Showing posts sorted by date for query CALGARY SCHOOL. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Monday, April 20, 2026

Transparency needed in addressing physician sexual misconduct

Canadian Medical Association Journal

A new study on physician misconduct using publicly available data on 208 physicians involved in cases of sex- or gender-based violence, harassment, or discrimination found gaps in how physicians were monitored and sanctioned. The research is published in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal) https://www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.251179.

Using media stories, legal decisions, and information from physician regulatory body websites, researchers identified 689 victims, of whom 585 were women or girls and at least 40 were children, over 5 years from 2019 to 2024. Sexual-boundary or sexual-misconduct complaints were the most common (75, 36%) followed by sexual assault (65, 32%), although definitions sometimes differed.

In some cases, the researchers found complaints that had not been reported on physician college disciplinary websites.

“[T]his study highlights the limitations of current data-management processes by Canadian medical regulatory bodies and raises concerns about the efficacy of current remediation strategies and monitoring practices,” writes Dr. Shannon Ruzycki, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, with coauthors. “Our findings emphasize how the lack of transparent, consistently reported, and accessible data about physicians involved in instances of sex- and gender-based harassment and discrimination restricts assessment of current strategies to address these behaviours.”

The rate of repeat behaviour was about 30%, a figure consistent with data from the United States.

The researchers suggest regulatory bodies should incorporate public consultation in the way they report cases of harassment and discrimination to help protect the public, while respecting physician privacy.

“The need for accountability and transparency from the colleges must be balanced with principles of due process and rights to physician privacy, especially since accusations of sex- or gender-based harassment or discrimination can have considerable personal and professional consequences,” they caution.

A national registry listing incidents by type, explanations, and outcomes and disciplinary action is a potential approach.

“The findings help to highlight an important problem for the medical profession in Canada: the tendency of its leadership and regulators to conceal sex- or gender-based misconduct perpetrated by physicians,” writes Dr. Kirsten Patrick, editor-in-chief, CMAJ in a related editorial https://www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.260574 .

However, the study has some gaps as it found only a handful of complainants who were physicians or other medical personnel.

According to Dr. Patrick, this doesn’t track with the findings of recent high-profile surveys of physicians and medical learners from the United Kingdom and US, in which reported rates of experiencing sex- and gender-based harassment in clinical workplaces were as high as 65% and 23% among those identifying as women and men, respectively. Data from Canada show similarly high rates of interprofessional misconduct.

Dr. Patrick calls for attention to address this issue in the medical profession.

“The medical profession in Canada needs to address its poorly hidden problem of sex- and gender-based discrimination, harassment, and assault. To do so will take a culture change in which the profession openly acknowledges the importance of the problem, owns its failure to address it, and takes steps to change regulatory and academic systems to prioritize believing victims, remediating offenders, and setting enforceable standards for behaviour.”

Journal

Canadian Medical Association Journal

DOI

10.1503/cmaj.251179

Method of Research

Content analysis

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Physician respondents in sexual misconduct concerns in Canada: a comparative case analysis using publicly available information

Article Publication Date

20-Apr-2026

Friday, April 10, 2026

ALBERTA SEPERATISM

The thing Calgary doesn’t want to talk about is the thing Calgary needs to talk about

ByJennifer Friesen
DIGITAL JOURNAL
PublishedApril 10, 2026

Brad Parry, president and CEO of Calgary Economic Development (left), and Calgary Mayor Jeromy Farkas speak at CED’s Report to the Community event on Wednesday, April 8, 2026. - Photo by Jennifer Friesen, Digital Journal

At a celebration of Calgary’s economic momentum, the mayor got up and warned the room that the province stands a risk of blowing it.

Not because of tariffs, and not because of the CUSMA review or the unpredictability of another Trump administration. But because Alberta separatism is back as a serious political conversation, and it’s costing the province investment it can’t afford to lose.

Mayor Jeromy Farkas pointed to Quebec.

In the decades following Quebec’s 1976 separatist government election, referendums drove corporate headquarters from Montreal to Toronto, sovereign debt paid a measurable premium for decades, and the economic aftershocks outlasted the loudest voices by years.

