportunities for offhand comments or interruptions. Applying that same structure to in-person meetings could reduce discrimination while improving productivity.

Companies should consider formal agendas, structured turn-taking and asynchronous feedback to create fairer, more professional discussions. Amazon, for example, applied this principle by centring in-person meetings around “six-page memos” rather than open-ended discussions.

3. Acknowledge the trade-offs.

Leaders should recognize that, while on-site work can accelerate skill development, it can also magnify gender bias. A frank acknowledgement of this tension is the first step toward creating systems that minimize harm while maximizing opportunity.

One bank we studied in separate research, which hasn’t been published yet, overcame this challenge by pairing junior staff with senior mentors and implementing a project-tracking system to ensure equitable assignment of opportunities.

Location, location, location

Workplace discrimination is not only an ethical problem — it also undermines performance, fuels turnover and exposes firms to legal risks.

Our study shows that where work happens — remotely or on site — plays a central role in shaping women’s exposure to everyday gender discrimination.

As organizations roll back the remote work practices adopted during the pandemic, it’s important to recognize that decisions about location can powerfully shape employees’ experiences and professional opportunities at work.

Thoughtful policies that balance the benefits of in-person interaction with the protections afforded by remote work can help ensure that women face less everyday discrimination and experience greater equality at work.

Laura Doering receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Institute for Gender and the Economy at Rotman, and the Lee-Chin Institute.

András Tilcsik has received research funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the University of Toronto’s Institute for Pandemics, and the Institute for Gender and the Economy at the Rotman School of Management.

The fate of Marineland’s belugas expose the ethical cracks in Canadian animal law

2025-10-26T12:13:37Z

Most people think countries like Canada have strong animal protection laws, but it doesn’t. A case in point is the unfolding tragedy-in-the-making at Marineland.

Facing economic ruin amid waning public acceptance of whale captivity, Marineland has threatened it will euthanize its remaining 30 beluga whales unless the government provides emergency funding for their care.

This ultimatum follows the federal government’s recent denial of Marineland’s request for an export permit to ship the belugas to a large theme park in China. Fisheries Minister Joanne Thompson denied the permit due to concerns that the belugas would be used for entertainment — a fate now illegal in Canada since the 2019 ban on capturing cetaceans for display.

The 2019 federal legislation banned bringing new cetaceans into captivity, subject to a few exceptions. Ontario passed a similar law in 2015. However, the cetaceans who were already in captivity were not included, effectively preserving Marineland’s property rights over its remaining animals.

But with changing public attitudes, Marineland now has a deteriorating facility and expensive care on its hands for animals it can no longer use to turn a profit.

The threat to kill the belugas as a solution to its economic woes, while shocking, reflects the ethical emptiness of the Canadian legal system when it comes to animals. Simply put, Canadian law still allows human and corporate owners to kill their animals because animals are legally treated as “property.”

The weakness of Canada’s animal cruelty laws

Marineland can carry out its “euthanasia” so long as it doesn’t run afoul of tepid anti-cruelty laws, which are poorly enforced, as demonstrated by Marineland’s history.

Animal advocates have long argued that captive and socially deprived animals at Marineland have suffered for decades. A 2012 Toronto Star investigation series brought overdue and much-needed public and prosecutorial attention to the park, resulting in more than 200 visits by provincial inspectors since 2000.

Even so, since 2019, 20 whales have died in Marineland’s care. The park has only been charged with animal cruelty a handful of times, and all of those charges were eventually dropped. Other complaints to Animal Welfare Services, the provincial body responsible for the enforcement of anti-cruelty legislation, have largely gone nowhere.

In fact, anti-cruelty charges against Marineland have only gone ahead twice: once in 2021 regarding water quality for the cetaceans and once in relation to its care of black bears in 2024.

The dearth of legal sanctions for Marineland, and its ability to hold the lives of its belugas as a bargaining chip, highlights the need for a legal paradigm shift.

But it’s not just the interests and needs of whales that are at stake here. Other animals matter, too, not least the non-cetaceans still at Marineland and the animals trapped in farms, labs and zoos.

Challenging human exceptionalism

‘Animals as Legal Beings’ by Maneesha Deckha. (University of Toronto Press)

As I’ve written at length in my book Animals as Legal Beings, we need to displace the human exceptionalism that characterizes our laws and shapes our relationships with all animals — even dogs, cats and other companion animals.

This means rejecting the idea that humans are superior and animals are merely “property.” It also means valuing and respecting animals enough to stop their immense suffering in captive industries.

Eliminating human exceptionalism would dramatically reshape society by calling for structural changes to our economy, laws and daily practices. But it would benefit all of us.

Now, more than ever, we need to see the links between the dismal legal treatment of animals and other social issues. As I have also written about, human exceptionalism in the law undermines efforts to surmount sexism and racism because all of these systems depend on devaluing animals.

Human exceptionalism is also incompatible with reconciliation and decolonization, which require respect for Indigenous worldviews and laws. Many Indigenous legal orders view animals as equals, kin and beings with their own intentions, families and life purposes.

Keeping belugas and other animals in captivity disavows animal autonomy and devastates animal families. The suffering of captive animals is part of a broader failure to see animals as fellow beings with their own rights.

Protecting animal lives

Human exceptionalism is at the heart of climate change, biodiversity loss, ocean warming and other planetary health crises. The same extractive logic that drives industrial pollution, deforestation and climate destruction also governs how we treat animals.

While whales in the ocean have it better than the belugas still enduring captivity at Marineland, all animals — no matter where they live — are unjustly harmed by a social and legal system that privileges human and corporate interests and runs roughshod over the interests of non-humans.

The belugas and other animals at Marineland deserve to live. A legal system that allows them to be killed because it is economically convenient is one that needs to change. It’s not the belugas that should be euthanized, but rather the human exceptionalism that continues to drive Canadian law and policy.

We can transition away from this outdated and harmful worldview toward a future that views justice and compassion from an interspecies lens and will uplift us all.

Maneesha Deckha is a monthly supporter of the advocacy group Animal Justice.

How gastronomy tourism evolved into international identity and cultural diplomacy

2025-10-23T13:27:28Z

When people travel, they aren’t just looking for historic sights — they’re also looking for new flavours that captivate and connect them to the place they’re visiting.

In Québec, for example, it’s poutine. The comfort food mix of crispy fries, squeaky cheese curds and rich brown gravy was first served in 1950s-era rural snack bars before becoming a national symbol.

In Spain, paella — a saffron-infused rice dish brimming with seafood, chicken and vegetables and born in Valencia’s farmlands as a shared workers’ meal — is a must-have.

In Japan, ramen — steaming bowls of wheat noodles in a fragrant broth layered with soy, miso or pork bones — tells the story of post-Second World War solace and culinary innovation.

But beyond the flavours of food, can gastronomy become a language of identity and cultural diplomacy? That question is at the heart of Canada’s growing culinary movement.

Gastronomy as a form of diplomacy

Across Canada, food is fast becoming a marker of identity and regional pride. From the Okanagan Valley vineyards to Québec’s sugar shacks, cuisine is emerging as a language that defines who Canadians are — and how the world perceives them.

This movement is gaining traction as Kelowna, British Columbia recently accepted the invitation to apply for the designation of UNESCO City of Gastronomy — a title that celebrates places where food culture drives creativity, sustainability and community.

Created in 2004, UNESCO’s Creative Cities Network recognizes and honours cities where food culture drives innovation and community well-being. Today, 57 cities hold the designation, from Parma, Italy and Chengdu, China, to Tucson, Arizona, in the United States.

Canada has yet to join their ranks, which is why Kelowna’s candidacy matters: it would be the country’s first City of Gastronomy, reflecting its mix of Indigenous heritage, wine culture and farm-to-table creativity.

As tourism continues to recover and regions compete for distinctiveness, gastronomy has become a form of soft power — a country’s ability to influence others through culture, values and attraction rather than force, shaping how nations are perceived and how travellers connect emotionally with a place.

Studies show that food tourism has become a key driver of regional development and destination appeal. The signature dish — an emblematic creation tied to a chef, region or tradition — offers a concrete way to translate culinary creativity into cultural identity.

How food turns travel into brand

Some dishes function like culinary logos, expressing the personality of a place or a chef while creating lasting memories. Research reveals that for travellers, food becomes participation rather than consumption — a way to experience a place rather than just observe it.

A memorable meal merges creativity, heritage and place. In Canada, such dishes also act as experiential anchors that link ingredients, landscapes and emotion — from a buttery Halifax lobster roll that tastes of the Atlantic coast to a sweet, purple Saskatoon berry pie that evokes the Prairie harvest.

Yet some critics warn that the growing wave of gastronomic branding risks slipping into what they call culinary gentrification — when local traditions are polished and packaged for tourists, sometimes at the expense of the communities that created them.

The challenge for cities like Kelowna will be to celebrate their culinary identity without turning authenticity into a marketing slogan.

Canada’s regions tell their stories through food

Research on food, culture and sustainability shows how such connections help regions build distinctive, resilient identities.

In Québec, for example, food is deeply woven with cultural pride. From sugar shacks in the Laurentians and Beauce countryside to Montréal’s multicultural fine dining scene, tradition and innovation intermingle — but Québec is far from the only province where culinary identity thrives.

On Prince Edward Island, the Fall Flavours Food and Drink Festival — running from early September to mid-October — brings together chefs, farmers and fishers to celebrate the island’s harvest. Events take place in small towns and coastal villages, turning the island into one big dining room. The festival strengthens local pride, supports producers and extends the tourist season beyond summer.

In Alberta, Alberta Food Tours invite travellers to discover rural producers, Indigenous culinary traditions and farmers markets across the province, from Calgary to Jasper. These guided experiences highlight the province’s agricultural roots while promoting sustainability and community connection.

In B.C., the Okanagan Valley, where Kelowna is located, has become a leading example of farm-to-table and wine tourism in Canada. Stretching from Vernon to Osoyoos, its vineyards and orchards supply local chefs who turn seasonal produce into creative menus. Culinary trails and wine festivals connect visitors with growers and winemakers, while Kelowna’s bid to become a UNESCO City of Gastronomy reflects the region’s growing reputation for sustainable, community-driven gastronomy.

As food tourism continues to grow, however, authentic experiences become harder to find. In 2024, it was valued at roughly US$1.8 billion globally. By 2033, that figure is expected to reach almost US$8 billion, growing at an average rate of about 18 per cent a year.

Tourists crave “the real deal,” yet their expectations often reshape what’s served. For example, traditional dishes may be simplified, sweetened or made less spicy to suit visitors’ palates. Authenticity, it appears, is less a fixed ideal than a dialogue between chefs, consumers and the media.

Why does the heritage of gastronomy matter?

Signature dishes remind us that identity isn’t inherited — it’s created and shared. Local cuisine connects people to place, turns ingredients into stories and makes culture tangible.

When cities launch food festivals, culinary routes or UNESCO designation bids, they’re not just promoting restaurants, they’re defining who they are as a country.

In a world often divided, food remains a universal language. Local gastronomy reminds us that what’s on our plate is never just about flavour, it’s about belonging.

Julien Bousquet 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.

Why Canada’s next big infrastructure investment should be in biomanufacturing

2025-10-21T16:41:59Z

While Canada invests billions in infrastructure projects and national defence, a critical area of investment remains overlooked: biomanufacturing.

Biomanufacturing is the production of biological products like vaccines and cell therapies at the scale and quality needed for human use. It encompasses everything needed to reliably produce and deliver safe, effective biological products from development to commercial-scale production.

This sector requires not only physical infrastructure like bioreactors, clean rooms and equipment, but also the availability of skilled personnel, robust supply chains and quality control — all operating under strict regulatory requirements.

Amid Canada’s ongoing tariff tensions with the United States, investing in domestic biomanufacturing is a way for Canada to strengthen its economic independence while securing critical health infrastructure.

A wake-up call for Canada

Canada once boasted world-class biomanufacturing capacity, particularly in vaccine production. Over the past few decades, however, domestic investment in this sector withered away.

Funding for research, training and infrastructure declined, and as a result, much of the industry migrated to the United States, where more start-up capital, larger markets and more extensive infrastructure supported its growth.

