THE BAD SEEDS

This opinion was written by Caitlin Stall-Paquet and was published in the Globe & Mail on December 13, 2025.

One of the earliest invasive species identified in North America is creeping thistle. Native to Europe, Africa and Asia the plant is also known by the misleading name ‘Canada thistle’.

Mitigating the spread of invasive species and supporting our communities’ biodiversity contributes to ensuring their resilience, as well as our lives within them, Caitlin Stall-Paquet writes

Mount Royal Park – the Mountain by its local name – is more of a glorified knoll, but it remains Montreal’s crown jewel, its lungs and heart.

It bears the pressure of greeting some five million annual visitors, but another source of ecological stress are invasives. These non-native species (plants, animals, fungi, microbes and humans, depending on who you ask) bend ecosystems to their will, much like the colonizers who introduced plenty of them. European views of superiority in the 17th and 18th centuries came with a slew of imported plants, altering landscapes in a way that reflected anxieties about dominating new spaces and the people in them.

On an unseasonably hot day in September, 2024, I volunteered with Les Amis de La Montagne for the first time, a non-profit that hosts invasive species management activities in the 10-squarekilometre park.

The environmental stewardship program and volunteer activities lead at Les Amis de la Montagne, Benjamin Pilon, gave us a quick run-through on using an extractigator – a tool designed for yanking out small trees via a lever mechanism that hooks around thin trunks, pulling them out, roots and all, when you push down on the handle. Alongside a dozen or so volunteers, I walked into a targeted patch of shady forest to rip up and cut down common buckthorn. This shrub grows up to four metres, growing glossy leaves with serrated edges, like the teeth of saw blades. The extractigator’s metal covered in orange lacquer was heavy and smooth, cooling my hands as my ponytail’s rogue strands stuck to the sweat on the back of my neck. I wielded the tool like a weapon, as I walked through the forest looking for the next buckthorn, a wannabe Ripley from Alien armed with a tree-puller instead of a flame-thrower.

Other volunteers sweated alongside me, our grunts mixing with the sound of cracking branches. Felled trees began to pile up along a footpath. A few hours later, the piles were taller than me, leaving plenty of open spots in the woods where native species can grow back more easily, a small but measurable effort in supporting our city’s remaining wild patches.

Activities like these play roles on many fronts: Mitigating the spread of invasive species and supporting our communities’ biodiversity contributes to ensuring their resilience, as well as our lives within them. Though extreme weather events keep piling up like those buckthorn trunks, biodiversity and climate issues have been nearly absent from government action since Prime Minister Mark Carney came to power, in favour of economic development – true to the last federal election’s campaign discourse.

We also have plenty to gain individually from these actions, as studies show that spending time outdoors lowers stress levels and restores energy. However, a 2024 report published in the journal Nature highlights that an active connection with these spaces is what fosters benefits. This means getting our hands dirty acquaints us with the outdoors, potentially providing elation akin to meeting a new friend. Along with feeling more rooted in our communities, participating in volunteer biodiversity activities and data-gathering citizen science contributes to filling scientific knowledge gaps, mapping our rapidly changing surroundings, as professionals don’t have the resources or human power to keep up. And combatting fast-proliferating invasive species is a seriously underfunded realm. According to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, nearly 500 invasive plants are spreading across the country. Containing these species is a David versus Goliath endeavour, with province-by-province funding hovering around the few-million-dollar mark annually – no match for species often getting a boost from warming climes.

While learning about our environments, we also need to unravel preconceived notions of how they ended up in this state. In her book Medicine Wheel for the Planet: A Journey Toward Personal and Ecological Healing, Indigenous invasive species specialist Dr. Jennifer Grenz digs into her experience of being educated in Western science traditions, while keeping her Indigenous identity separate from her work. Only after 20 years of field work did she shift toward on-the-ground learning with First Nation communities and elders, integrating Indigenous needs and knowledge into her scientific work on invasive species.

Dr. Grenz highlights a persistent idea surrounding the management of these plants: People create a narrative of “before” and “after” colonization, in which removing invasives and planting natives is seen as restoring a space to its natural state. This is what she calls Eden Ecology: misconceptions that pre-colonial lands were pristine, untouched ecosystems. In reality, those places never existed, since Indigenous people had been stewarding lands for millennia when settlers arrived. Stewardship through learning and participation is what she promotes, too. “I hope that as you read, you understand what is behind this quest to decolonize and Indigenize ecological restoration so that we can heal the land together,” Dr. Grenz writes.

According to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, nearly 500 invasive plants are spreading across the country. Containing these species is a David versus Goliath endeavour, with province-by-province funding hovering around the few-milliondollar mark annually – no match for species often getting a boost from warming climes.

Les Amis de la Montagne also aims to educate the people who walk, run, bike, ski and snowshoe along the mountain’s paths, namely about the 20 or so invasives that took root in its clay-rich soils, including the buckthorn I gleefully yanked. Biologists think the tree was first introduced in New England in the 18th century for its purgative properties. Though beloved by rodents and the birds that spread their seeds, its berries the colour of onyx with a purple sheen become a powerful laxative in human digestive tracts. They were given to sick people to allegedly purge them of toxins, an early omen that this bush had the power to make things go down the toilet.

This type of buckthorn is present throughout urban parks in northeastern Canada and the United States, growing into dense shrubbery beneath taller trees, bending undergrowth to its will. It prevents other plants from germinating and its fallen leaves produce emodin as they decompose – a molecule poisonous to some amphibians. Below the surface, its roots alter soil, raising pH and nitrogen levels, making grounds more humid. These tweaks affect native plants not equipped with quick adaptation, creating forests less hospitable to butterflies and beetles, while the shrub’s low, thin branches force nesting birds closer to grounds where predators roam.