Farkas told the 1,500 people at Calgary Economic Development’s (CED) Report to the Community that the separation rhetoric, regardless of whether it goes anywhere, already has a price tag.

Then he asked the attendees to go argue against it with their networks.

Given how strong the numbers are, it was an unexpected thing to say at what is essentially a civic pep rally.

At the event on Wednesday, CED president and CEO Brad Parry reported that the organization supported more than $1 billion in investment and nearly 8,000 jobs across the Calgary region in 2025. Trade programming enabled $60 million in international trade revenue through 45 deals, the highest annual total on record.

CED perceptions research found that 73% of Canadian and U.S. business decision-makers would consider moving to Calgary, up from 54% the year before.

CBRE’s 2025 Scoring Tech Talent report adds independent weight to that, confirming Calgary as the fastest-growing tech talent market in North America two years running, with 61% job growth between 2021 and 2024. That number comes from a real estate services firm with no particular reason to flatter anyone.

Two things are working against all of it. One arrived from Washington, but it looks like the second call is coming from inside the house.

Calgary spent a decade building an innovation economy — the thing that was supposed to make Alberta’s story bigger than oil and gas. Now that economy, and not just the energy sector, is at risk of getting caught in the crossfire.
Alberta’s tariff exposure is lower than almost everyone thinks

Carlo Dade, director of international policy at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, was a panellist at the event and walked the room through the math.

Roughly 75% of Canada’s exports go to the U.S., representing about 25% of GDP. Dade’s argument is that those numbers, while accurate nationally, tell you almost nothing about Alberta’s exposure

Moderator Shona Reilly (left), speaks with Matthew Lowe, Gitane De Silva, and Carlo Dade at CED’s Report to the Community at the Calgary Telus Convention Centre. – Photo by Jennifer Friesen, Digital Journal

Once you strip out Canadian content from the value-added calculation, and remove what the U.S. can’t easily replace, Alberta’s tariff-vulnerable exposure drops to roughly 4% of GDP.

Alberta Central’s economics team calculated Alberta’s tariff cost as a share of GDP at 4.1%, compared to Ontario at 6.3%.

In other words, the province is less vulnerable to tariffs than the national conversation suggests.

Most Alberta exports to the U.S. remain tariff free, according to the Business Council of Alberta’s CUSMA submission, because roughly 80% are energy products and American refineries were built specifically for Canadian heavy crude.

ATB Financial’s tariff analysis helps explain why.

The U.S. can’t easily source a replacement for that oil, which gives Alberta more leverage in this standoff.

Gitane De Silva, founder and president of GDStrategic and a former Canadian diplomat who sat on the event’s trade panel, argued that global instability might actually be working in Alberta’s favour (if the province can hold its position).

“When the world is uncertain, people revert to their basic human needs of focusing on shelter, security, energy and food,” she said, “and Alberta has an abundance of food and fuel.”

Gitane De Silva is the founder and president of GDStrategic. – Photo by Jennifer Friesen, Digital Journal

What complicates things is the CUSMA review.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer confirmed on April 7 that the July 2026 deadline won’t be met and that the U.S. may need to signal non-renewal to continue negotiations.

Non-renewal doesn’t terminate the agreement, but it triggers annual reviews, potentially for years. The C.D. Howe Institute has argued the sustained uncertainty does more damage than the tariffs themselves, because organizations can adapt to a known cost but can’t plan around an unknown one.

Matthew Lowe, founder and CEO of Calgary-based ZeroKey and a panelist at the event, works with most of the world’s major automotive manufacturers. The uncertainty is showing up at the contract level.

“If I sign up for a multi-year contract, can you guarantee me two years, three years down the road, that we’re not going to be impacted by a 50% or 100% tariff,” he said. “There was a lot of hesitation.”

Every new contract now involves a negotiation that didn’t exist two years ago, so who absorbs tariff costs if rates change mid-term?

The International Chamber of Commerce published guidance last year recommending exporters review delivery terms and shift tariff risk depending on strategic exposure.