The COVID-19 pandemic made the consequences of this decline painfully clear. Billions of dollars were spent importing life-saving vaccines and therapeutics that could have been made here. While Canada’s dependence on foreign manufacturing predates the pandemic, the crisis highlighted the urgent need for domestic capacity.

Future pandemics are unpredictable, and new Canadian manufacturing infrastructure needs to be poised to act. This is especially important given ongoing vaccine skepticism and hesitancy.

If Canadians need a new vaccine, the country must be able to produce it domestically and support other countries lacking access.

Missed opportunities

Biomanufacturing has expanded beyond vaccines and monoclonal antibodies to include cell and gene therapies and new drug types, such as those based on RNA.

These advanced therapeutic products are highly innovative, but don’t fit neatly into traditional developmental pipelines or regulatory frameworks. Without the necessary manufacturing processes and infrastructure, countries can miss out on economic and health benefits and are vulnerable to future pandemics.

For example, the research to develop the lipid nanoparticle component of an mRNA vaccine was conducted in Canada. Yet when it came time to manufacture, test and distribute the vaccine, Canada lacked the infrastructure and had to rely on foreign suppliers.

Historically, Canada has excelled at research but has struggled to translate breakthroughs into domestic production. With the right investment, Canada could actually reap the benefits of its own innovations.

Recognizing this gap, the federal government has invested $2.3 billion since 2023 to build new facilities capable of manufacturing biologics at the speed and scale for future pandemic responses. These investments also aim to revitalize Canada’s capacity for producing other, more conventional drugs.

But more sustained investments are needed — ones on par with funding for other infrastructure projects and national defence. The biomanufacturing sector offers tremendous opportunity for economic growth, significant health benefits for Canadians, and pandemic-preparedness.

The biotech boom

Gaps in Canada’s biomanufacturing capacity spurred the creation of a new coalition led by the University of British Columbia. Known as Canada’s ImmunoEngineering and Biomanufacturing Hub, it brings together more than 50 organizations from the private, public, not-for-profit and academic sectors to strengthen life sciences and biomanufacturing capacity in B.C.

It aims to accelerate applied biomedical research, train highly skilled workers and expand domestic infrastructure.

It’s part of a broader $574 million federal commitment supporting 19 projects at 14 research institutions across Canada. Investing in new infrastructure is an important step toward rebuilding and bolstering domestic biomanufacturing in Canada.

We are part of the coalition’s research leadership group and the leads on its flagship infrastructure project, the Advanced Therapeutics Manufacturing Facility, which is being built on the UBC campus. This facility, spanning approximately 20,000 square feet, will support the production of advanced therapeutic products like vaccines, cell therapies and regenerative medicines.

It will accelerate the commercialization of Canadian innovations, enhance patient care and position Canada as a global epicentre of biomanufacturing while leveraging Vancouver’s biotech boom.

Construction of the facility has begun, with an estimate of March 2028 for opening operations. Projects will include modifying immune cells to fight cancer and protect against autoimmune disease and transplant rejection, as well as turning stem cells into therapies that heal or replace terminally damaged organs.

From research to market

Pandemic-prepared facilities have the potential to generate wide-ranging health benefits for Canada. A critical function of facilities like the Advanced Therapeutics Manufacturing Facility is moving innovative therapies from early-stage research to clinical trials and, ultimately, market approval.

In addition to their health benefits, advanced therapeutics can have significant economic impact. Their curative potential allows companies to benefit from premium pricing, with high upfront costs justified by reduced long-term health-care costs.

Subsequent generic versions of these biological products, termed biosimilars, can provide safe, effective and economical alternatives. Ultimately, domestic manufacturing allows greater pricing control and allows health-care dollars to stay in Canada.

The biomanufacturing industry also creates high-quality jobs, boosts national innovation ecosystems, attracts large-scale venture capital funding and supports pharmaceutical partnerships.

Canada’s bioeconomy is expected to need approximately 65,000 jobs by 2029, making workforce training a critical priority. State-of-the-art training facilities will produce a highly qualified workforce and ensure these skilled personnel remain in Canada.

Investing in domestic infrastructure also strengthens Canada’s export potential. Adding advanced therapeutic products into the country’s export portfolio will give it an important trade advantage and allow Canada to become a global player in biomanufacturing.

Immunity and Society is a new series from The Conversation Canada that presents new vaccine discoveries and immune-based innovations that are changing how we understand and protect human health. Through a partnership with the Bridge Research Consortium, these articles — written by academics in Canada at the forefront of immunology and biomanufacturing — explore the latest developments and their social impacts.

Megan Levings receives funding from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and BC Knowledge Development Fund for the ATMF Project.

Robert A. Holt receives funding from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and BC Knowledge Development Fund for the ATMF Project.

What the US$55 billion Electronic Arts takeover means for video game workers and the industry

2025-10-20T16:48:52Z

Electronic Arts (EA) is one of the world’s largest gaming companies. It has agreed to be acquired for US$55 billion in the second largest buyout in the industry’s history.

Under the terms, Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund (a state-owned investment fund), along with private equity firms Silver Lake and Affinity Partners, will pay EA shareholders US$210 per share.

EA is known for making popular gaming titles such as such as Madden NFL, The Sims and Mass Effect. The deal, US$20 billion of which is debt-financed, will take the company private.

The acquisition reinforces consolidation trends across the creative sector, mirroring similar deals in music, film and television. Creative and cultural industries have a “tendency for bigness,” and this is certainly a big deal.

It marks a continuation of large game companies being consumed by even larger players, such as Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision/Blizzard in 2023.

Bad news for workers

There is growing consensus that this acquisition is likely to be bad news for game workers, who have already seen tens of thousands of layoffs in recent years.

This leveraged buyout will result in restructuring at EA-owned studios. It adds massive debt that will need servicing. That will likely mean cancelled titles, closed studios and lost jobs.

In their book Private Equity at Work: When Wall Street Manages Main Street, researchers Eileen Appelbaum and Rosemary Batt point to the “moral hazard” created when equity partners saddle portfolio companies with debt but carry little direct financial risk themselves.

The Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) is looking to increase its holdings in lucrative sectors of the game industry as part of its diversification strategy. However, private equity firms subscribe to a “buy to sell” model, focusing on making significant returns in the short term.

Appelbaum notes that restructuring opportunities are more limited when larger, successful companies — like EA — are acquired. In such cases, she says, “financial engineering is more common,” often resulting in “layoffs or downsizing to increase cash flow and service debt.”

Financial engineering combines techniques from applied mathematics, computer science and economic theory to create new and complex financial tools. The failed risk management of these tools has been implicated in financial scandals and market crashes.

Financialization and the fissured workplace

The financialization of the game industry is a problem. Financialization refers to a set of changes in corporate ownership and governance — including the deregulation of financial markets — that have increased the influence of financial companies and investors.

It has produced economies where a considerable share of profits comes from financial transactions rather than the production and provision of goods and services.

It creates what American management professor David Weil calls a “fissured workplace” where ownership models are multi-layered and complex.

It gives financial players an influential seat at the corporate decision-making table and directs managerial attention toward investment returns while transferring the risks of failure to the portfolio company.

As a result, game titles, jobs and studios can be easily shed when financial companies restructure to increase dividends, leaving workers with little access to these financial players as accountable employers.

Chasing incentives and cutting costs

The Saudi PIF has stated a goal of creating 1.8 million “direct and indirect jobs” to stimulate the Saudi economy. But capital is mobile, and game companies will likely follow jurisdictions that have lower wages, fewer labour protections and significant tax incentives.

Some Canadian governments are working to keep studios and creative jobs closer to home. British Columbia recently increased its interactive media tax credit to 25 per cent.

The move was welcomed by the chief operations officer of EA Vancouver, who said “B.C.’s continued commitment to the interactive digital media sector…through enhancements to the … tax credit … reflects the province’s recognition of the industry’s value and enables companies like ours to continue contributing to B.C.’s creative and innovative economy.”

This may buffer Vancouver’s flagship EA Sports studio, but those making less lucrative games or in regions without financial subsidies will be more at risk of closure, relocation or sale. Alberta-based Bioware — developer of games including Dragon Age and Mass Effect — could be at risk.

Other ways of aggressively cutting costs might come in the form of increased AI use. EA was called out in 2023 for saying AI regulation could negatively impact its business. Yet creative stagnation and cutting corners through AI will negatively impact the number of jobs, the quality of jobs and the quality of games. That could be a larger threat to EA’s business and reinforce a negative direction for the industry.

Game players have low tolerance for quality shifts and predatory monetization strategies. Research shows that gamers see acquisitions negatively: development takes longer, innovation is curtailed and creativity is stymied.

Consolidation among industry giants may cause players to lose faith in EA’s product — and games in general, given the many other entertainment options that are available.

Creative control and worker power at risk

Some have raised concerns that the acquisition could affect EA’s creative direction and editorial decisions, potentially leading to increased content restrictions.

While it’s still unclear how the deal will influence EA’s output, experiences in other industries might be a sign of things to come. For instance, comedians reportedly censored themselves to perform in Saudi Arabia.

The acquisition may also have a chilling effect on the workers’ unionization movement. Currently, no EA studios in Canada are unionized. Outsourced quality assurance workers at the EA-owned BioWare Studio in Edmonton successfully certified a union in 2022, but were subsequently laid off. Fears of outsourcing, layoffs and restructuring could discourage future organizing efforts.

On the other hand, the knowledge that large financial players are making massive profits could galvanize workers, especially considering that before the buyout, EA CEO Andrew Wilson was paid about 264 times the salary of the median EA employee.

The deal certainly does nothing to bring stability to an already volatile industry. Regardless of any cash injection, EA remains very exposed.

Johanna Weststar has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Dancap Private Equity Research Award in the DAN Department of Management and Organizational Studies at Western University. She produces the Developer Satisfaction Survey for the International Game Developers Association.

Sean Gouglas receives funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council. He also serves as a member of the survey committee for the Higher Education Video Game Alliance.

Louis-Etienne Dubois 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.

Marineland’s decline raises questions about the future of zoo tourism

2025-10-19T12:39:28Z

Thirty beluga whales are at the risk of being euthanized at the now-shuttered Marineland zoo and amusement park in Niagara Falls. Marineland said in a letter to Canada’s Fisheries Minister Joanne Thompson it will have to euthanize the whales if it doesn’t receive the necessary financial support to relocate them.

The park has come under intense scrutiny recently due to the ongoing struggle to relocate its remaining whales amid financial struggles, a lack of resources and crumbling infrastructure.

Canada passed the Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act in 2019 that prohibits whales, dolphins and porpoises from being taken into captivity. However, the law does not apply retroactively, meaning whales already held in facilities such as Marineland were allowed to remain there.

Marineland, which opened in 1961 in Canada, was once a massive tourism attraction that drew up to 1.2 million visitors annually to see its choreographed aquatic shows. But the park has been closed to the public since the end of summer 2024 after years of controversy and lawsuits.

The park’s reputation has unravelled over the years following a string of beluga whale deaths and other allegations of animal mistreatment.

Marineland’s decline is emblematic of the broader debate over zoo tourism and the ethics of keeping animals in captivity for entertainment.

Understanding zoo tourism

There are 23 accredited zoos in Canada. Accreditation is assigned through Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums (CAZA), a not-for-profit organization that ensures the health and welfare of captive wildlife with a mission of “inspiring a future where wildlife and people thrive together.”

Zoo tourism is an industry that is both economic and culturally significant in Canada. Roughly 1,520 people are employed in zoos across Canada, which attracted nearly four million visitors in 2020.

But even accredited facilities are not immune to ethical and welfare concerns. In 2022, the B.C. SPCA opened an investigation into the Vancouver Aquarium and Greater Vancouver Zoo following allegations of animal cruelty. Marineland, another accredited zoo, has also appeared to struggle with providing adequate care for its animals in recent years.

The ethics of zoo tourism have come under increasing scrutiny as a result of incidents like these. Critics argue animals and marine life in zoos and parks should not be viewed solely as sources of human entertainment, but as beings that deserve ethical stewardship.