Montreal’s mountain has seen its fair share of overhauls over the centuries. Designed by Frederick Olmsted, the landscape architect who carved out a chunk of Manhattan to create Central Park, Mount Royal Park was established in 1876 as a place of refuge where locals could breathe easier in an increasingly industrialized city. In the 1950s, then-mayor Jean Drapeau ordered that hundreds of trees be cut and brush cleared in the name of so-called morality. (The park was popular with gay men.)

Once again, human anxieties were reflected in ecological control, but what became dubbed the “morality cuts” had considerable impacts, beyond homophobia. Damaged roots led to erosion, which destroyed all but one of the mountain’s wetlands, taking amphibians, birds and insects with them, and making the woods a whole lot quieter. The disrupted ground, exposed to the sun and prying eyes alike, was an openhouse party for plants, like the resilient buckthorn that luxuriates where the light gets in.

The second time I volunteered with Les Amis de la Montagne, we were planting rather than yanking. I paired up with Eric Kwasi Nkansah, a young graduate from Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in Kumasi, Ghana. Together, we dug holes, alternating planting a dozen or so species, spacing out red oak, silver maple and black cherry trees, before watering them and covering the freshly packed earth with leaves for protection against approaching winter. Though we planted indigenous species, Les Amis de la Montagne contends with current realities – Montreal’s evolution into an urban environment, climate change and considerable changes to forests over the years, due to people and diseases alike. “We couldn’t go back in time even if we wanted to. Instead, our approach emphasizes helping the forest to regenerate and stay healthy in the future by focusing on diversity and species that are able to adapt,” says Benjamin Pilon.

The third time I volunteered was a sunny May morning earlier this year. There were no extractigators in sight, though. Instead, we were there to remove more delicate invasives, an inaugural activity to kick off their season of stewardship. We gathered at the Mountain’s lookout facing the downtown’s high-rises, sharing coffee and granola bars before heading toward a weedy zone. I walked alongside Thérèse Nadeau, who has been signing up for these activities for decades.

“We feel like we’re participating in something that’s bigger than ourselves. We learn the importance of living with nature rather than possessing it,” she said of her open-air classroom.

Ms. Nadeau started volunteering at the Mountain after the 1998 storm, removing trees broken under the weight of 30 millimetres of ice. The wood was piled high for pickup, reminiscent of mayor Drapeau’s moralizing chop. The storm led the city to cut 5,200 trees on the Mountain and pruning another 45,000, which made more space for plants like the common buckthorn.

May is prime time to target certain species that sprout early, before they’ve spread their seeds through flowers, like the ground elder, a ground cover whose leaves form thick green carpets. Unlike the buckthorn, this lacy growth needs to be broken off gently at the stem, leaving roots in place so that they get stressed when producing new shoots rather than being stimulated when a chunk remains buried out of sight. I pulled on gloves and pads before getting down on my knees. The scent of chlorophyll wafted up as I gently snapped stems between my index and thumb. I removed my gloves, finding the delicate work easier with the skin of my fingers uncovered.

The pile of leaves grew as I cleared space, revealing dirt where surrounding native plants would have more room to grow, and eventually young students would deploy native-plant seed bombs. Adding a handful to the pile, a woman in athletic gear walking with her husband watched me, worried. She asked me what I was doing, concerned for the stalks I was snapping. I explained that I was volunteering to contain an invasive species. It took me a second to remember its tongue-twistery French name: égopode podagraire. I went back to carefully plucking, down on the ground elder’s level. After an hour, we placed the removed plants in sacks and weighed them: six kilograms of ground elder and 18 kg of garlic mustard. A small dent, but a start toward something new. Sweaty and satisfied at the sight of a measurable difference, for the time being, it was enough.

First Nation study­ing stur­geon deaths

Expert says increase in mor­tal­ity this year raises ques­tions about envir­on­mental changes

The carcass of a sturgeon is shown along the banks of the Fraser River in Richmond, B.C. The province has received reports of 71 sturgeon found dead across B.C. since July.

This article was written by Brenna Owen and was published in the Toronto Star on September 22, 2025.

Expert says increase in mor­tal­ity this year raises ques­tions about envir­on­mental changes

It took four people to haul the car­cass of a stur­geon off the banks of the Fraser River in Rich­mond, B.C., this month, one of dozens to wash up recently.

The body of the hefty fish, about 1.6 metres long, was then frozen as part of a research project spear­headed by the Tsawwassen First Nation to help under­stand why stur­geon are dying and guide con­ser­va­tion efforts.

Kelly Scott, a bio­lo­gist work­ing for the First Nation, said the fish are like dino­saurs, dat­ing back as far as 200 mil­lion years ago, so mor­tal­ity events are wor­ri­some and raise ques­tions about what is chan­ging in their envir­on­ment.

“We have got­ten mul­tiple reports this year from people who live right on the water in (New West­min­ster) say­ing they’ve seen four, five, six stur­geon at a time, like within one day, float­ing down the river,” she said. “So that’s very con­cern­ing.”

Brit­ish Columbia’s Min­istry of Land, Water and Resource Stew­ard­ship said there appears to be an increase in stur­geon mor­tal­ity this year.

But the mag­nitude of the uptick is hard to eval­u­ate, it says in a state­ment, because track­ing and report­ing the deaths has been improv­ing over time.

The province has received reports of 71 stur­geon found dead across B.C. since July, with 65 of those fish in the lower Fraser River. Of those reports in the lower Fraser, 49 have occurred in the past four weeks.

By com­par­ison, the min­istry said there were 42 repor­ted mor­tal­it­ies in the lower Fraser in all of 2024, with 14 reports from that area in 2023 and 35 reports in 2022.

White stur­geon are among the largest and longest­liv­ing fish in the world, grow­ing up to six metres in length with a lifespan exceed­ing100 years. The spe­cies is sig­ni­fic­ant for First Nations, includ­ing Tsawwassen, who har­ves­ted stur­geon for food as well as cul­tural pur­poses, Scott said.