For companies paying attention, it’s become a standard part of contract structuring. For companies that haven’t revisited their agreements, it’s a liability waiting to surface.

Moderator Shona Reilly (left), speaks with Matthew Lowe, Gitane De Silva, and Carlo Dade at CED’s Report to the Community at the Calgary Telus Convention Centre. – Photo by Jennifer Friesen, Digital Journal
The separation tax

A vocal minority doesn’t need to win a referendum to cost Alberta a deal. They just need to keep talking.

The Calgary Chamber of Commerce’s March 2026 Business Pulse Survey found 51% of Calgary respondents said separation discourse was hurting the provincial economy. More telling, 53% ranked it as a top-three business concern, ahead of U.S. tariffs.

That tracks with what Farkas said he’s hearing on the ground.

“The fact that we’ve had this rhetoric that is largely, I think, overblown still is preventing a lot of investment from coming here,” Farkas said. “We could really be cooking with gas if we can put this issue to bed.”

Trevor Tombe, a professor of economics at the University of Calgary, estimated in February 2026 that a 15% drop in Alberta’s cross-border trade, consistent with Brexit-era disruption, would put roughly 120,000 Canadian jobs at risk nationally.

The associated economic activity at stake is estimated at $20 billion annually.

Parry’s watched the same dynamic happen in investor conversations.

“Capital is fluid and in a volatile global environment, it will choose stability, predictability and certainty,” he said. “If we choose the same path, the same unpredictable path, that capital and that talent, it’s going to go somewhere else.”

The separation conversation doesn’t even need to succeed to do damage, because the uncertainty itself is the cost.

Every month of ambiguity is a month of investment decisions deferred, talent pipelines stalled, and pitches that begin with explaining the political situation rather than the opportunity

Brad Parry, president and CEO of Calgary Economic Development. – Photo by Jennifer Friesen, Digital Journal

Growing pains for Canada’s fastest-growing tech city

Calgary’s growth was built on institutional alignment, openness, and the kind of predictability that makes a decade-long bet feel safe.

Right now, those things are harder to guarantee.

When organizations decide where to expand a technical team, open a regional operation, or make a long-term infrastructure investment, talent costs and office rents are part of the calculation.

Organizations need to know whether the place they invest in will look the same in 10 years. Whether the ecosystem around them is stable. Whether the government, the business community, and the broader civic environment are pulling in the same direction.

Two things are making those questions harder to give concrete answers.

The trade framework underpinning vendor and supply chain relationships is being renegotiated on a timeline nobody can predict.

And the political uncertainty documented in the Chamber survey and Tombe’s modelling is a variable that wasn’t in the calculation two years ago.

From the numbers, it looks like Calgary’s fundamentals are strong enough to hold through both. But the bigger questions show up in conversations that determine whether the next wave of investment lands here or keeps moving.

Alberta has been through plenty of instability before. The difference is what’s at stake now isn’t just barrels, but the innovation economy Calgary has spent a decade building.

Farkas borrowed a line from a friend to make his point. Brand, he told the room, isn’t what you say about yourself. It’s what other people say about you.

The people who can build Calgary aren’t always in the legislature, but they might be in the room with you.

“Tell them how you feel about this as an issue,” he said. “But don’t downplay the seriousness of the concerns.”

Final shots

Trade risk is moving into contracts and systems. As CUSMA uncertainty drags on, exposure sits across vendors, pricing models, and cross-border dependencies.

Alberta’s advantage still shows up in cost and talent, but political uncertainty is now part of the risk profile. Location decisions, hiring plans, and long-term infrastructure bets are being evaluated through that lens.

Separation doesn’t need to happen to create disruption. The impact is already showing up in delayed investment, slower approvals, and partners hesitating on long-term commitments.

Jennifer Friesen is Digital Journal's associate editor and Calgary Bureau lead.

Friday, March 27, 2026

AI was supposed to save time, so why is everyone busier?

ByJennifer Friesen

DIGITAL JOURNAL
March 26, 2026

In 2020, organizations handed their employees a laptop and called it a remote work strategy.