Conservation, education-focused facilities

Zoo tourism must shift to providing educational and research opportunities to shape the way people think about zoo tourism. Across Canada, several facilities are redefining what ethical captivity can look like.

Ecological reserves and conservation parks such as the BC Wildlife Park and the Raptors Centre are examples of educational conservatories for animals.

The BC Wildlife Park in Kamloops was recently biosphere-certified, a designation that recognizes its commitment to sustainability, wildlife conservation and alignment with the 17 United Nations sustainable development goals.

Further north, the ethos of the Yukon Wildlife Preserve is firmly rooted in the principles of animal welfare and ecological conservation. Established in 2003 on the site of a former game farm, the preserve focuses on the rehabilitation and preservation of animals that are native to the region. Its mission includes cultivating “reciprocal, respectful relationships between people and the natural world.”

Reciprocity between species is a concept that most people are not thinking about when visiting a zoo or aquarium. The relationship between visitors and animals is starting to get re-examined in the public consciousness.

As this concept gains traction, institutions like the Yukon Wildlife Preserve are working to ensure encounters between visitors and wildlife contribute to animal welfare, education and ecological understanding.

Toward a more ethical future for zoo tourism

We cannot undo the past but we can influence the future of animal welfare and conservation. Efforts are already underway to redefine how wildlife is experienced and protected.

In British Columbia, the Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program recently acquired a 274-acre property dedicated to creating a humane habitat for rescued grizzly bears. In Victoria, the Parkside Hotel & Spa is part of an initiative to raise funds to support dolphin rescue and rehabilitation work worldwide.

Innovations like hologram zoos being piloted in Ontario, Australia and China demonstrate how technology could replace live animal performances.

Public attitudes are shifting as people become more aware of ecological protection and animal welfare. What has clearly fallen out of public favour are animals trained to perform in captivity for their food and our entertainment.

The transformation of aquariums and zoos will not happen overnight. But continued investment in ecological education and public involvement can help create a more balanced relationship between humans and wildlife. A balanced approach to zoo tourism will require conservation efforts by experts in the field of research, education and animal well-being.

Ann-Kathrin McLean is affiliated with Tourism and Travel Research Association Canada (TTRA).

Moira A. McDonald is affiliated with Tourism and Travel Research Association Canada (TTRA).

Carina Yao and Thomas Worry 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.

Canada still lacks universal paid sick leave — and that’s a public health problem as we approach flu season

2025-10-16T16:53:21Z

As Canadians head into another flu and COVID season, many workers still face an impossible choice if they fall ill: stay home and lose pay, or clock in sick and risk spreading illness. This is more than an individual dilemma; it’s a predictable public health failure — one the government already knows how to fix.

Paid sick leave is good for both health and business, reducing the spread of illness while supporting workforce productivity, promoting better health outcomes and increasing labour force participation.

So why don’t all workers in Canada have it?

A lesson we’ve failed to learn

The costs of sick people going to work were starkly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In 2021, Peel Region in Ontario became a hotspot for transmission. Research from Peel Public Health found that one in four employees went to work while showing symptoms of COVID-19, and about one per cent did so even after testing positive.

Mississauga Mayor Bonnie Crombie called these figures “evidence” that workers were being forced into a dangerous trade-off between “losing a paycheque and putting food on the table.”

And yet, Canada still lacks a comprehensive paid sick leave system. Access remains patchy, depending on the province, sector or employer. The Canada Labour Code mandates 10 days of paid sick leave, but only for federally regulated employees.

At the provincial level, only British Columbia (five days per year), Québec (two days) and Prince Edward Island (one to three days, depending on tenure), have permanent paid sick leave. Ontario briefly offered three days during the pandemic but ended the program in 2023.

Even where these programs exist, they don’t cover everyone. Independent contractors and gig workers are excluded, and many low-wage and part-time employees still lack coverage altogether.

Gig workers, in particular, fall through the cracks. They’re classified as self-employed and left without the basic protections that most employees take for granted.

Canadian unionized workers are more likely to have paid sick days negotiated into their contracts, but coverage remains uneven and far from universal. In sectors with low union density, such as hospitality and agriculture, workers are least likely to have access to any form of paid sick leave at all.

The case for paid sick leave

Every year, workers bring colds, flu and other contagious illnesses to work because they cannot afford to stay home. Presenteeism — working while ill — harms recovery, spreads infection and increases workplace outbreaks.

Research shows that high job demands and low resources drive presenteeism, which in turn reduces job satisfaction and organizational effectiveness. It’s a lose-lose equation: employees suffer, productivity drops and illness spreads faster.

The evidence shows that paid sick leave improves both public health and business outcomes. A 2023 review of 43 studies found that paid sick leave is linked with higher job satisfaction, better retention, fewer workplace injuries, reduced contagion and even lower mortality.

Other research shows that employees without paid sick leave experience greater psychological distress, while simply knowing that such policies exist improves attitudes and trust toward employers.

Although some studies note short-term costs for organizations, the previously mentioned 2023 review found these costs are outweighed by long-term gains, including stronger employee loyalty, lower turnover and improved public health outcomes.

Building on what works

To address this, Canada should integrate paid sick leave into systems similar to workers’ compensation for workplace injuries and fatalities.

Canada already has well-established mechanisms, such as provincial Workers’ Compensation Boards and the Federal Workers’ Compensation Service, that provide income replacement and rehabilitation support for employees with work-related illnesses and injuries.

Extending this logic to illness, especially when it spreads through communities, would prevent workers from being penalized for following public health guidance while helping organizations avoid widespread disruption.

Governments and employers could draw lessons from the successes and shortcomings of existing compensation systems to design a program that is fair, efficient and responsive to routine illness and public health emergencies.

For instance, the workers’ compensation programs have long provided reliable, no-fault coverage for physical injuries, but they also struggle with uneven access, complex claims procedures and limited recognition of mental health conditions.

Leadership is also crucial. Leaders who prioritize employee well-being and model prosocial safety behaviours can reduce presenteeism and strengthen safety culture. They are also crucial for setting examples and encouraging employees to use sick leave without fear.

When leaders communicate that taking time off while sick is responsible, not risky, they help rewrite the social norms that keep people working through illness and ensure paid sick leave policies translate into healthier workplaces.

Paid sick leave is a public health imperative

Policymakers, business leaders, unions and the public need to support the creation of a paid sick leave system that is robust, fair and capable of protecting all workers and workplaces. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the need for expanded sick leave policies, and it remains just as urgent today.

Paid sick leave is basic public health infrastructure. During the COVID-19 pandemic, paid sick leave enabled workers to stay home when they were exhibiting symptoms, which reduced transmissions, workplace outbreaks and worker absenteeism.

A universal sick leave system would help Canada better manage seasonal illnesses and future outbreaks, protect economic stability and prepare for emerging crises, from new pandemics to climate-related health shocks.

Lives depend on it. Organizational health rests on it. Society’s well-being requires it.

Alyssa Grocutt receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Julian Barling receives funding from the Borden Chair of Leadership and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Nick Turner receives research funding from Cenovus Energy Inc., Haskayne School of Business's Future Fund, Mitacs, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

A digital twin could help Canada beat wildfires, fix commutes and save tax dollars

2025-10-15T17:29:35Z

Canada is facing larger wildfires, rising flood risks and worsening traffic congestion. The federal government’s infrastructure plan budgets at least $180 billion over 12 years, yet insured disaster losses hit a record $8.5 billion in 2024.

Despite these massive investments, too often problems are only discovered after construction begins. One way to address this is to model risks and impacts before they occur using a digital replica that mirrors how real systems work.

A “digital twin” — essentially a live virtual model of roads, transit, energy, water and public buildings — would let policymakers and planners test ideas and spot risks ahead of time. It blends maps and 3D models with data (some live, some updated regularly), so policymakers and planners can run “what-if” scenarios.

For example, policymakers could use a digital twin to see how a lane closure, new bus route or wildfire evacuation order might ripple through a city before making a decision. Singapore already uses this approach to test planning and emergency responses and its documented efficiency gains are clear.

As researchers, we see a national, federated digital twin improving Canada’s resilience and efficiency in three practical ways.

Benefit #1: Safer wildfire evacuations

Canada’s 2023 wildfire season was the worst on record, with more than 18 million hectares burned, and 2025 has already been called the second-worst on record.

When fires move fast, evacuation routes can become jammed and communication can break down. During the 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire, for instance, residents received “mixed messages” about the threat and proximity of the wildfire. Thousands of people ended up jamming Highway 63, the sole road in and out of the city.

Similarly, during Yellowknife’s 2023 evacuation, an after-action review found there was a lack of clear and transparent communication to the public about an evacuation plan, leading to “significant confusion and stress.”

A national digital twin could help emergency teams rehearse evacuations in advance. They could test detours, traffic signal plans, one-way controls, signage and reception-centre capacity; check if ambulances can reach hospitals when smoke closes a route; and push clear routes to navigation apps in real time.

Benefit #2: Faster, more reliable commutes

Traffic congestion and transit delays cost Canadians time, productivity and peace of mind. We all know what it’s like when a construction project snarls traffic or a crowded station slows trains.

A 2024 report from the Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis estimated that congestion cost Ontario $56.4 billion in total economic and social impacts. Of that, about $43.6 billion was linked to reduced quality of life, including stress, health impacts and time lost to delays.

A digital twin could help. With this technology, transit agencies could test bus-only lanes, signal timing, platform-crowding fixes and construction plans before rolling them out.

Vancouver International Airport has already built a real-time digital twin to optimize passenger flows. The same principles can also be applied to transit hubs and busy corridors, helping cities identify problems early, reduce disruption and move people more efficiently.

Benefit #3: Better use of tax dollars

Cost overruns and rework continue to drain public budgets across Canada. Major infrastructure projects frequently exceed their initial pricetags, like the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which is now projected to cost nearly $34 billion — almost six times the original $5.3 billion estimate.

Montréal’s Réseau express metropolitain light-rail project has faced multiple cost increases as wells, rising from an initial estimate of $6.3 billion to more than $7.9 billion as of 2023.

Digital twins can reduce these losses by identifying design conflicts early, comparing options side-by-side and improving transparency with the public.

Evidence suggests the savings can be substantial. A technical report from the National Research Council of Canada found that using digital design tools to resolve design conflicts early saved roughly 20 per cent of a project’s contract value.

The potential returns are equally clear abroad. The U.K. government estimates that applying digital twins to network management could deliver 856 million pounds in benefits over 10 years.

Canada is already testing these possibilities. Ontario’s $5 million digital twin pilot is exploring how they can be used to deliver hospitals, highways and transit projects on time and on budget.

Similarly, the federal government is exploring using a digital twin to improve infrastructure maintenance and planning. Public Services and Procurement Canada has issued a Request for Information on a digital twin platform for its building portfolio.

From scattered projects to a national framework

Canada already has a strong foundation to build on for a national digital twin. Many Canadian cities already publish detailed base spatial data, such as Toronto’s 3D massing models and Vancouver’s public LiDAR data that captures its urban form in high resolution.

Canadian universities are already leading the way. Researchers at Carleton University have been the first to model a digital twin at a national scale, and plan to release the project’s code as an open-source project and the platform for free.

Infrastructure Ontario and Toronto Metropolitan University have signed a two-year partnership to apply digital-twin technology to modernize provincial infrastructure planning. Meanwhile, four other Canadian universities are involved in a project to explore how these tools can improve development approvals and regulatory decision-making.

The challenge is not to start from scratch, but to connect these existing initiatives under a coherent national framework.

This means agreeing on a few shared rules: common formats so maps and assets line up, clear privacy and security standards that prohibit personal tracking (only anonymous or aggregated data) and a small federal team to maintain standards and allow the different systems to work together.

Transparency about how the digital twin models work will be essential. The government should publish the methods and test results online for communities, journalists and independent experts to check. Routine audits and a quick way to fix mistakes should also be added.

A practical first step is to focus on projects that address urgent, tangible issues, namely wildfire evacuation routes and commute reliability. Early successes in these areas would demonstrate value quickly while proving the model’s effectiveness.

Learning from global leaders

Canada does not need to invent its own rule book. It can adopt existing frameworks like the U.K.’s plain-English Gemini Principles and information-management playbook, which focuses on public benefit, openness and safety.