B.C. pro­hib­ited the har­vest of stur­geon in 1994 and First Nations across the province vol­un­tar­ily stopped har­vest­ing them at the same time.

But there is still catch­and­release angling in the lower Fraser River, and the dis­cov­er­ies of dozens of dead stur­geon coin­cide with a rare recre­ational open­ing for sock­eye sal­mon along parts of the Fraser in recent weeks. However, Scott says numer­ous factors are at play in stur­geon mor­tal­ity.

Cli­mate change is among them, she said, as the river heats up, stress­ing the fish. “There’s not a lot of areas with large, shady trees that can provide thermal refuge for the fish, and so they don’t neces­sar­ily have the same res­pite they used to have.”

If a stur­geon is already stressed when it is caught in a gill net tar­get­ing another spe­cies, it could increase the risk of mor­tal­ity, Scott said. The research­ers are hop­ing to identify where stur­geon may be in cooler waters and under­take hab­itat res­tor­a­tion in those areas, she said.

The research team from Tsawwassen plans to drift car­casses fit­ted with tele­metry track­ers down­stream, allow­ing the research­ers to track their move­ment, Scott said.

Scott said the team is also in touch with a researcher at the Uni­versity of B.C. in hopes of using envir­on­mental gen­om­ics, which involves the study of DNA and RNA taken from samples of the under­wa­ter envir­on­ment, to learn about where stur­geon are spend­ing their time in the Fraser River and whether they are under stress.

Decline in key Canadian wildlife has worsened, new data show

This article was written by Ivan Semeniuk and was published in the Globe & Mail on September 22, 2025.

A WWF report finds that efforts to conserve endangered species haven’t stopped other animals from joining that list. They include the snowy owl, which a scientific panel last May said is threatened.

Environmental advocacy group WWF has updated its Living Planet Index for Canada and found that downward trends in monitored wildlife populations are becoming more pronounced – a sign that federal and provincial policies are inadequate to the task of protecting species at risk across the country or improving their chances of recovery.

In a report released on Monday, the organization found that 53 per cent of the Canadian species it measures are decreasing in abundance, with an average decrease of 10 per cent since 1970 (a point in time from which wildlife population data were sufficient to allow for reliable estimates). Among those species already listed as threatened by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 43 per cent showed population declines, including the boreal caribou.

“This is biodiversity loss happening in real time,” James Snider, vice-president for science, knowledge and innovation with WWF Canada, said during a media briefing.

He said that the report, built on more than 5,000 records tracking 910 species, offers “a stark reminder of the trajectory of wildlife in Canada.”

The report marks the fourth edition of the Canadian version of WWF’s Living Planet Index, which is updated every five years. It is not a comprehensive measure of all species across the country but focuses instead on a subset of vertebrates – including fish, birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians – that occupy a range of habitats in Canada, from marine and freshwater ecosystems to wild and human-dominated landscapes.

As in previous editions of the index, species that are found in grasslands – such as the swift fox and prairie rattlesnake – have declined the most on average, reflecting the historical impact of habitat loss because of agricultural activity.

Elsewhere, invasive species, pollution and climate change effects are adding to pressures that are more directly linked to human activities and infrastructure.

Mr. Snider said that a striking takeaway from the report is that efforts to conserve endangered species have not stopped new and sometimes iconic creatures from joining the ranks of those already listed.

A case in point is the snowy owl, Quebec’s provincial bird. Last May, for the first time, the scientific panel that advises the government on the status of Canada’s wildlife said that the owl should now be listed as threatened under the federal Species at Risk Act.

The owl is one of many species that also carry cultural significance for Indigenous peoples. In its latest iteration, the WWF report includes interviews with Indigenous community members speaking about changes in species populations that have occurred within the collective memories of their communities.

One such participant, Kiarra Bear-Hetherington, is a water protector with the Wolastoqey Nation in New Brunswick and a graduate student in marine management at Dalhousie University in Halifax. As part of her role, she has gathered information from elders about the historic abundance of Atlantic salmon on the Wolastoq (Saint John) River prior to the construction of hydroelectric dams starting in the 1950s. The salmon population has crashed since then and there is currently a ban on commercial and recreational fishing of the species, which has affected Indigenous communities on the river.

Ms. Bear-Hetherington said support for Indigenous-led conservation projects has been a positive development that benefits species and also links communities to their heritage.

“We have so many young people that are wanting to recreate that connection back to our river, our waterway. That gives me hope,” she said.

Compared with the Living

Planet Index that WWF International prepares as a global snapshot, the Canadian version has a much higher proportion of its vertebrate species represented and is better able to capture the variability in population numbers, said Jessica Currie, a senior specialist with WWF Canada.

To some extent, this can help reduce oversensitivity to small changes in species with low population numbers, which otherwise could make the overall trends seem more dire than they really are.

Ms. Currie said the WWF Canada report includes some methodological changes designed to strengthen its statistics. The changes were made in consultation with Environment and Climate Change Canada officials who use a version of the index to track changes in Canada’s biodiversity.

Protecting that biodiversity has proved a challenge in Canada, in part because of delays in implementing the federal species law, as well as differences with provincial governments who often have more direct control over the habitat on which many species depend.

Among the provinces, for example, British Columbia does not have its own species legislation while Ontario’s government has recently amended its laws to weaken species protections.

Chris Johnson, a professor of conservation and wildlife ecology at the University of Northern British Columbia, who was not involved in the WWF report, said the current political situation underscores the need for maintaining laws that protect individual species at risk, a position supported by a study he co-authored earlier this month in the journal Facets.

“It’s about having those lastditch policy and legislative tools to keep those species from falling off the cliff,” Dr. Johnson said.

During the briefing Mr. Snider said that while the federal government prioritizes economic development to counter threats from the United States, it cannot afford to lose sight of the country’s natural assets.

“As we look forward to building our economic sovereignty, our broader security, we also need to be considering the biodiversity and nature impacts in that decision-making process,” he said.