The meetings that used to happen in boardrooms started happening on screens, back to back to back, but nobody took anything off the proverbial plate.

They just moved everything to a smaller one.

Sam Jenkins has watched organizations repeat that mistake with AI.

“We changed location without redesigning work,” says Jenkins, managing partner and co-founder of Punchcard Systems, an Edmonton-based software and transformation company. “With AI, we’re kind of making the same mistake. We’re changing tools without redesigning the work.”

The data is starting to show the cost. ActivTrak’s 2026 State of the Workplace report, which analyzed more than 443 million hours of work activity across 1,111 organizations, found that AI adoption has reached 80% of employees and productive hours are up 5%. Focus efficiency, though, fell to a three-year low of 60%.

The average focused work session now lasts just 13 minutes. Something is eating the rest of the day, and it isn’t the work getting done faster.

AI is adding to workloads instead of redistributing them.

Adoption without redesign

Jenkins has spent three years watching organizations celebrate AI adoption while leaving the underlying work untouched.

The tools arrived faster than the thinking did.

“AI doesn’t reduce work by default,” he says. “It reduces work when you redesign how work happens. If AI is just making our teams busier, that means we didn’t adopt AI. It means we adopted another piece of software.”

ActivTrak research followed a subset of users in the 180 days before and after AI adoption and found that time spent across every measured work category went up, with email increasing 104% and chat and messaging jumping 145%.

Researchers at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business found the same pattern in a February 2026 study, with employees working faster, taking on broader scope, and extending into more hours without being asked. Instead of shrinking workloads, the work got spread out.

The average organization now runs seven AI platforms, up from two in 2023. That means more to manage, more decisions to make, more places for focus to fragment.

“Organizations that are leaving that space are generally going to be more successful because they’re leaving the space for growth,” says Jenkins. “This is all about balancing good strategy with enough resources and time to enact that strategy, both short and long term.”
The signal leaders are missing

The burnout numbers look good right now. ActivTrak found risk fell 22%, to just 5% of employees, with healthy work patterns at a three-year high.

But disengagement risk jumped 23% in the same period, affecting nearly one in four employees.

These are workers with capacity that have nowhere to go.

As AI absorbs routine tasks, that time tends to get filled with more meetings, more tools, more low-value activity rather than work that moves anything forward.

Jenkins sees a version of this play out when leaders move fast without bringing their teams along. For example, a leader experiments with AI tools on evenings and weekends, builds something, then brings it to the team and tells them to start using it.

He calls it the “slingshot effect.” Pull too far ahead of your people and the whole thing snaps back.

“It cannot be built in a vacuum,” he says. “It has to be built in partnership with folks in the organization.”

Staying connected to where people actually are, he says, is the harder discipline.

When asked how he stays connected to what employees need at every level, he laughs, but catches himself.

“I laugh because it’s uncomfortable,” he says, “not because it’s funny.”

For Jenkins, that discomfort is worth paying attention to. The leader who has six AI agents running by 6 a.m. and the one who hasn’t touched the tools yet are both telling him where the work is happening.

“I’m making space to listen to the people who are very comfortable [with AI], and making space for the people who aren’t,” he says. “Because what AI and transformation strategy can feel like is unsafe.”

Punchcard saw this firsthand in its work with the College of Registered Nurses of Alberta (CRNA). When the company took on redesigning the CRNA’s regulatory affairs and permitting processes, they started by mapping where the existing process was breaking down.

What was breaking down, and where? AI entered the conversation only after those questions had answers, built onto a foundation that had been rebuilt to receive it.

Jenkins sees it in his own shop at Punchcard, where the ratio of writing code to reviewing code has changed. Same hours. Different work.

Getting that sequence right, he says, is where most organizations are still struggling.
Less tools, more thought

Jenkins isn’t prescriptive about this, but he has a three-step framework that keeps coming up with clients.

Start small. Stay anchored to something real.

The first move is picking a single metric that matters to the business (like a deal cycle, cost per hire, or nurses validated through a regulatory system) and asking how work should be redesigned to move it, assuming AI already exists.

From there, he says, pick one high-impact workflow and rebuild it from scratch rather than running a tool pilot.