Singapore, the U.K. and the European Union have all developed, implemented and tested digital twin programs, showing how to set standards, protect privacy and deliver public benefits.

If Canada borrows their templates and lessons, it can move faster and at a lower cost. It will be able to link early adopters, focus on high-impact uses like wildfire evacuations and commute reliability, publish results for review and then expand.

By doing so, Canada would shift from fragmented projects to a national digital twin that strengthens resilience, protects privacy and improves everyday life.

Dr. Ehsan Noroozinejad has received funding from both national and international organizations to support research addressing housing and climate crises. His most recent funding for integrated housing and climate policy comes from the APPI. He has also been involved in securing funding from NSERC and Mitacs. He is also affiliated with Western Sydney University.

Professor T.Y. Yang secures funding from national and international organizations to develop innovative solutions for housing and climate crises, with a focus on modern methods of construction.

What ‘The Paper’ reveals about local news and journalism today

2025-10-15T13:14:26Z

'The Paper' is a spinoff of 'The Office,' with the character Oscar Martinez now employed at the Toledo Truth-Teller in Toledo, Ohio. (NBC Universal)

In the debut episode of the new sitcom The Paper, freshly appointed editor-in-chief Ned Sampson tries to rouse the spirits of his colleagues at The Truth Teller, a fictional local newspaper in Toledo, Ohio.

It’s a community institution with a storied past but a precarious future — in recent years, the paper has relied almost exclusively on news wire articles and clickbait entertainment to meet its bottom line.

Ned makes a declaration while standing on a desk, as a documentary film crew records it all:

“If you have ever wanted to be the first person to know what’s going on in the place where you live, or if you want to make sure the people who are running your city are telling the truth … You are more than welcome, all of you, to volunteer your time at this newspaper.”

It’s meant to be an uplifting moment, with the earnest but inexperienced leader insisting that good journalism can make the paper profitable again. But, even as some colleagues respond with cautious optimism (if not skeptical curiosity), the episode ends by cutting back to an earlier gag — a nearby building has been on fire the entire time, unnoticed and unreported.

It’s an apt, if unsettling, metaphor for the state of local news in North America, where so many outlets have vanished that residents often don’t know what’s happening in their own backyard.

Trailer for ‘The Paper.’

Alarming rate of collapse

Local newspapers are collapsing at an alarming pace. In Canada, more than 500 outlets have closed since 2008, affecting more than 370 communities, according to the Local News Research Project.

In the United States, the number exceeds 2,800 closures since 2005, based on research by Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism.

The result is what scholars call “news deserts” — places where no professional local news source remains to cover councils, courts or communities.

The causes of this decline are multifaceted. Reporters and editors need to be paid, newsrooms need resources and investigative journalism is costly and time-consuming. Print advertising, once the financial lifeblood of local papers, has been in steep decline for years as businesses moved their spending to platforms like Google and Facebook.

That collapse in revenue left papers more dependent on digital ads and subscriptions, neither of which has filled the gap. According to the Florida-based Poynter Institute for Media Studies, local news websites saw about a 20 per cent drop in page views and unique visitors in 2022, undercutting the ad impressions needed to sustain online revenue.

Patchwork assistance

Canadian news organizations have sought compensation for the ways tech platforms profit from news content. Google reached a deal with the Canadian government to provide $100 million annually for five years to domestic publishers in exchange for an exemption from the Online News Act, which allows continued access to Canadian news links.

As Gretel Kahn with the Reuters Institute reports, some Canadian outlets — including The Conversation Canada — have begun to benefit from these payments. The money is disbursed by the Canadian Journalism Collective, a federally incorporated nonprofit.

However, the effects are uneven: larger corporate chains such as Postmedia and Torstar are getting most of the support, while smaller independent and local publishers receive far less. This patchwork assistance offers temporary relief but does little to fix the deeper imbalance in how digital advertising profits are distributed.

Expectation of free news

Audiences have now grown accustomed to receiving news instantly and for free, often through social media feeds or aggregators rather than directly from a newspaper. Younger readers in particular encounter news on platforms like TikTok, Instagram or YouTube, where entertainment and opinion often overwhelm verified reporting.

In this environment of declining ad dollars and fragmented attention, local outlets are trying harder than ever to convince audiences their work is worth supporting. This is the tension The Paper plays for laughs.

Throughout the series, the characters contend with all manner of challenges as they strive to keep their newspaper relevant and viable. They get scooped on major stories by a teenage blogger. They struggle to decide whether to chase sensationalism that attracts eyeballs or invest in reporting that actually matters. They try to revive accountability coverage by investigating local businesses but must tread carefully not to alienate the few remaining advertisers willing to support them.

Reporters as underdogs?

On screen, journalists have often been depicted as crusaders for truth — from All the President’s Men to Spotlight to The Newsroom. Even shows and films that explore the darker side of the industry, like The Wire, Bombshell or Tokyo Vice, frame journalism as a profession of serious consequence and high-stakes drama.

The Paper suggests something different: reporters not as larger-than-life figures, but as struggling underdogs doing their best and often getting it wrong. On one hand, this risks trivializing the work of local journalists at a time when the survival of their industry is already in doubt.

For real reporters, it’s no laughing matter. A 2022 Canadian study found many are experiencing high rates of burnout, anxiety and online harassment. In 2021, in the U.S., newsroom employment had fallen by more than a quarter since 2008, with those left behind facing heavier workloads as colleagues were laid off.

The loss of reporters has created gaps in coverage of councils, courts and communities that once formed the backbone of civic accountability.

Heartfelt missive

On the other hand, when it’s at its best, The Paper is a heartfelt missive about why local journalism has always mattered: that despite its sometimes dysfunctional newsroom, the reporters are people who truly understand and care about the community they cover because they live there too.

This kind of connection has long been a foundation for building public trust and encouraging dialogue. But it has been severely eroded as outlets close and news deserts spread.

Research shows that as local news declines, so does voter turnout, civic engagement and political accountability.

The Paper doesn’t pretend to solve the seemingly insurmountable problems facing local news, but it does capture the messy reality of trying to do the job. In a moment when journalists are often idealized or demonized, showing them as flawed but dedicated may not be comforting — but it may be closer to the truth.

Adrian Ma 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.

How to adapt our pension schemes to longer life expectancy

2025-10-14T13:13:29Z

Current pension schemes may be insufficient for the next generation. (Phyllis Lilienthal, Unsplash), CC BY-SA

Canada’s aging population, combined with increased life expectancy, pose a real challenge for our pension plans. Current and future retirees risk seeing some of their sources of income decline or, at best, stagnate.

Data released by Statistics Canada shows that life expectancy at birth in Canada has increased, rising from 81.3 years in 2022 to 81.7 years in 2023.

In the province of Québec, life expectancy has increased significantly, climbing to 86 years in 2021 for people who reach the age of 65, compared to 78 years in 1927, according to a study by Retraite Québec.

As co-ordinator of the Observatoire de la retraite, I am concerned about the decline in defined benefit (DB) plans since it diminishes the income of future retirees. Defined benefit plans pay pensions for the entire life of retirees, until their death.

This article is part of our series The Grey Revolution. The Conversation Canada/La Conversation invites you to explore the impact of the aging boomer generation on Canadian society, including housing, working, culture, eating, travelling and health care … discover with us the upheavals underway, and those to come.

The pension system

The pension system can be thought of as a three- or four-storey house. In Québec, the first two floors represent the Old Age Security program and the Québec Pension Plan. These two plans allow retirees to receive pensions until their death, and the plans are are guaranteed and indexed annually to the Consumer Price Index.

The third floor has different types of plans.

In addition to individual savings products, such as Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs) or Tax-Free Savings Accounts (TFSAs), group plans are available in some workplaces so that employees can contribute to, and then enjoy retirement income when they retire. The two main types of group plans are defined contribution (DC) plans and defined benefit (DB) plans.

Individual savings products and certain employer plans, such as DC plans, allow employees to accumulate capital that will be paid out during retirement. The payout is made using products offered by insurance companies or private financial institutions. Individuals are responsible for their own assets, must manage their money and they assume the risks on an individual basis.

However, it should be noted that approximately half of working people do not have access to a group pension plan or an RRSP.

Replacing DB plans with DC plans

The problem in recent decades has been the decline in the proportion of people working in the private sector who are covered by DB plans. As a result, more employees must rely on individual savings or DC plans to finance their retirement. These individuals are therefore financially vulnerable and must assume the risks associated with withdrawing their savings, such as not having enough money to last until the end of their lives.

As life expectancy increases, new retirees must plan to withdraw their wealth from individual savings or defined contribution pensions over a longer period of time.

Increased life expectancy and disbursement

What could be the impacts of this situation? When disbursement is spread over a longer period of time, the monthly amounts that can be paid out are lower.

For example, for the same level of assets (let’s say $400,000), the monthly amounts paid out over 15 years will be higher than those paid out over a 25-year period.

Retired individuals may live longer than the expected payout period, resulting in certain sources of income drying up or significantly decreasing. Financial difficulties may therefore arise at the end of life, and difficult decisions may have to be made as retirees’ cognitive abilities decline.

An idea for DC plans

In Québec, actions have already been taken by pension regulatory and supervisory bodies to provide lifetime pensions to DC plan participants. Bill 80, prepared by Retraite Québec and adopted in 2024, allows DC plans to set up payment terms that provide pensions for the entire life of the retiree.

Québec followed the federal government’s lead by legislating that DC plans could pay lifetime pensions.

One of the limitations of these lifetime annuity schemes is that the small size of the scheme’s assets will not allow for a reduction in management fees. Generally speaking, the larger the assets under management, the lower the fees.

But Canada could go further. The United Kingdom, for example, established the National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) in 2012 to collect and manage contributions from employees who do not have a pension plan offered in their workplace. Employees and employers pay contributions into the trust. NEST’s management fees are 1.8 per cent for contributions and 0.3 per cent of assets under management.

The advantage of this type of public scheme amid rising life expectancy is that management fees are generally lower than in the private sector.

The assets accumulated in this organization through contributions can be withdrawn gradually over a lifetime, while allowing money to be withdrawn in emergencies. This is a more structured approach that Québec and the Canadian provinces could draw on to improve the disbursement terms of defined contribution plans.

An idea for public plans

Québec and Canada’s public plans (the first and second tiers of the retirement income system) pay pensions indexed to the Consumer Price Index. But other indexation methods exist elsewhere in the world. Some countries, for example, index public pension plans to wages or the cost of living.

Several organizations have already proposed that Canadian and Québec public pension plans be indexed to average wage increases rather than the Consumer Price Index. This would ensure that pensions increase more quickly, since wages rise faster than inflation.

A more advantageous indexation method for retirees is the one used in the United Kingdom. It consists of indexing pensions to the highest of the following factors: consumer prices, wages or 2.5 per cent. It has been nicknamed the Triple Lock.

The Institut de recherche et d’informations socioéconomiques calculated that when the Triple Lock indexation method was applied to the Québec Pension Plan, QPP pensions would increase more rapidly than with the Canadian method.

So, solutions exist to improve the payout terms of defined contribution plans, as well as the indexation method for public plans.

I would like to thank Riel Michaud-Beaudry, a researcher at l'Observatoire de la retraite, for his review and comments.

François L'Italien is coordinator of the Observatoire de la retraite and deputy director of the Institut de recherche en économie contemporaine (IREC). Funding for the Observatoire de la retraite and the IREC comes from various organizations including pensioners' and workers' associations and workers' funds.

Why industry-standard labels for AI in music could change how we listen

2025-10-13T10:09:24Z

Earlier this year, a band called The Velvet Sundown racked up hundreds of thousands of streams on Spotify with retro-pop tracks, generating a million monthly listeners on Spotify.

But the band wasn’t real. Every song, image, and even its back story, had been generated by someone using generative AI.

For some, it was a clever experiment. For others, it revealed a troubling lack of transparency in music creation, even though the band’s Spotify descriptor was later updated to acknowledge it is composed with AI.

In September 2025, Spotify announced it is “helping develop and will support the new industry standard for AI disclosures in music credits developed through DDEX.” DDEX is a not-for-profit membership organization focused on the creation of digital music value chain standards.