Forests are not factor­ies

This article was written by Emil Siekkinen and was published in the Toronto Star on September 8, 2025.

For sev­eral morn­ings this sum­mer, Toronto woke up under an orange sky. The CN Tower van­ished behind a cur­tain of wild­fire smoke. Flights out of Pear­son air­port were delayed or can­celled. Par­ents kept their kids indoors as air­qual­ity warn­ings stretched across the GTA. For many, it triggered a jar­ring real­iz­a­tion: what hap­pens in north­ern Ontario’s forests does not stay there.

Now, another warn­ing is com­ing — this time from across the Atlantic. And it’d be wise to listen.

Sweden, like Canada, sits atop vast boreal forests — part of the same great green belt circ­ling the North­ern Hemi­sphere. These forests act as plan­et­ary lungs, stor­ing more car­bon than even the Amazon. But the Swedish gov­ern­ment’s latest forestry inquiry, En robust skog­spolitik för akt­ivt skogs­bruk (SOU 2025:93), is head­ing in a troub­ling dir­ec­tion: grow more trees, cut them faster, and burn or export more bio­mass in the name of “green energy.”

It sounds like a cli­mate solu­tion. But here’s the prob­lem: forests are not factor­ies.

Most of the car­bon in a boreal forest isn’t stored in the trees at all. It’s locked under­ground — in roots, fungi, humus and del­ic­ate micro­bial net­works built up over thou­sands of years.

When forestry is intens­i­fied — shorter har­vest cycles, heav­ier machines, wider clear­cuts — that under­ground bank of car­bon is stead­ily drained. The trees grow back, yes, but the soil can take cen­tur­ies to recover, if it recov­ers at all.

And when soils degrade, forests lose their power to fight cli­mate change. Biod­iversity thins. Water cycles shift. Wild­fire risks climb. The entire sys­tem weak­ens.

If Sweden — long mar­keted as a global model of “sus­tain­able forestry” — chooses this path, it sets a dan­ger­ous pre­ced­ent: that in the race to decar­bon­ize, it will sac­ri­fice soils, spe­cies and Indi­gen­ous stew­ard­ship in the name of “green growth.”

For Ontario, that hits close to home. Ontario’s boreal forests — stretch­ing from Sud­bury to the James Bay Low­lands — face mount­ing pres­sures. Log­ging roads carve deeper into old­growth stands and cari­bou hab­itat. Peat­lands, which hold stag­ger­ing amounts of car­bon, are increas­ingly vul­ner­able to both indus­trial dis­turb­ance and record­break­ing wild­fires. And while Indi­gen­ous nations across north­ern Ontario have long advoc­ated for stronger stew­ard­ship, pro­vin­cial forestry policies often sidestep mean­ing­ful con­sulta­tion.

Mean­while, the impacts are show­ing up right here in the GTA. Sum­mer brings unpre­ced­en­ted wild­fires. Toronto’s air qual­ity plum­mets into the “high risk” cat­egory again and again. Hos­pit­als across the region report surges in res­pir­at­ory ill­nesses. Rap­idly, Ontario’s forests — usu­ally crit­ical car­bon sinks — became car­bon sources.

And yet, Queen’s Park has shown little appet­ite to rethink this approach.

Premier Doug Ford’s gov­ern­ment has cut envir­on­mental pro­grams, includ­ing a major tree­plant­ing ini­ti­at­ive later res­cued by fed­eral fund­ing, and has offered no mean­ing­ful forestry strategy aligned with cli­mate solu­tions. While his gov­ern­ment cham­pi­ons nuc­lear power and elec­tric vehicle bat­ter­ies, it has done little to address how Ontario man­ages its forests in a warm­ing world.

There is a bet­ter way for­ward, for Sweden and for Ontario. Forestry must accept that man­age­ment needs to be foun­ded on sus­tain­able — not merely renew­able — mod­els: prac­tices that pre­serve soils, biod­iversity and long­term car­bon stor­age rather than max­im­iz­ing short­term yield. Renew­able is not the same as sus­tain­able. A tree can regrow in dec­ades — but how often can that be repeated in quick suc­ces­sion? And a degraded soil can take cen­tur­ies to rebuild — if it can be restored at all. Prac­tic­ally, that means man­aging for resi­li­ence, not just rev­enue: longer har­vest cycles so soils can replen­ish, mixed­spe­cies stands to res­ist pests and storms, and strict pro­tec­tions for peat­lands and wet­lands — our most power­ful nat­ural car­bon vaults. The value of a healthy forest as a car­bon sink can­not be over­stated; once degraded, no amount of replant­ing can quickly restore its abil­ity to lock away green­house gases.

Encour­aging mixed­spe­cies forests makes eco­sys­tems more res­ist­ant to pests, storms, and fires. Learn from Indi­gen­ous stew­ard­ship prac­tices that have sus­tained these land­scapes for mil­len­nia — not as a token ges­ture, but as a found­a­tion for policy.

Do Sweden’s decisions mat­ter in Ontario? If one of the most respec­ted forestry nations doubles down on short­term extrac­tion, it emboldens those who argue for treat­ing boreal as a tim­ber ware­house rather than a liv­ing sys­tem.

But forests are not ware­houses.

They reg­u­late water, shel­ter biod­iversity, store car­bon and sus­tain cul­tures. They are liv­ing infra­struc­tures, not infin­ite resources.

The world at large is at a cross­roads.

If Sweden gets this wrong, it won’t just under­mine Europe’s cli­mate goals. It will make it harder for Ontario — already grap­pling with wild­fire smoke, biod­iversity loss and grow­ing devel­op­ment pres­sure — to chart a more sus­tain­able path.

Because what hap­pens in Sweden’s forests will not stay in Sweden’s forests. And what hap­pens in Ontario’s won’t stay in Ontario, either.

Scientists detail impact of heat wave nicknamed ‘the Blob’

This article was written by Scott Van Haren and was published in the Globe & Mail on August 30, 2025.