Map what steps could disappear with AI, what could be automated, and where a human being still needs to be in the loop.

Then cut the AI footprint in half.

“Organizations have too many tools, too many licenses, things that are potentially inconsistent,” Jenkins says. “Do less, implement fewer tools, but focus on more business value, more repeatable patterns. That constraint can help drive adoption.”

He calls it small experiments with radical intent.

“The smaller the segments we can learn, adapt, understand, and deploy, that means we’re not going to upset our teams,” he says. “We can think about how we’re going to make that incremental benefit within our organization, and those one-per cents certainly stack up over time.”

In 2020, organizations moved fast and figured out the work later. Most of them are still paying for it in some form. The meeting that started in a boardroom and moved to a screen is still the same meeting.

The plate’s already full. Loading AI on top isn’t a strategy.

Final shots

Disengagement risk now affects nearly one in four employees, up 23% in a single year.

Leaders who reduced overload without redirecting capacity have solved half the problem.

The organizations pulling ahead started by asking what the work should look like. Most are still asking which tools to buy.

The leaders pulling ahead are asking how work needs to change to make all the tools they’ve invested in, worth using.

Written ByJennifer Friesen
Jennifer Friesen is Digital Journal's associate editor and content manager based in Calgary.

Friday, February 13, 2026

NAFTA 2.0

Better to have separate U.S., Mexico agreements if CUSMA collapses: trade lawyer

ByAnam Khan
Published: February 12, 2026

Lawrence Herman, international trade lawyer at Cassidy Levy Kent LLP, joins BNN Bloomberg to discuss the likelihood of U.S. ending CUSMA.

Separate bilateral agreements could still be beneficial if the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) falls apart, explains an international trade lawyer.

His comments come after reports that U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer suggested this week that the U.S. is considering negotiating separate trade deals with the two countries rather than maintaining the trilateral pact up for review on July 1.

The possibility of this even happening was envisaged from the very start, when there were talks of CUSMA coming under review, Lawrence Herman, international trade lawyer at Cassidy Levy Kent LLP, told BNN Bloomberg.

Herman said separate bilateral deals would not be easy, but could be done.

“There are a lot of provisions in the CUSMA that could be used in a bilateral agreement with Canada, as well as a separate bilateral agreement with Mexico,” said Herman.

‘We will have an aggressive partner on the other side’

Negotiations will be difficult whether they are three-party or bilateral between Canada and Mexico, said Herman.

“The point is, we will have an aggressive partner on the other side,” said Herman.

“I think Canada has to be prepared to say, you know, these are the red lines, and there are certain things that Canada cannot accept.”

At the end of the day, he said Canada must decide how much longer it can remain at the table if the other party is unwilling to reach a mutually satisfactory arrangement.

“The priority is to ensure that we get out from this volatile, uncertain, unstable relationship,” said Herman.

He also said many major companies in the U.S. are dependent upon free trade and fair trade with Canada, highlighting Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s recent pushback after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to block the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge. She called it “a really important part of our economy.”

‘Canada has been regrettably wedded to the U.S. market’

Canada has opportunities to expand in other markets, and the government has been looking at those opportunities to diversify its trade, but the reality is, “Canada has been regrettably wedded to the U.S. market,” said Herman.

“It is always a bad business practice to be so dependent on one customer, because that customer can turn ornery, as this customer, the U.S. has done so,” said Herman.

“There are so many things that tie Canada and the U.S. together that I cannot see things going forward without some kind of agreement.”

Canada is already in another agreement with Mexico

Herman noted that Canada and Mexico already have a trade agreement outside of CUSMA called the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which includes 11 Pacific Rim countries. The U.S. withdrew from the original agreement in 2017.

“Mexico is party to the CPTPP, and so there would be an ongoing arrangement between Canada and Mexico,” said Herman.

He also said it would be better to have a straight bilateral agreement if the whole trilateral CUSMA falls apart.