The company also says it’s focusing work on improved enforcement of impersonation violations and a new spam-filtering system, and that updates are “the latest in a series of changes we’re making to support a more trustworthy music ecosystem for artists, for rights-holders and for listeners.”

As AI becomes more embedded in music creation, the challenge is balancing its legitimate creative use with the ethical and economic pressures it introduces. Disclosure is essential not just for accountability, but to give listeners transparent and user-friendly choices in the artists they support.

A patchwork of policies

The music industry’s response to AI has so far been a mix of ad hoc enforcement as platforms grapple with how to manage emerging uses and expectations of AI in music.

Apple Music took aim at impersonation when it pulled the viral track “Heart on My Sleeve” featuring AI-cloned vocals of Drake and The Weeknd. The removal was prompted by a copyright complaint reflecting concerns over misuse of artists’ likeness and voice.

CBC News covers AI-generated band The Velvet Sundown.

The indie-facing song promotion platform SubmitHub has introduced measures to combate AI-generated spam. Artists must declare if AI played “a major role” in a track. The platform also has an “AI Song Checker” so playlist curators can scan files to detect AI use.

Spotify’s announcement adds another dimension to these efforts. By focusing on disclosure, it recognizes that artists use AI in many different ways across music creation and production. Rather than banning these practices, it opens the door to an AI labelling system that makes them more transparent.

Labelling creative content

Content labelling has long been used to help audiences make informed choices about their media consumption. Movies, TV and music come with parental advisories, for example.

Digital music files also include embedded information tags called metadata, which include details like genre, tempo and contributing artists that platforms use to categorize songs, calculate royalty payments and to suggest new songs to listeners.

Canada has relied on labelling for decades to strengthen its domestic music industry. The MAPL system requires radio stations to play a minimum percentage of Canadian music, using a set of criteria to determine whether a song qualifies as Canadian content based on music, artist, production and lyrics.

As more algorithmically generated AI music appears on streaming platforms, an AI disclosure label would give listeners a way to discover music that matches their preferences, whether they’re curious about AI collaboration or drawn to more traditional human-crafted approaches.

What could AI music labels address?

A disclosure standard will make AI music labelling possible. The next step is cultural: deciding how much information should be shared with listeners, and in what form.

According to Spotify, artists and rights-holders will be asked to specify where and how AI contributed to a track. For example, whether it was used for vocals, instrumentation or post-production work such as mixing or mastering.

For artists, these details better reflect how AI tools fit into a long tradition of creative use of new technologies. After all, the synthesizer, drum machines and samplers — even the electric guitar — were all once controversial.

But AI disclosure shouldn’t give streaming platforms a free pass to flood catalogues with algorithmically generated content. The point should also be to provide information to listeners to help them make more informed choices about what kind of music they want to support.

Information about AI use should be easy to see and quickly find. But on Spotify’s Velvet Sundown profile, for example, this is dubious: listeners have to dig down to actually read the band’s descriptor.

AI and creative tensions in music

AI in music raises pressing issues, including around labour and compensation, industry power dynamics, as well as licensing and rights.

One study commissioned by the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers has said that Gen AI outputs could put 24 per cent of music creators’ revenues at risk by 2028, at a time when many musician careers are already vulnerable to high costs of living and an unpredictable and unstable streaming music economy.

The most popular AI music platforms are controlled by major tech companies. Will AI further concentrate creative power, or are there tools that might cut production costs and become widely used by independent artists? Will artists be compensated if their labels are involved in deals for artists’ music to train AI platforms?

The cultural perception around musicians having their music train AI platforms or in using AI tools in music production is also a site of creative tension.

Enabling listener choice

Turning a disclosure standard into something visible — such as an intuitive label or icon that allows users to go deeper to show how AI was used — would let listeners see at a glance how human and algorithmic contributions combine in a track.

Embedded in the digital song file, it could also help fans and arts organizations discover and support music based on the kind of creativity behind it.

Ultimately, it’s about giving listeners a choice. A clear, well-designed labelling system could help audiences understand the many ways AI now shapes music, from subtle production tools to fully synthetic vocals.

Need for transparency

As influence of AI in music creation continues to expand, listeners deserve to know how the sounds they love are made — and artists deserve the chance to explain it.

Easy-to-understand AI music labels would turn disclosure into something beyond compliance: it might also invite listeners to think more deeply about the creative process behind the music they love.

Gordon A. Gow receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

Brian Fauteux 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.

Travelling to the U.S.? How the government shutdown will impact tourism

2025-10-10T11:39:40Z

A shutdown of the United States federal government started on Oct. 1 after President Donald Trump and Congress failed to reach an agreement on the funding legislation required to finance the government.

Tens of thousands of government employees will continue working without pay, and some may be furloughed, affecting many public services with interruptions or delays, depending on how long the shutdown lasts.

Politics and travel are very closely connected, and the current situation is likely to have a strong ripple effect far beyond Washington, D.C.

Although essential services such as border security and air traffic control continue to operate, the shutdown can still create disruptions, uncertainty and reduced service quality for travellers, while also causing significant economic stress for travel businesses.

For Canadians, the shutdown presents risks that could affect travel experiences, safety and trip values to the U.S.

Border delays and processing challenges

The Canada-U.S. border, the world’s longest international boundary, is administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, an agency whose employees are considered essential. This means ports of entry remain open. However, essential does not necessarily mean fully staffed.

During past shutdowns, U.S. Customs officers were required to work without pay until government funding resumed, leading to increased absenteeism, low morale and slower processing times. This turns into longer and more stressful travel experiences.

For Canadians travelling on the road, this can translate into longer waits at land crossings, particularly during weekends and holiday periods. Even air travellers face such risks.

At Canadian airports offering U.S. pre-clearance, U.S. customs officers perform entry inspections before departure. Any staff shortage or delay in pay could result in longer queues or flight delays at pre-clearance facilities. A further long-term risk could be the closure of pre-clearance at some airports.

Air travel disruptions

Airports are another critical pressure point. Both air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents continue to work during a shutdown, yet without pay.

As seen in previous government shutdowns, absenteeism tends to rise when employees struggle with financial uncertainty. The result can be longer security lines, flight delays and even cancellations.

The Federal Aviation Administration also halts non-essential activities, such as training new controllers or performing certain maintenance and safety inspections. The U.S. already faces a significant shortage of air traffic controllers. A shutdown freezes recruitment and training, worsening the shortage and magnifying safety risks.

Disruptions at U.S. airports typically begin to appear after about a week, but the longer the shutdown continues, the more likely these disruptions become.

For travellers, this means a greater likelihood of delayed flights at major U.S. hubs like New York, Chicago or Los Angeles, which serve as major gateways for connecting flights. A shutdown may also disrupt smaller regional airports, which have less staffing flexibility.

People flying to the U.S. should build extra buffer time into their itineraries and avoid tight connecting flights. The safety of air travel will only be assured through further ground delays at airports and flight cancellations.

Federal attractions closed but private ones open

Canadians visiting the U.S. for leisure could face disappointment when federal attractions and parks close. The National Park Service, Smithsonian museums and numerous monuments depend on federal funding and staffing.

In past shutdowns, parks like Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon closed their visitor centres, limited maintenance and suspended ranger programs. Although some parks may initially use “carry-over” funds to stay open, those reserves will run out. Visitors might find roads unmaintained, restrooms locked and emergency services unavailable.

Even if the gates remain open, safety and cleanliness often deteriorate, making the experience less enjoyable and potentially hazardous. In addition, National Park websites and social media accounts will not be maintained, and updates will not be provided to visitors.

Although the public sector shutdown affects travel to and within the U.S., the good news for travellers is that private operators in the tourism sector are less directly impacted. Hotels, private museums, restaurants and tour operators will continue to operate, but they may also suffer from delays, cancellations or border frictions.

The economic impact of a shutdown

The shutdown adds to the woes of the U.S. travel and tourism sector, which continues to suffer from a drop in the number of visitors from Canada — its largest international market — and other countries.

The US Travel and Tourism Association has warned that inbound visits are projected to decrease by 6.3 per cent, from 72.4 million in 2024 to 67.9 million in 2025 — a decline not seen since COVID-19. The association also estimates that the travel economy is at risk of losing US$1 billion a week due to the disruptions.

Additional financial pressures may further deter travellers. The cost of the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) rose from US$21 to US$40 on Sept. 30, and a new US$250 “visa integrity fee” for visitors from non–visa waiver countries like Mexico, China and India could contribute to fewer international visits.

For Canadians, the shutdown is yet another reason to avoid travelling to the U.S. Business travellers may delay a trip, and leisure tourists may also defer or cancel a trip across the border. This situation may continue to negatively impact the economy of border towns that depend on unrestricted mobility of travellers.

Know your risks before you travel

The concerns are growing, and likely will continue to grow if the shutdown extends for several weeks, as it did in 2018-19. The year 2025 has not been a good year for U.S. tourism and the Canadian market, and travellers continue to rethink travel plans.

In addition to the risks that travel to the U.S. presents for Canadians, there is now the added possibility of disrupted travel, closed national attractions like parks and museums and a general decline in service quality.

The U.S. government shutdown is just the latest in a series of crises that have impacted U.S.-Canada tourism since 9/11. Response and recovery are not enough when it comes to risk and disasters; businesses, but also travellers, must engage in contingency planning and risk and crisis management to avoid negative consequences.

Small sample, big impact: How talking to just 5 people can improve startup success

2025-10-08T18:41:54Z

As Canada navigates an ongoing tariff dispute with the United States, small businesses and startups are emerging as a source of economic growth that could help Canada assert greater independence from its largest trading partner.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has warned that Canada cannot rely on the U.S. any longer and must instead achieve “economic autonomy.” Ottawa’s efforts to remove internal trade barriers and expand infrastructure projects are central to this objective, paving the foundation to revitalize the Canadian economy.

Another key part of this agenda is fostering entrepreneurship — the engine for new opportunities and economic growth.

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the backbone of the Canadian economy. As of December 2023, small businesses made up 98.1 per cent of all employer businesses in Canada, accounted for 63.7 per cent of the private labour force and 48 per cent of Canada’s GDP (gross domestic product) over the 2017-21 period. They also represented 38.2 per cent of the total value of exported goods.

Although exporting has traditionally been dominated by larger, innovation-intensive SMEs — particularly those with significant intellectual property — recent data shows an increase in exports from smaller, service-oriented firms, many of them immigrant-led.

These businesses are playing an increasingly important role in diversifying Canada’s export base and reducing dependence on any single market — particularly the U.S.

The lean startup model

For many aspiring entrepreneurs, one of the most popular frameworks for launching a business is the lean startup method, developed by Silicon Valley entrepreneur Eric Ries and expanded on in his 2011 book, The Lean Startup.

This practice has been widely adopted by incubators and accelerators, some of which require new ventures to meet hundreds of mentors and potential customers for consultation.

The Lean Startup provides a recipe for starting businesses with minimal cost, fast iteration and higher success rate. The philosophy behind it is for entrepreneurs to validate their market before investing tons of resources into building a product.

Since its publication, The Lean Startup has been used by millions of entrepreneurs around the world. The book advises entrepreneurs to “get out of the building” and talk to potential customers, but it doesn’t specify how much effort entrepreneurs should invest in market validation — how many people to consult or how often to do so.

Market validation is the process of testing a product or service idea with its target market to confirm if there’s real demand for it and whether it is viable for success. Although it’s central to the lean startup approach, many entrepreneurs shy away from it for different reasons.

Some entrepreneurs want to protect their business ideas from being stolen by others. In addition, new ventures have scarce resources that need to be allocated to multiple tasks, and market validation competes for the limited attention and resources of entrepreneurs.

The ‘sweet spot’ for market validation

In a recent study, my co-author Stephen X. Zhang and I set out to understand which entrepreneurs are more likely to invest in market validation, and how much investment is optimal for new venture performance. We conducted a three-wave survey with 210 entrepreneurs and their co-founders from Canada, Chile and China.

We measured the self-efficacy of entrepreneurs — how confident they felt about market and entrepreneurial success — and asked co-founders to report their ventures’ market validation frequency and hours. We found that entrepreneurs with moderate levels of confidence invested most resources into market validation. They sought feedback more frequently and invested more time in understanding potential customers.