Sam Starko and collaborators perform intertidal biodiversity surveys in Barkley Sound, B.C., in 2021. Dr. Stark says examining the heat wave gives ‘a sense as to what the future might look like’ as similar events occur in the ocean.

University of Victoria research provides a window into our oceans as climate change drives temperatures higher

The summer that the ocean fell silent stays with Mike Reid. “It looked like a dead zone. There were no birds, no seals, no otters. When you looked into the water column, there was no urchin, there was no [sea] cucumber, no fish swimming about.”

Mr. Reid, the aquatics manager for the Heiltsuk Integrated Resource Management Department in Bella Bella, B.C., was seeing the impact of an abnormally warm mass of water that clung to the Pacific coast from 2014 to 2016. Nicknamed “the Blob,” the unexpected episode would become the largest, longest, and most severe marine heat wave ever recorded.

This manifestation of global warming wreaked havoc on the marine ecosystems of British Columbia – closing fisheries, driving species from their homes, and providing a window into the oceans of a climate-changed future.

In research published earlier this summer, scientists released a complete look at the effects of the Blob on every part of the ocean, from the smallest plankton to humpback whales.

Beyond how the higher temperatures changed which species could survive where, the team of researchers at the University of Victoria found that some of the most significant impact came from the knock-on effects of the Blob rippling across the entire aquatic world. As the ocean continues to warm and the chatter of oil pipelines and fossil fuel investment returns to Ottawa, the systematic review shows a sobering picture of the future of life in a warmer ocean.

“By looking back on this event, we can have a sense as to what the future might look like as we see more and more of these events unfold in our oceans,” said Sam Starko, the lead author of the paper.

Pulling together more than 300 peerreviewed articles and government reports, the team of researchers took a deep dive into the chaos of an ecosystem pushed to the edge.

Unlike gradual warming – the steady uptick in yearly ocean temperatures that climate change often brings to mind – marine heat waves are relatively short spikes of a few degrees Celsius, driven by global cycles such as El Niño years and oceanic currents. As climate change disrupts the usual atmospheric rhythms, these natural cycles are becoming less predictable and more intense.

In 2023, another round of heat waves struck around the world, setting global records for their extent and intensity, with 96 per cent of the world’s oceans affected. Yet, the Blob remains the largest and longest single marine heat wave ever, and increased temperatures by up to six degrees.

Most life in the ocean already lives close to the thermal limit, said Dr. Starko. At a few degrees beyond this threshold, life can survive for weeks or even months, but the duration of the Blob pushed far beyond this limit for many species.

“When we’re talking about being warmer than usual for say three years, as we saw with this event, that can have really, really big effects on things like survival,” he said.

These warmer temperatures also allowed species to expand their range, pushing some populations northwards, bringing dolphins, pygmy killer whales, and the giant tropical sunfish into B.C. waters.

Some species thrived in these new conditions. Populations of gelata – jellyfishlike organisms – exploded, as did those of anchovies and a toxic species of algae. These harmful algal blooms produced record levels of domoic acid, a neurotoxin, and were responsible for mass die-offs of marine mammals and seabirds off the coast of California.

These direct effects of warming on an organism’s life are notable enough, but because the ocean is so well connected, changes for one species often have cascading effects up and down the food chain.

Perhaps no ecosystem embodies this better than a kelp forest. A temperature increase of just three degrees can doom the towering seaweeds that make up these subaquatic woods, which normally thrive in the cool, steady temperatures of the Pacific.

The kelps themselves, however, were not the only organisms affected. The sea stars that live in the kelp forests also suffered, with their populations decimated by a recently discovered bacterium that spread faster in the warm water of the Blob.

With no predatory sea stars to keep their numbers under control, sea urchins grazed down entire forests, leaving behind what has become known as an “urchin barren,” an underwater moonscape blanketed with purple spines and not a seaweed to be seen.

This double whammy of high temperatures and out-of-control sea urchins led to unprecedented losses of kelp forests, many of which still have not returned since the Blob.

In every ecosystem studied, from the deep sea to tide pools, these large-scale, knock-on effects were found.

The open ocean, as another example, saw a complete reorganization of the food web. The high temperatures altered the way nutrients flow through the currents, leaving less food at the surface of the water.

The plankton that thrive in these new conditions are smaller and less nutritious, meaning that the fish that eat them miss out on the food they need to survive – the oceanic equivalent of having your healthy salmon dinner swapped for a handful of fishy crackers.

As a result, many salmon that grew up in the Blob years were pressed to find enough food. When those fish were old enough to be caught, around 2019-2021, the B.C. coast saw some of the worst salmon fishing ever, leading to coastwide closings of commercial salmon fisheries in 2021.

For communities that rely on the coast for income and sustenance, these oceanic changes have a big impact. Mr. Reid, in Bella Bella, had one word to describe the impact of the Blob on his small fishing community: “Devastating.”

Beyond the fisheries’ closings that grounded many of the town’s fishing boats, Mr. Reid saw many of the effects discussed in the paper, and more. Foods that his community traditionally relies on, such as fish and seaweed, suddenly disappeared from the places they had been harvested for generations and have been slow to return.

While the Blob itself is now long gone, sea temperatures have not quite returned to normal. Temperatures in some areas remain higher than they used to be, and marine and atmospheric heat waves, such as the heat dome that smothered the Pacific Northwest in 2021, have continued to wreak havoc, causing droughts in rivers and elevating surface temperatures further.

“One of the things that we’re thinking about after the ocean Blob and the droughts that we were experiencing is that we actually need to think ahead further than that,” Mr. Reid said.

His organization is already working toward climate adaptation, establishing an “emergency salmon enhancement plan” to mobilize the transplant of salmon in the event of future heat waves that dry up the streams where they spawn.

These extreme weather events will only become more common as countries delay commitments to the Paris Accord, and the ideal 1.5-degree limit to global warming grows steadily out of reach.