Anam Khan
Journalist, BNNBloomberg.ca

Former U.S. State Department official optimistic CUSMA will be renewed

ByThe Canadian Press
February 11, 2026

A lapel pin featuring the flags of Mexico, the United States, and Canada, is seen on the jacket of a speaker at the 2024 North American Manufacturing Conference, in Ottawa, on Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang

CALGARY — A former U.S. State Department official says he’s optimistic the Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement will be renewed.

Edward Fishman, author of “Chokepoints: American Power in the Age of Economic Warfare” shared his outlook during a luncheon hosted by the University of Calgary’s Haskayne School of Business.

The Columbia University adjunct professor says he can imagine Canadians feel like “sitting ducks” as their closest trading partner bombards adversaries and allies alike with tariff threats.

But he says the trading relationship doesn’t just flow one way and the U.S. would suffer significant economic harm if trade with Canada were to be cut off.

Fishman says U.S. political and business leaders — even those with a conservative bent — feel strongly about the importance of cross-border trade and are likely to temper President Donald Trump’s daily whims.

He says the countries that have been best able to withstand U.S. tariffs have been the ones that have shown the most resolve, resilience and willingness to retaliate, citing India, Brazil and China as examples.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 11, 2026.

Lauren Krugel, The Canadian Press

‘He says different things at different times’: Hillman on whether Trump wants to keep CUSMA

By Spencer Van Dyk

February 08, 2026

Former Canadian ambassador to the U.S. Kirsten Hillman. (Allen McInnis)

Amid a year-long trade war, Canada’s outgoing ambassador to the United States says she doesn’t know whether U.S. President Donald Trump hopes to keep the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) in place, because his messaging around the deal has been inconsistent.

The agreement, inked during Trump’s first term, is up for review this year. In 2018, Trump called it the “most modern, up-to-date, and balanced trade agreement in the history of (the United States),” but just last month called it “irrelevant.”

“I don’t think I can answer that question,” Kirsten Hillman told CTV Question Period host Vassy Kapelos in an interview airing Sunday, when asked if she believes Trump wants to keep CUSMA in place.

“I think if the president has a strong view around the U.S. being able to do more itself, how that translates with respect to this treaty, I don’t know,” she added. “He says different things at different times.”

U.S. President Donald Trump, left, pumps his fist as he is greeted by Kirsten Hillman, Canadian Ambassador to the United States, right, as he arrives in Calgary, Alta., Sunday, June 15, 2025, to attend the G7 Leaders meeting taking place in Kananaskis. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh

The U.S. and Canada remain in the throes of a trade war, which began last February when Trump imposed a slate of sweeping tariffs on Canadian imports.

Hillman, meanwhile, announced in December she would be stepping down as ambassador to the United States. She has represented Canada in D.C. for nearly six years and played a lead role in the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) before that.

“I think for Canada, what’s important is that we just keep working consistently with those — and there are so, so many of them in all three countries — that understand factually why that treaty keeps American business more competitive, creates more jobs and keeps their economy in a good place,” Hillman said of the future of CUSMA. “And I think that a lot of people are getting that message to the president.”

Goldy Hyder, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Business Council of Canada, makes remarks at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute Procurement Conference, in Ottawa, on Monday, Nov. 25, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang

In an interview for CTV Question Period last month, Business Council of Canada president and CEO Goldy Hyder said he’s optimistic, based on his dealings with U.S. officials and business leaders, that CUSMA can be salvaged despite recent rhetoric.

“Yes, there’s a lot of noise; it’s not straight line,” he said. “Yes, it’s going to be complicated to get there. But there’s a recognition that this agreement is important for all three countries.”

And, this week, Conservative MP — and longtime friend of U.S. Vice-President JD Vance — Jamil Jivani travelled to Washington for a solo diplomatic mission to meet with senior U.S. officials, calling the conversations “productive.”

Asked if she were staying in the ambassador role, what would be keeping her up at night, Hillman said Canada has to “find a way to have serious, professional, technical trade discussions with the Americans,” while working toward making the Canadian economy more self-reliant.

“I think we need to not take our foot off the gas on either of them, while at the same time trying our best not to get knocked off course by the inevitable sort of distractions and diversions that always come up here in Washington,” Hillman said.