Entrepreneurs with low confidence either didn’t think market validation was worthwhile or they found it too intimidating. Those with high confidence didn’t think it was necessary to validate their market because they were already convinced of their success.

More importantly, we found that a moderate level of market validation led to the strongest new venture performance. Checking in with about four to five people monthly was the most efficient. Interestingly, this number coincides with the most efficient size of social network, as well as the number needed for user testing.

The results suggest that effective market validation is more about quality and consistency than quantity. Talking to a small, diverse group of knowledgeable contacts on a regular basis is optimal for enhancing new venture performance.

Yet there is a precaution: we did not study the quality of informants. Five people may be enough for qualitative methods such as interviews, but it may not be enough for quantitative methods such as surveys.

What this means for new entrepreneurs

Our findings can make the task starting a new business less daunting for entrepreneurs. Instead of trying to interview hundreds of customers or skipping validation entirely, early-stage entrepreneurs can start small.

If you have an idea, find five people that are most knowledgeable and relevant for the idea, and ask their opinions about the product or service you envisioned. If they like the idea, develop a minimum viable product to test it out. If not, revise your idea or try a different one.

In addition, understanding the way confidence has an impact on how entrepreneurs seek feedback can help organizations and mentors improve their coaching methods.

Entrepreneurs with low confidence may benefit from support that builds self-efficacy through vicarious learning, such as observing and simulation, to make feedback less intimidating. Those with excessive confidence may need to be challenged to provide evidence for their assumptions and reminded of the value of customer feedback in challenging even deeply held convictions.

Xi Chen 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.

AI tools promise efficiency at work, but they can erode trust, creativity and agency

2025-10-07T18:44:19Z

What if your biggest competitive asset is not how fast AI helps you work, but how well you question what it produces?

Business leaders tend to prioritize efficiency and compliance in the workplace. It’s one of the reasons why so many are drawn toward incorporating generative AI technologies into their workflows. A recent survey found 63 per cent of global IT leaders worry their companies will be left behind without AI adoption.

But in the rush to adopt AI, some organizations are overlooking the real impact it can have on workers and company culture.

Most organizational strategies focus on AI’s short-term efficiencies, such as automation, speed and cost saving. What tends to be overlooked are the impacts AI has on cognition, agency and cultural norms. AI is fundamentally restructuring not only what we know, but how we know it.

As AI becomes more integrated, it will continue to influence organizational tone, pace, communication style and decision-making norms. This is why leaders must set deliberate boundaries and consciously shape organizational culture in relation to AI integration.

Once embedded into workflows, AI influences workplace defaults: which sources appear first, what tone a memo takes and where managers set the bar for “good enough.” If people don’t set these defaults, tools like AI will instead.

As researchers who study AI, psychology, human-computer interaction and ethics, we are deeply concerned with the hidden effects and consequences of AI use.

Psychological effects of AI at work

Researchers are beginning to document a number of psychological effects associated with AI use in the workplace. These impacts expose current gaps in epistemic awareness — how we know what we know — and how those gaps can weaken emotional boundaries.

Such shifts can affect how people make decisions, calibrate trust and maintain psychological safety in AI-mediated environments.

One of the most prominent effects is known as “automation bias.” Once AI is integrated into a company’s workflow, its outputs are often internalized as authoritative sources of truth.

Because AI-generated outputs appear fluent and objective, they can be accepted uncritically, creating an inflated sense of confidence and a dangerous illusion of competence.

One recent study found that in 40 per cent of tasks, knowledge workers — those who turn information into decisions or deliverables, like writers, analysts and designers — accepted AI outputs uncritically with zero scrutiny.

The erosion of self-trust

A second concern is the erosion of self-trust. Continuous engagement with AI-generated content leads workers to second-guess their instincts and over-rely on AI guidance, often without realizing it. Over time, work shifts from generating ideas to merely approving AI-generated ones. This results in the diminishing of personal judgment, creativity and original authorship.

One study found that users have a tendency to follow AI advice even when it contradicts their own judgment, resulting in a decline in confidence and autonomous decision-making. Other research shows that when AI systems provide affirming feedback — even for incorrect answers — users become more confident in their decisions, which can distort their judgment.

Workers can end up deferring to AI as an authority despite its lack of lived experience, moral reasoning or contextual understanding. Productivity may appear higher in the short term, but the quality of decisions, self-trust and ethical oversight may ultimately suffer.

Emerging evidence also points to neurological effects of over-reliance on AI use. One recent emerging study tracked professionals’ brain activity over four months and found that ChatGPT users exhibited 55 per cent less neural connectivity compared to those working unassisted. They struggled to remember the essays they just co-authored moments later, as well reduced creative engagement.

So what can leaders and managers do about it?

What leaders and managers can do

Resilience has become something of a corporate buzzword, but genuine resilience can help organizations adapt to AI.

Resilient organizations teach employees to effectively collaborate with AI without over-relying on its outputs. This requires systematic training in interpretive and critical skills to build balanced and ethical human-AI collaboration.

Organizations that value critique over passive acceptance will become better at thinking critically, adapting knowledge effectively and will build stronger ethical capacity. One way of achieving this is by shifting from a growth-oriented mindset to an adaptive one. Which, practically speaking, means workplaces should seek to do the following:

Train people to separate fluency from accuracy and to ask where information comes from rather than just being passive consumers of it. With better epistemic awareness, workers become active interpreters understanding what an AI tool is saying, as well as how and why it’s saying it.
Teach people to monitor their thinking processes and question knowledge sources. A recent study showed professionals with strong metacognitive practices, like planning, self-monitoring and prompt revision, achieved significantly higher creativity when using AI tools, while others saw no benefit. That means metacognition could be the “missing link” for productive LLM use.
Avoid a one-size-fits-all approach and consider levels of automation by task stages. AI tool developers should be encouraged to define clear roles for when the model drafts or analyzes, when the human leads and when verification is mandatory. Consider adding things like AI-use to responsibility and accountability charts.
Create workplace cultures that encourage workers to question AI outputs, track those challenges as quality signals and budget time for verification. Workplaces should publish style norms for AI-assisted writing, set confidence thresholds and evidence requirements by function, and specify who signs off at each risk level.
Hold quarterly “drift reviews” to spot shifts in tone, reliance or bias, before they calcify into organizational culture.

Efficiency will not decide the winners

As we are starting to see, the drive for efficiency will not decide which firms are most successful; the ability to interpret and critically assess AI outputs will.

The companies that pair speed with skepticism and protect judgment as a first-class asset will handle volatility better than those that treat AI as an autopilot. Speed may get you to the next decision, but judgment keeps you in business.

Ethical intelligence in organizations requires an ongoing investment in epistemic awareness, interpretive skill, psychological safety and active value-driven design.

Companies capable of balancing technological innovation with critical thinking and deep ethical understanding will be the ones to thrive in the AI era.

Epstein’s ‘birthday book’ transforms private notes into a legacy record

2025-10-07T13:51:34Z

The United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform recently released a 238-page album, compiled by Ghislaine Maxwell in 2003 for Jeffrey Epstein’s 50th birthday. On Oct. 6, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Maxwell’s appeal of her 2022 conviction for sex trafficking girls with Epstein.

The release of the partially redacted album is part of a larger investigation of the federal government’s handling of Epstein and Maxwell and “possible mismanagement.”

The album is in the spotlight due to an entry allegedly penned by U.S. President Donald Trump, though the White House has denied he wrote it. Entitled The First Fifty Years, the book overflows with handwritten letters, campy sketches and images fixated on women’s bodies.

The book was bound by Weitz & Coleman, an esteemed bookbinder in New York City since 1909, as indicated by a note within the album itself.

Its “vegetable tanned” leather covers, table of contents and sections titled “Family,” “Friends” and “Business” signal an intent to elevate casual notes into a permanent record.

As book historian D.F. McKenzie contends, a book’s physical form shapes its social role. Here, the elaborate binding and careful organization transform private, ephemeral notes into a social gesture, something shared in a legacy format.

In this sense, Epstein’s album sits alongside a tradition of bound tribute books — scrapbooks pressed into leather for golden anniversaries, glossy volumes marking a CEO’s retirement or academic festschrifts that canonize a career. What unites them is the transformation of passing moments into artifacts meant to endure.

Charm, codes, clichés

Maxwell’s prologue describes the book as a retrospective to “jog your memory about places, people and different events.”

In the birthday book, one redacted former “assistant” recalls how working for Epstein transformed her life: she went from being “a 22-year-old divorcée working as a hotel hostess” to rubbing shoulders with royalty, presidents, financiers and celebrities.

One letter from a childhood friend who recently said Maxwell instructed him to write something “raunchy” spins a sexually explicit fantasy about Epstein’s conception before drifting into nostalgic tales of their four-boy Brooklyn clique.

In one vignette, Epstein is praised for flaunting a “beautiful British babe” at his family’s home, his indifference to her feelings reframed as charm. The anecdote turns callousness toward women into a badge of confidence and belonging. The letter concludes: “That shows a lot. It really does … Yes, your charisma and persuasive ways came very early on … you’re my kid’s role model.”

Epstein’s sex life and treatment of women are recurring themes.

A note apparently from private equity investor Leon Black, who was earlier found to have paid millions in fees to Epstein, cast Epstein as Ernest Hemingway’s hero in The Old Man and the Sea, swapping fish for “Blonde, Red or Brunette” women.

Philosophers and scholars of rhetoric have long noted that ready-made clichés can replace inner reflection, forming a “code of expression” that insulates people from moral reckoning.

Laughter as defence

If language conveys loyalty, humour compounds it. Composed in 2003, as Epstein’s notoriety grew, today — amid the knowledge of Epstein’s sex crimes — the birthday book’s laughter seems knowingly defensive.

There are bawdy jokes and mocking nicknames: Epstein is dubbed “Degenerate One” and teased or taunted with “so many girls, so little time.”

As French philosopher Henri Bergson argued, laughter functions as a social corrective: a “kind of social ragging” that polices behaviour by ridiculing deviation under the guise of amusement.

One birthday book contributor quips that Epstein had “avoided the penitentiary.” The comment implies knowledge of punishable behaviour, yet also suggests Epstein is an affable rogue.

Figures of authority

The book’s inclusion of entries from public office and science figures could suggest Maxwell and Epstein sought to keep or commemorate connections with figures of authority as a form of perceived legitimacy.

The Wall Street Journal reported that former U.S. president Bill Clinton, whose name appears in the album’s “Friends” section, gave Epstein a handwritten note praising his “childlike curiosity” and drive to “make a difference.” In 2019, a spokesperson for Clinton said he severed ties with Epstein prior to his 2019 arrest and he was not aware of Epstein’s alleged crimes.

Peter Mandelson, recently forced out as the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the U.S. after the Epstein birthday book’s release, penned a note saying Epstein was an “intelligent, sharp-witted man.” Mandelson has said he felt tremendous regret over his Epstein friendship and sympathy for Epstein’s victims.

The birthday book’s “Science” section, with letters from leading scientists, shows that Epstein’s reach extended beyond business and politics into elite academic networks.

Eroticized power and dominance

While some entries strike a mundane or playful tone, others veer into vulgarity.

The former CEO of Victoria’s Secret, Leslie Wexner, contributed a sketch resembling a woman’s breasts with the words “I wanted to get you what you want… so here it is” — framing it as a present. Wexner has said before he severed ties with Epstein in 2007 and declined to comment about the book.

The note allegedly written by Trump features a drawing of a naked woman alongside typewritten text imagining a conversation between them. It calls Epstein “a pal” and ends with the wish that “every day be another wonderful secret.”

Former Microsoft executive Nathan Myhrvold contributed a series of African wildlife photographs, claiming they spoke more vividly than words. The images — of copulating lions and a zebra with an erect penis — foreground predatory and sexualized behaviour, and may be interpreted as reflecting a fascination with dominance and raw biological impulse.

The Seattle Times reports that a spokesperson for Myhrvold said Myhrvold knew Epstein “from TED conferences and as a donor to basic scientific research” and “regrets that he ever met him.” The representative did not address the letter.