“Climate change is happening now,” said Dr. Julia Baum, a professor of marine biology at the University of Victoria and the senior author of the paper.

“It’s already impacting all ocean life, which means it’s already impacting all coastal communities,” she added. “It really underscores that no organism, no species, no community can escape climate change.”

First Nations land guardians become the eyes and ears of Tla-o-qui-aht Nation

This story and photography are by James MacDonald. They were published in the Globe & Mail on August 25, 2025.

The Tribal Park Guardians protect ecosystems and steward their lands for future generations

Few places in Canada are as entwined with tourism as Tofino, a district on Vancouver Island. Boasting incredible oldgrowth forests and the longest continuous beaches in Canada, it draws visitors by the tens of thousands each year, creating a complex and ever-changing challenge for locals, including those who have stewarded the land since time immemorial, the Nuu-chahnulth.

Gesturing from the sky to Meares Island across the waves and then to Clayoquot Sound just down the hill, Saya Masso, the area’s natural resources manager, is introducing a transfixed group of listeners to the history of the region. Mr. Masso is a member of the Tla-o-qui-aht, one of 15 Nuu-chahnulth (formerly Nootka) nations. He is also a land guardian. Rich in resources, Meares Island caught the interest of logging companies as far back as the early 1900s. In 1984, under threat from logging giant MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., the Tla-o-qui-aht and Ahousaht First Nations, accompanied by many non-Indigenous supporters, participated in a major blockade. Eventually, with the case before the courts, the Tla-oqui-aht declared a “Tribal Park” in an effort to protect the land. It was a success. The land was spared. Since then, the Tla-o-qui-aht have established three additional tribal parks, comprising all their traditional territory.

Caretaking the tribal parks and acting as the eyes and ears of the Tla-o-qui-aht Nation are the Tribal Park Guardians. Established in 2008 and governed by a 500-year stewardship plan, guardians are involved in vital projects across the tribal parks. “They’re rebuilding rivers,” Mr. Masso says. “They’re building our boardwalk trail to educate people about a functioning old-growth forest.”

Their roles also include environmental monitoring, river restoration, salmon habitat revitalization, habitat remediation and visitor education.

As the climate changes, fire season has crept ever closer to the coast, into a region that traditionally saw very little fire activity. In years past, if you dug down in the rain forests, the soil would still be wet. Now, it can be dry many centimetres below the surface. This summer, four fires are blazing on Vancouver Island, prompting a state of emergency.

Recounting a remote backcountry fire on Kennedy Lake from the previous season, Mr. Masso explains that the guardians were integral in extinguishing it. “There was no ministry [of forests] there. It was just guardians. We bought a Honda pump and generator and ran out with the skiff.”

In preparation for future incidents, the Tla-o-qui-aht Guardians have expanded their wildfirefighting resources to include new hoses and pumps, positioned in more remote areas of the tribal parks, ready to respond as needed.

On nearby Meares Island, making their way up to the summit of Lone Cone mountain, a small group of Ahousaht guardians clears the trail in preparation for the 2025 tourism season.

The Ahousaht don’t have tribal parks, but guardians from the Maaqutusiis Hahoulthee Stewardship Society tend to the traditional territory.

Tourism is one major area of their focus. “This is where we have seen a really big need for us to step up our game, as we have always been the true gatekeepers and stewards of the land,” says Hasheukumiss, Ahousaht Hereditary Chief.

He emphasizes the importance of the guardians’ Indigenous approaches to their work, including in the tourism sector. “Everything is so interconnected,” Mr. Hasheukumiss says. “It comes down from the glaciers, to the rivers, to the oceans. It really is a chain effect.”

While present-day challenges can be daunting, progress toward conservation, old-growth ecosystem protection and climate resilience offers hope, reflected in the one-year anniversary of the two nations coming together to protect an additional 760 square kilometres of territory, biodiversity and old-growth forest within their adjoining territories.

“It’s not the here-and-now,” says Mr. Hasheukumiss, “it’s the seven generations to come … what we can do is turn the corner and get everyone to buy in and make that difference, so that when I hand this over to my son, he’ll continue on the good path.”

We need to ditch cli­mate excuses

Win­nipeg shows us how pre­cau­tions can pay off

High water and ice carry a building down the river in Winnipeg in April 2009, but the city's floodway helped prevent more damage.

This article was written by Michael Decter and was published in the Toronto Star on August 9, 2025.

MICHAEL DECTER IS THE AUTHOR OF “THE FULCRUM,” A RECENTLY PUBLISHED ENVIRONMENTAL THRILLER. PREVIOUSLY, HE WAS CABINET SECRETARY IN THE MANITOBA GOVERNMENT AND DEPUTY MINISTER OF HEALTH FOR ONTARIO.

My earli­est memory of cli­mate mit­ig­a­tion is filling sand­bags to pro­tect Win­nipeg from a rising Red River dur­ing high school. The city flooded annu­ally but major floods, which happened every few years, were par­tic­u­larly dev­ast­at­ing.

For­tu­nately, after his elec­tion in 1957, a vis­ion­ary premier of Man­itoba named Duff Rob­lin con­vinced the province and the fed­eral gov­ern­ment to build a giant ditch around the City of Win­nipeg. Memor­ies of the 1950 flood — the worst in 90 years — were vivid. But even still, “Duff’s Ditch” was ini­tially ridiculed.

Later, after this ini­ti­at­ive saved Win­nipeg numer­ous times, it became a source of pride and was called by its proper name — the Red River Flood­way.

The Flood­way was con­struc­ted between 1962 and 1968. It cost $63 mil­lion. To date, it’s pre­ven­ted an estim­ated $8 bil­lion of flood dam­age. Prag­mat­ism mar­ried to adapt­a­tion equals pro­tec­tion, not to men­tion enorm­ous sav­ings of 126 times the ori­ginal cost.