‘Geography can’t be undone’: Hillman

Asked to reflect on her time as ambassador and the state of the Canada-U.S. relationship, Hillman said it’s important people understand the degree of interaction and co-operation between the two countries’ administrations.

She said 13 different ministries are represented at Canada’s embassy in Washington, pointing to transport, energy, environment and finance as examples.

“Something comes up every day, and it’s not always problems,” she added. “Often it’s good things that we’re trying to celebrate, that we’re doing together.”

“I think geography can’t be undone,” Hillman also said, when asked whether that interconnectedness and interdependence is hard to undo.

Ambassador to the United States Kirsten Hillman, left, and Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc prepare to leave following a meeting between Prime Minister Mark Carney and U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, D.C., Tuesday, May 6, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld

The outgoing ambassador said while there are “a lot of feelings” and “a lot of disruption” in the relationship because of Trump’s policies, people-to-people ties “are deep and wide.”

“I don’t think we’re going to go back to where we have been in the past with the United States,” she said. “I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing.”

“I think, in large part, both of our countries took each other for granted,” she added. “I don’t think that’s the case anymore, but that doesn’t mean that those relationships that are so broad and deep won’t continue to be a source of inspiration as we chart whatever this new path is with our neighbour.”

After she officially wraps up her tenure as Canada’s ambassador to the U.S. this month, Hillman is set to return to Ottawa, though she has not announced which role she’ll take on next.

Canadian ambassador to the U.S. Kirsten Hillman, Prime Minister Mark Carney and Canadian financier Mark Wiseman are shown in this combination photo.

Canadian business executive Mark Wiseman is set to take on the role of Canada’s ambassador to the United States later this month.

With files from CTV News senior political correspondent Mike Le Couteur

Spencer Van Dyk
Writer & Producer, Ottawa News Bureau, CTV News

Thursday, January 29, 2026

SPACE/COSMOS

Mapping the magnetic field of the Milky Way

Two new studies reveal structural complexity in the galaxy

University of Calgary

For centuries, astronomers have been observing celestial bodies and trying to understand the mysteries of the night sky. Dr. Jo-Anne Brown, PhD, wants to map an invisible force of the Milky Way galaxy: its magnetic field.

“Without a magnetic field, the galaxy would collapse in on itself due to gravity,” says Brown, a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Calgary.

“We need to know what the magnetic field of the galaxy looks like now, so we can create accurate models that predict how it will evolve.”

This month, Brown and a team of researchers have published two papers in The Astrophysical Journal and The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series. Their discoveries include a complete dataset, which will be used by astronomers globally, and a new model that will inform theories for how the magnetic field of the Milky Way evolved.

The group used a new telescope at the Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory in B.C., a National Research Council Canada facility, to map the northern sky across different radio frequencies.

“The broad coverage really lets you get at the details about the magnetic field structure,” says Dr. Anna Ordog, PhD, and lead author of the first of the two studies.

The result is a comprehensive, high-quality dataset, captured as part of the Global Magneto-Ionic Medium Survey (GMIMS) project that maps the magnetic field of the Milky Way galaxy.

The data that was collected involved tracking an effect known as Faraday rotation.

“You can think of it like refraction. A straw in a glass of water looks bent because of how light interacts with matter,” says Rebecca Booth, a PhD candidate working with Brown and lead author of the second study. “Faraday rotation is a similar concept, but it’s electrons and magnetic fields in space interacting with radio waves.”

Booth’s work in the second study looked at a unique feature in the Milky Way galaxy — the Sagittarius Arm, which has a reversed magnetic field.

“If you could look at the galaxy from above, the overall magnetic field is going clockwise,” says Brown. “But, in the Sagittarius Arm, it’s going counterclockwise. We didn’t understand how the transition occurred. Then one day, Anna brought in some data, and I went, 'O.M.G., the reversal's diagonal!'"

Booth followed up on Ordog's discovery using the dataset.

“My work presents a new three-dimensional model for the magnetic field reversal. From Earth, this would appear as the diagonal that we observe in the data,” Booth explains.