The legacy of small gestures

While journalists have long documented that Epstein’s networks stretched from political leaders and Wall Street financiers to influential figures in science and culture, it remains to be seen how the carefully curated and gifted birthday book fits into the larger investigation.

The book’s most insidious achievement is its ordinariness. It suggests the ways that power is fortified and legitimized not only with contracts and institutions but through gestures of social life, including commemorative books.

Jason Wang 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.

How Canada can support rural regions in its net-zero transition

2025-10-02T18:06:03Z

As Canada advances toward its 2050 net-zero emissions target, it’s facing a fundamental challenge: ensuring all parts of the country can participate in and benefit from the transition to a clean economy.

Canada’s regional economies are diverse, spanning Alberta’s oilsands, Québec’s hydroelectric systems, northern mining operations and urban tech hubs. These differences mean that net-zero transitions will manifest differently, creating opportunities for some regions and vulnerabilities for others.

Rural and remote regions accounted for 52 per cent of Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions in 2022 alone, and these regions in particular face complex transition dynamics. These regions host oil, gas, coal and mining industries that power Canada’s economic development.

An equitable net-zero transition requires promoting regional competitiveness while ensuring no place is left behind; in other words, cohesion. Successful sustainability transitions demand both innovation-driven growth strategies and support for regions facing economic disruption.

Canada needs to ensure a net-zero transition translates into broadly shared prosperity rather than exacerbated regional inequalities. Doing so can help rectify the historical pattern of resource extraction that has not always benefited local communities.

Challenges faced by rural and remote regions

Rural and remote communities are typically less economically diverse than urban centres. They are often built around one or more dominant industries and have smaller labour markets with fewer specialists. They also have limited access to the financial and human capital necessary for transitioning to net-zero.

Energy transitions can create new industries and transform existing ones to be cleaner. They can replace old industries with new ones and diversify the economy. However, they can also phase out industries in areas where there aren’t enough replacement options. Communities that depend on a single industry are often hit the hardest by these changes.

Canada’s transition policies are rightly focused on regional competitiveness and innovation through, for example, the Regional Economic Growth through Innovation and the Global Innovation Clusters programs. However, they often fail to proactively support the rural, remote and resource-dependent regions and communities most vulnerable to the disruptions of transitions.

This results in reactive policies and programs that are often deployed only after economic shocks. They rarely target the most at-risk groups and governance frameworks lack clear mechanisms for co-ordinated action, accountability and consideration of Indigenous rights and local well-being.

European precedents

The European Union’s 55 billion euro Just Transition Mechanism provides valuable insights for Canadian policymakers. The EU initiative combines both competitiveness and compensation strategies within a comprehensive development model.

The mechanism integrates investment schemes that promote innovation in clean technologies with targeted support for the regions most vulnerable to job losses and economic downturns. Each EU member state develops just transition plans identifying specific regions and industries requiring support, alongside dedicated investment programs tailored to local economic conditions.

This approach recognizes that effective sustainability transitions require incentives for innovation and protections for disrupted communities.

In addition, the EU’s Just Transition Fund specifically targets regions that are socially, economically and environmentally most vulnerable to transition impacts, while simultaneously encouraging investments in emerging sectors critical for reaching net-zero.

Canadian regional development approaches have historically emphasized competitiveness and innovation, with transition management remaining largely reactive rather than proactive.

An exception is the Canada Coal Transition Initiative, which provided flexible, locally tailored approaches and co-ordinated support across federal, provincial and local levels. That approach is essential for sustainable and equitable transition outcomes in diverse regions.

But Canada has generally been reluctant to explicitly identify and designate regions most at-risk from net-zero transitions. This hesitancy may leave vulnerable communities without targeted support.

Institutional capacity and governance challenges

The effectiveness of both competitiveness and cohesion strategies depends on a region’s institutional capacity and governance. On this point, rural and remote regions are often at a disadvantage. They have smaller administrations, fewer resources and limited capacity to manage complex transitions.

The Canadian government’s Regional Energy and Resource Tables offer a new collaborative approach to help bridge these gaps by bringing federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous partners together.

The tables aim to co-ordinate expertise, resources and partnerships to identify economic priorities and build the capacity to pursue low-carbon growth opportunities. Ten tables are presently underway. This will be an important initiative to watch and evaluate.

Other collaborations can also facilitate peer learning and shared problem-solving. For example, Yukon University’s Northern Energy Innovation group partners with First Nations and utility companies to provide place-based solutions and facilitate knowledge networks. The challenge here lies in connecting these local strengths with external resources and expertise and to expand them as needed.

Sustainable transitions

As Canada encourages new economic activities essential for net-zero transitions, such as critical minerals development, it’s crucial that past inequalities are not reproduced, particularly regarding Indigenous rights holders on territories where these projects are operating.

Canadian governments have substantial room for improvement in this regard, as a lot of rural policy in Cananda continues to treat these regions as sites of resource extraction detached from broader development strategies.

The stakes of this transition are considerable. Managed effectively, net-zero transitions can put Canada on a path to sustainable and inclusive growth. Managed poorly, they risk deepening territorial divisions and creating new patterns of regional disadvantage.

The policies adopted today will determine which of these futures emerge, making the integration of competitiveness and cohesion approaches not merely desirable but essential for Canadian prosperity and social cohesion in the decades ahead.

Tamara Krawchenko received funding for this research from the Centre for Net-Zero Industrial Policy. She is an expert panelist with the Canadian Climate Institute, a Visiting Scholar with the Institute for Research on Public Policy, and a Board member for Ecotrust Canada.

The American TikTok deal doesn’t address the platform’s potential for manipulation, only who profits

2025-10-02T15:26:08Z

On Sept. 25, the Donald Trump administration in the United States again extended the TikTok ban-or-divest law, possibly for the last time. The latest extension to the law, which was passed in 2024 by the Joe Biden administration, includes a deal to transfer TikTok to American owners as a condition required to avoid a ban.

This raises the question on the validity of the warnings about the app as a tool of Chinese influence and whether American ownership will help.

Canada should be watching closely, because anxieties about foreign manipulation and social media exist north of the border, too. These range from bans on TikTok and concerns about Beijing-linked surveillance to efforts like Bill C-18 aimed at safeguarding domestic news sources.

What happens in the Canadian information environment has always been shaped by the U.S., a dependence that is even more precarious now that American politics has turned hostile to Canada.

ABC News covers the executive order that brought into effect U.S. ownership of TikTok.

TikTok concerns

TikTok is not the only digital media platform susceptible to worries about hostile influence. All major platforms introduce the same vulnerabilities. If the policy objective is to enhance the security of democracy, then a focus on TikTok is too narrow and divestment as a solution accomplishes little (especially because it appears China will retain control of the algorithm).

Worries about TikTok come down to two big fears. The first is that it functions as a spying machine, feeding data to the Chinese government. The spying concern isn’t just about espionage, learning about sensitive infrastructure and activities, but also personal — the software itself might be unsafe and can be used to track individuals.

As a result, many countries have banned the app on government devices, and securing data along national borders may well address this.

The second fear, more vivid in the public and political imagination, is that TikTok functions as an influence machine. Its algorithm can be tweaked to push propaganda, sway opinion, censor views or even meddle in elections.

Such worries reached a fever pitch in America in 2023, when Osama bin Laden’s “Letter to America” suddenly went viral on TikTok. Lawmakers seized on this as evidence that TikTok could amplify extremist content, reinforcing fears that the platform can be weaponized.

These worries aren’t merely speculative. Investigations have shown that topics sensitive to China, such as Tiananmen Square and Tibet, are harder to find or conspicuously absent on TikTok compared to other platforms.

Social media is also used as a tool for influence by hostile groups, corporations and governments, and concerns about ownership are often a proxy for deeper anxieties about the platforms themselves.

As users, we know little about how our feeds work, what’s shaping them, what they might look if they were built differently and how they are affecting us.

There is a rational basis to be mistrustful, and this cuts both ways. It’s not just the fear that we could be manipulated without realizing it; it’s also the temptation to see our opponents as manipulated, too, as if every disagreement might be product of someone rigging the system.

Users know little about how TikTok feeds work, what’s shaping them or what they might look if they were built differently. (Solen Feyissa/Unsplash), CC BY

Manipulated anxieties

Fear of TikTok as an influence machine continues to play a substantial role in politics, as “Washington has said that TikTok’s ownership by ByteDance makes it beholden to the Chinese government.”

U.S. Vice President JD Vance remarked that the executive order would “ensure that the algorithm is not being used as a propaganda tool by a foreign government… the American businesspeople … will make the determination about what’s actually happening with TikTok.”

Meanwhile, Trump ostensibly joked that he’d make TikTok “100 per cent MAGA” before adding “everyone’s going to be treated fairly.” And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience of content creators that “weapons change over time… the most important one is social media,” stressing the importance of divestment of TikTok to U.S. owners.

One implication of these comments is that divestment doesn’t change the threat of manipulation — it just changes who’s doing the manipulating. Divestment is framed as resisting foreign propaganda, but at the same time domestic manipulation is legitimized as politics as usual.

Collective dependence

This is a squandered opportunity for the U.S. By treating TikTok as a weapon to be seized, leaders have passed up the chance to model a more enduring form of soft power: building open, transparent, trustworthy information systems that others would want to emulate. Instead, what is gained is a temporary and possibly illusory sharp power advantage, at the expense of an enduring source of legitimacy.

The bigger problem is that the normalization of social media as a weapon is, to borrow a fear familiar to Trump, riggable. We know that social media can be manipulated, and yet we rely on it more and more as a source of news. And even if we ourselves don’t, we are influenced indirectly by those who do.

This collective dependence makes the platforms more powerful and their vulnerabilities more dangerous.

Social media platforms have become a primary source of information. (Shawn/Unsplash), CC BY

Protecting the public sphere

Canada has already had its own TikTok moment: the Online News Act (C-18), which required platforms to pay news outlets for sharing their content. This was intended to strengthen Canadian journalism, but in response, Meta banned news on its platforms (Facebook, Instagram) in Canada in August 2023, leading to an 85 per cent drop in engagement. Instead of strengthening Canadian journalism, Bill C-18 risks making it more fragile.

If we’re serious about protecting the public sphere from manipulation, what matters is the outsized power the platforms have, and the extent to which that power can be bought, sold or stolen. This power includes the surveillance power to know what we will like, the algorithmic power to curate our information diet and control of platform incentives, rules and features that affect who gains influence.

Bargaining with this power, as Canada tried with Bill C-18 — and as the U.S. is now doing with China and TikTok — only concedes to it. If we want to protect democratic information systems, we need to focus on reducing the vulnerabilities in our relationship with media platforms and support domestic journalism that can compete for influence.

The biggest challenge is to make platforms less riggable, and thus less weaponizable, if only for the reason that motivated the TikTok ban: we don’t want our adversaries, foreign or domestic, to have power over us.

Andrew Buzzell 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.

Childhood wealth and social status can help people get leadership roles in adulthood

2025-10-01T17:32:48Z

Consider two teenagers searching for summer work. One is offered an opportunity to assist a project manager at their uncle’s construction company. The other submits a dozen retail applications, hoping for a call back. Who is more likely to hold a formal leadership position in their 20s?

Stories like this play out across families of different economic backgrounds every day. Our recent research shows that pathways to leadership often begin much earlier than many assume, and are shaped by social capital that accumulates throughout childhood and adolescence.

We studied more than 6,700 people born in the same week in April 1970 across Great Britain, tracked from birth to age 26 through the British Cohort Study.

Rather than measuring socioeconomic status at just one point in time, we were able to capture it repeatedly: at birth, and ages 5, 10 and 16. This gave us a rare opportunity to see how persistent exposure to either wealth or adversity shaped who went on to take up formal leadership roles as young adults and who did not.

Affluence versus adversity

Our findings revealed a striking pattern. Children who grew up in persistent wealth — whose parents consistently held managerial or professional occupations — were more likely to occupy leadership roles by their mid-20s.

Conversely, those who grew up in persistent adversity — whose parents consistently worked in lower-skilled or semi-skilled occupations, such as routine service, manual or support roles as defined in the U.K. National Statistics Socio-economic Classification — were less likely to hold similar leadership positions.