Cli­mate change has arrived. The evid­ence is all around us in the floods, in the forest fires, and in once­in­a­life­time storms that now hap­pen repeatedly.

Much of the con­ver­sa­tion in Canada has been about the dis­tant future not the present.

Loud polit­ical debates focus on car­bon taxes and whether the gov­ern­ment should man­date elec­tric­only vehicles by 2035 or by 2050, des­pite a lack of char­ging infra­struc­ture in place or con­sumer demand for them.

It was said that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. While our lead­ers pon­ti­fic­ate about elec­tric cars, our north­ern forests burn, our cit­ies swel­ter and our rivers flood.

Lost in this noisy politi­cized rhet­oric is a mean­ing­ful con­ver­sa­tion about what mit­ig­a­tion efforts can be under­taken at scale and on an urgent basis to pre­vent dam­age from the cli­mate change that’s already hap­pen­ing.

What we need as a coun­try are imple­ment­able ideas on how to rap­idly pro­tect people and prop­erty includ­ing vital infra­struc­ture. How many other Red River Flood­ways are wait­ing to be dug? How many proper firebreaks are wait­ing to be bull­dozed to pro­tect com­munit­ies at high risk of forest fires?

We also need to con­sider who bears the cost of dis­asters which could have been pre­ven­ted or mit­ig­ated.

For example, if the Red River Flood­way had never been built who would have paid the bil­lions of dam­ages that would have occurred? Likely our gov­ern­ments (at least in great part), which means us as tax­pay­ers.

And in the case of privately insured houses and struc­tures, we’re now exper­i­en­cing increased premi­ums and decreased scope of cov­er­age due to fre­quent extreme weather events. The 2016 Fort McMur­ray wild­fires costs $4 bil­lion in insured losses while a single day of flash floods in Toronto last year cost $1 bil­lion.

We all pay for that in the end.

Hard ques­tions need to be asked and answered with prag­mat­ism mar­ried to adapt­a­tion.

Where can we pro­tect and mit­ig­ate through ini­ti­at­ives such as fire breaks, flood­ways and the harden­ing of infra­struc­ture? When will we admit parts of our coun­try are, or will be, rendered unin­hab­it­able? Why do we allow people to rebuild homes des­troyed by flood­ing on the same flood plains that will flood again?

How many projects with massive bene­fits like the Red River Flood­way are stalled in approval pro­cesses that put short term polit­ical bene­fit ahead of what is best for all Cana­dians over the long term?

There’s an old rule in eco­nom­ics that you can only use one eco­nomic lever to achieve one policy object­ive. It’s troub­ling that indi­vidual projects being con­sidered must achieve sev­eral, some­times con­flict­ing, ends.

I remain an optim­ist. It’s been a long time since we’ve wit­nessed as close a work­ing rela­tion­ship as now exists between the prime min­is­ter and the premi­ers. Per­haps hav­ing a com­mon enemy is at the heart of it, but I believe there’s more to it than that.

Canada has stalled in many ways dur­ing the past dec­ade. I’m hope­ful because I believe this new­found co­oper­a­tion could drive real pro­gress. When our gov­ern­ments are draw­ing up their project lists, I hope they’ll remem­ber the example of the Red River Flood­way. We need cost­effect­ive and afford­able projects that will pro­tect Canada from a chan­ging cli­mate. And we need them now.

Federal climate strategies fall short: report

This article was written by Ivan Semeniuk and was published in the Globe & Mail on June 11, 2025.

Natural spaces key to sustaining species could be eliminated before their significance is fully known or appreciated, commissioner finds

Inconsistent planning, insufficient data and a lack of concrete actions are among the problems plaguing some of Canada’s key environmental efforts and strategies, a series of independent audits has found.

In three reports issued Tuesday, Environment and Sustainable Development Commissioner Jerry DeMarco examined the federal government’s progress on climate adaptation, species protection and facilitating sustainable use of ocean resources. A fourth report from Mr. DeMarco considers why the government has largely failed to deliver on its sustainable development goals over the past three decades.

The reports found deficits in the way Ottawa has approached its environmental and sustainable development challenges, which have hindered the government’s objectives.

The audits come as Prime Minister Mark Carney is seeking to fast-track infrastructure projects, including those designed to improve Canada’s competitiveness in the energy and resource sectors. Without more robust and better-informed federal actions on environmental matters, such projects could come at a cost.

“In order to make decisions that don’t have unforeseen consequences or that don’t mortgage the future, it’s important to have a good information base,” Mr. DeMarco told The Globe and Mail.

First established in 1995, the commissioner’s role falls under Canada’s Office of the AuditorGeneral. Successive commissioners have repeatedly prodded the government to enact and then stand by policies that relate to the country’s natural assets. The long-running dynamic formed the backdrop to several of the findings in the commissioner’s latest release.

For example, a previous commissioner first recommended that Canada create a national climate-adaptation strategy nearly 20 years ago, something the federal government accomplished in 2023. (In comparison, Germany has done it four times.)

Calling the strategy “an important first step,” Mr. DeMarco said that urgent attention is still required for it to produce meaningful action.

His report found that the strategy does not adequately prioritize different climate-change risks in Canada nor create a process for it to be updated. In areas related to human health, the strategy also omitted some risks, such as the spread of Lyme disease, and did not propose dedicated actions to address others, including the effects of wildfire smoke.

What this report is really highlighting is even with policy in place, even with the law in place, we’re not actually doing much of what we said we were going to do.

KAREN HODGES PROFESSOR OF CONSERVATION BIOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA OKANAGAN

Blair Feltmate, who heads the University of Waterloo’s Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation and who provided input to the report, said he did not agree that climate risks are not prioritized in the national adaptation strategy. Rather, he said, the strategy “zeroed in on preparedness for flooding and wildfire, which are Canada’s two most financially costly perils, and extreme heat, the most lethal peril.”