But what makes these findings particularly revealing is that persistent exposure to wealth or adversity isn’t simply being on opposite ends of one continuum. Instead, they represent two very different paths that result in distinct socialization experiences.

On one hand, persistent wealth creates cumulative benefits by providing repeated access to resources, enriching experiences and better-connected social networks. On the other hand, persistent adversity can compound barriers, limiting opportunities for skill development, access to quality education and early exposure to professional environments.

Both paths land young people at very different career starting points that either open or close doors to leadership opportunities.

Pathways through social networks

For children from affluent families, leadership pathways often run through social networks. Access to what we call “nepotistic opportunities” — job connections through family and friends — partially explained why these children were more likely to emerge as leaders later on.

This isn’t always blatant favouritism. Instead, it reflects how affluent families more easily provide access to “weak ties” — the kinds of looser connections that open doors to new information and opportunities.

Consider again the teenager whose uncle arranges a summer job on a construction site. They don’t just earn money; they also learn about co-ordinating teams in professional environments and they form relationships. These encounters build social capital that can shape their path to leadership.

Not just a lack of connections

By contrast, we expected that children from disadvantaged backgrounds would show the mirror image of this pattern: that missing out on opportunities to build their social network would explain their lower odds of becoming leaders.

But our data told a different story.

Persistent early life adversity was linked to fewer leadership roles in adulthood, but not simply because of missed social opportunities. The teenager cold-applying to retail jobs does indeed face barriers to later leadership, but more complex and deeper-rooted factors are likely at play.

The disadvantages of growing up in persistent adversity may be rooted in other factors not measured in our study, such as reduced access to non-parental mentors, lower quality schooling or the toll of long-term economic stress on well-being.

What organizations can do

Addressing disadvantage requires tackling the deeper, systemic ways persistent economic wealth and adversity shape development. Employers can help level the playing field.

Acknowledging that social class differences exist in organizations is a crucial first step. This lays the groundwork for reducing bias in leadership recruitment, selection, retention efforts and improving access to leadership development.

Recruiting more widely through non-traditional networks and providing employer-sponsored preparation opportunities can make pathways into formal leadership positions more accessible. Dispelling myths about social class, for example through training, can also help reduce bias in selection and improve retention.

Finally, creating developmental networks and mentorship programs can provide the kind of career guidance and connections that affluent families often provide informally.

Leadership isn’t predetermined

The influence of childhood conditions can have lasting effects on career trajectories. In our study, the effects of early socioeconomic status conditions were still visible when participants reached their mid-20s, long after they had finished school and entered the workforce.

Addressing leadership diversity requires not just workplace interventions, but also early investment in supporting childhood development across all socioeconomic backgrounds.

Investments in quality education, mentorship programs and opportunities for young people to build professional networks is crucial for creating more equitable pathways to leadership.

While our findings highlight advantages for affluent youth and barriers for disadvantaged youth, they don’t dictate destiny. Among those who experienced at least some persistent adversity, 34 per cent still rose to leadership positions (compared to 46 per cent of those who experienced at least some persistent wealth).

What our research identifies is how socioeconomic status advantages and disadvantages compound over time, widening the disparity in social experiences that generate leadership opportunities.

Recognizing the distinction between these cumulative effects can help motivate us to create more equitable family and organizational systems where leadership potential is nurtured no matter where you start.

Steve Granger receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Julian Barling receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Borden Chair of Leadership.

Nick Turner receives research funding from Cenovus Energy Inc., Haskayne School of Business's Future Fund, Mitacs, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Generative AI might end up being worthless — and that could be a good thing

2025-09-28T17:03:48Z

In the rush to cash in on the generative artificial intelligence gold rush, one possible outcome of AI’s future rarely gets discussed: what if the technology never works well enough to replace your co-workers, companies fail to use AI well or most AI startups simply fail?

Current estimates suggest big AI firms face a US$800 billion dollar revenue shortfall.

So far, genAI’s productivity gains are minimal and mostly for programmers and copywriters. GenAI does some neat, helpful things, but it’s not yet the engine of a new economy.

It’s not a bad future, but it’s different from the one currently driving news headlines. And it’s a future that doesn’t fit the narrative AI firms want to tell. Hype fuels new rounds of investment promising massive future profits.

Maybe genAI will turn out to be worthless, and maybe that’s fine.

Indispensable or indefensible?

Free genAI services, and cheap subscription services like ChatGPT and Gemini, cost a lot of money to run. Right now, however, there are growing questions about just how AI firms are going to make any money.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has been candid about how much money his firm spends, once quipping that every time users say “please” or “thank you” to ChatGPT, it costs the firms millions. Exactly how much OpenAI loses per chat is anyone’s guess, but Altman has also said even paid pro accounts lose money because of the high computing costs that come with each query.

Like many startups, genAI firms have followed the classic playbook: burn through money to attract and lock-in users with a killer product they can’t afford to miss out on. But most tech giants have not succeeded by creating high-cost products, but rather by making low-cost products users can’t quit, largely funded by advertising.

When companies try to find new value, the result is what journalist and author Cory Doctorow coined “enshittification,” or the gradual decline of platforms over time. In this case, enshittification means the number of ads increase to make up the loss of offering the free service.

OpenAI is considering bringing ads to ChatGPT, though the company says it is being “very thoughtful and tasteful” about how this is done.

It’s too soon to tell whether this playbook will work for genAI. There is a possibility that advertising might not generate enough revenue to justify the massive spending needed to power it. That is because genAI is becoming something of a liability.

The hidden costs of AI models

Another looming problem for genAI is copyright. Most AI firms are either being sued for using content without permission or entering costly contracts to licences content.

GenAI has “learned” in a lot of dubious ways, including reading copyrighted books and scraping nearly anything said online. One model can recall “from memory” 42 per cent of the first Harry Potter novel.

Firms face a big financial headache of lobbying to exempt themselves from copyright woes and paying off publishers and creators to protect their models, which might end up a liability no matter what.

American AI startup Anthrophic tried to pay authors around US$3,000 dollars per book to train its models, adding up to proposed settlement that added up to US$1.5 billion dollars. But it was quickly thrown out by the courts for being too simple. Anthrophic’s current valuation of US$183 billion might get eaten up pretty quick in lawsuits.

The end result of all this is that AI is just too expensive to be owned, and is becoming something like a toxic asset: something that is useful but not valuable in and of itself.

Cheap or free genAI

Meta, perhaps strategically, has released its genAI model, Llama, as open source. Whether this was meant to upset its competitors or signal a different ethical stance, it means anyone with a decent computer can run their own local version of Llama for free.

Open AI models are another corporate strategy to lock in market share, with curious side effects. They are not as advanced as Gemini or ChatGPT, but they are good enough, and they are free (or at least cheaper than commercial models).

Open models upset the high valuations being placed on AI firms. Chinese firm DeepSeek momentarily tanked AI stocks when it released an open model that performed as well as the commercial models. DeepSeek’s motives are murky, but it’s success contributes to growing doubts about whether genAI is as valuable as assumed.

Open models — these by-products of industrial competition — are ubiquitous and getting easier to access. With enough success, commercial AI firms might be hard pressed to sell their services against free alternatives.

Investors could also become more skeptical of commercial AI, which could potentially dry up the taps of seed money. Even if open access models also end up being sued into oblivion, it will be much harder to remove them from the internet.

Can AI ever be owned?

The idea of genAI being worthless might recognize knowledge is intangibly valuable. The best genAI models are trained off the world’s knowledge — so much information that the true price may be impossible to calculate.

Ironically, these efforts by AI firms to capture and commercialize the world’s knowledge might be the thing damning their products; a resource so valuable a price cannot be attached. These systems may be so indebted to collective intellectual labour such that their outputs cannot truly be owned.

If genAI can’t generate sustainable profits, the consequences will likely be mixed. Creators pursuing deals with AI firms may be out of luck; there will be no big cheques from OpenAI, Anthropic or Google if their models are liabilities.

Progress on genAI could stall, too, leaving consumers with “good enough” tools that are free to use. In that scenario, AI firms may become less important, the technology a little less powerful — and that might be perfectly OK. Users would still benefit from accessible, functional tools while being spared from another round of overhyped pitches doomed to fail.

The threat of AI being worth less than anticipated might be the best defence against the growing power of big tech today. If the business case for generative AI proves unsustainable, what better place for such an empire to crumble than on the balance sheets?

Fenwick McKelvey receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Fonds de Recherche du Québec.

The warning signs are clear: We’re heading toward a digital crisis

2025-09-25T12:47:54Z

People’s lives are more enmeshed with digital systems than ever before, increasing users’ vulnerability and insecurity. From data leaks like the 2017 Equifax data breach to the more recent cyberattack on British retailer Marks & Spencer, business operations and data on the internet continue to be vulnerable.

There are good reasons to believe that little will be done about these risks until a massive society-wide crisis emerges.

My research suggests that there are significant failures in our current approaches to risk and innovation. Digital technologies remake social life through new technologies, communication platforms and forms of artificial intelligence. All of which, while very powerful, are also highly risky in terms of malfunctioning and vulnerability to being manipulated.

Yet, governments are generally unable to distinguish between what are actually valuable contributions to society and what are intensely socially damaging.

CBC’s The National looks at data breaches.

A massive social experiment

The digital economy includes “those businesses that increasingly rely upon information technology, data and the internet for their business models.” The companies dominating the digital economy continue to undertake a massive social experiment where they keep the lion’s share of the benefits while shunting the risks onto society as a whole.

This could lead to a systemic digital crisis, ranging from a widespread breakdown of basic infrastructure, such as electricity or telecommunications due to a cyberattack, to an attack that modifies existing infrastructure to make it dangerous.

There are significant similarities between the current trajectory of the digital economy and the 2008 financial crisis. In particular, what we are increasingly seeing in the digital world, which we saw in the pre-crisis financial world, is what American sociologist Charles Perrow called “tight coupling.”

Perrow argues that when systems exhibit high levels of interconnection without sufficient redundancy to compensate for failures, it can lead to catastrophic consequences.

Likewise, high levels of complexity are generally considered to make highly interconnected systems riskier. Unanticipated risks and connections can lead to failures cascading across the system.

Increasing interdependence

Our existing digital economy shares many of these characteristics. The digital economy is characterized by a business model that focuses on businesses getting as large as possible as quickly as possible.

The lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis and the current digital economy share both the amplification of interdependency alongside the reduction of redundancy. In the case of finance, this proceeded through massive borrowing to leverage earnings, leaving a smaller ratio of money left to cover any possible losses.

In the digital economy, this need to continually collect data increases interdependencies among datasets, platforms, corporations and networks. This increased interdependency is fundamental to the core business model of the digital economy.

The undermining of redundancy in the digital sphere is manifested in the “move-fast-and-break-things” ethos in which digital companies eliminate or acquire competitors as quickly as possible while eliminating analog alternatives to their own digital networks.

Last, these digital behemoths and their rapid growth increase the complexity of the digital economy and the monopolistic networks that dominate it.

BBC News covers last summer’s flight cancellations.

Obvious warning signs

There is a key difference between the 2008 financial crisis and the contemporary digital economy. Unlike in the lead-up to the crisis, where a partially finance-driven prosperity quieted any obvious warning signs, the warning signs in the digital economy are front and centre for everyone to see.

The 2017 WannaCry and NotPetya malware attacks each caused billions of dollars in damages. More recently, the CrowdStrike failure in 2024 cancelled thousands of flights, and even took television stations off the air. Constant hacks, ransomware attacks and data leakages are warning signs that this is a deeply fragile system.

AI has taken many of these vulnerabilities into overdrive, while adding new risks, such as AI hallucinations and the exponential growth in misinformation. The speed and scale of AI are expected to intensify existing risks to confidentiality, system integrity and availability.

This is potentially the most significant, though unfortunate element in this story. There is massive system risk, yet they are not addressed directly, and the processes heightening these risks continue to accelerate.

This suggests a deeper problem in our politics. While we do have some ability to regulate after the damage is done, we struggle to prevent the next crisis.

Dean Curran received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.