Dr. Feltmate said he partially agreed with the commissioner that no economic analysis was done to assign adaptation resources. And while the commissioner’s reports typically do not propose new policy actions, Dr.

Feltmate said that the federal government should consider creating a chief resiliency officer to lead the adaptation strategy going forward and to “prepare Canada for extreme weather that will otherwise prove unaffordable.”

A separate report on critical habitat was the latest and final instalment in the commissioner’s look at how Canada lists and protects its most threatened wildlife species.

Previously, that examination has found bottlenecks and other problems at virtually every stage in the process.

The identification of critical habitat is a step that occurs after a species has already been listed and the government must, by law, develop a recovery strategy for the species and an action plan.

Based on a sampling of 47 species, the latest report found that government departments charged with protecting those species had only identified critical habitat for about one-third of them. There are also significant gaps in monitoring areas where species at risk are known to exist.

The resulting information deficit means that natural spaces that are crucial to sustaining various species in Canada could be eliminated before their significance is known or fully appreciated.

“What this report is really highlighting is even with policy in place, even with the law in place, we’re not actually doing much of what we said we were going to do,” said Karen Hodges, a professor of conservation biology at the University of British Columbia Okanagan.

She said the report underscored the need to reframe the national conversation around species, and to get past arguments that weigh nature against profits rather than considering the economic and societal benefits of growth within the context of environment and sustainability.

Mr. DeMarco echoed the same point when discussing the report on integrated oceans management. Without adequate knowledge and planning of marine environments, he said, it will be difficult to make wise decisions about the placement of offshore wind generators or shipping corridors, for example.

He added that while Canada may be paying a price for not having been more pro-active with environmental protection and planning in the past, that should not be a rationale for delaying action now.

“We could cry over spilled milk because we haven’t done it yet,” he said. “But we might as well accelerate the efforts to fill in these gaps in our knowledge and increase the chances of making better and more informed decisions when these projects do get proposed in the coming years.”

UN Ocean Con­fer­ence sets sail with global fleet

Event aims to encour­age world lead­ers to con­front grow­ing threats to planet’s future

This article was written by Annika Hammerschlag and was published in the Toronto Star on June 9, 2025.

A fleet of 30 research and explor­a­tion ves­sels from around the world set sail just off the French coastal city of Nice on Sunday to kick off the third United Nations Ocean Con­fer­ence and pay trib­ute to World Oceans Day.

The event themed “Ocean Won­ders” saw the ves­sels sail across Nice’s Baie des Anges, or Bay of Angels, and is designed to spot­light the beauty and import­ance of the ocean, while urging world lead­ers not to lose sight of its value as they make decisions about the planet’s future.

Thou­sands of del­eg­ates, includ­ing heads of state, sci­ent­ists, and envir­on­mental advoc­ates, are expec­ted in Nice this week to con­front grow­ing threats to the ocean and the need to trans­form pledges into pro­tec­tion.

The UN has called the threats a global emer­gency facing the world’s oceans as they con­front rising tem­per­at­ures, plastic pol­lu­tion chok­ing mar­ine life, and relent­less over­ex­ploit­a­tion of fish and other resources. Just 2.7 per cent of the global ocean is effect­ively pro­tec­ted from destruct­ive activ­it­ies like indus­trial fish­ing and deep­sea min­ing — far below the global goal of 30 per cent by 2030.

Par­ti­cip­at­ing boats include the Energy Observer, a solar­panel covered cata­maran that was the first ves­sel to cir­cum­nav­ig­ate the globe using renew­able energy alone. It pro­duces hydro­gen fuel on board via sea­wa­ter elec­tro­lysis, offer­ing a vis­ion of zer­oe­mis­sions mari­time travel.

Other standout ves­sels include France’s Alfred Mer­lin, ded­ic­ated to under­wa­ter arche­ology; the Ocean ­Xplorer, a high­tech bil­lion­aire­ owned research yacht; and the WWF’s Blue Panda, which is work­ing to map and pro­tect the last remain­ing seagrass mead­ows in the Medi­ter­ranean Sea.

We’re in the middle of a biod­iversity and cli­mate crisis. We abso­lutely have to pro­tect the ocean to address those crises.

REBECCA HUBBARD DIRECTOR OF HIGH SEAS ALLIANCE

At the heart of the con­fer­ence is the push to rat­ify the High Seas Treaty, adop­ted in 2023.

If it enters into force, the treaty would for the first time allow coun­tries to estab­lish mar­ine pro­tec­ted areas in inter­na­tional waters, which cover nearly two­thirds of the ocean and remain largely ungov­erned.

“The High Seas Treaty is crit­ical to ensur­ing we can pro­tect biod­iversity in the ocean,” said Rebecca Hub­bard, dir­ector of the High Seas Alli­ance. “We’re in the middle of a biod­iversity and cli­mate crisis. We abso­lutely have to pro­tect the ocean to address those crises.”

But even in waters already des­ig­nated as pro­tec­ted, enforce­ment often falls short.

Many coun­tries, France included, face cri­ti­cism from envir­on­mental groups over weak reg­u­la­tion and con­tin­ued indus­trial activ­ity within their mar­ine pro­tec­ted areas.

Sev­eral coun­tries are expec­ted to announce new mar­ine pro­tec­ted areas dur­ing the con­fer­ence, along with bans on bot­tom trawl­ing and other destruct­ive activ­it­ies within their exist­ing MPA net­works.

After Sunday’s parade sail, the “Ocean Won­ders” fleet will remain docked in Nice and open to the pub­lic until the con­fer­ence con­cludes on Fri­day.

`They’ve just taken us back 50 years’

Envir­on­ment­al­ist, First Nations groups decry pro­vin­cial bill to speed devel­op­ment

Critics warn the proposed Bill 5 legislation could destroy habitats of threatened species like the bobolink, above, and curtail consultations with First Nations communities.

This article was written by Kristin Rushowy and Noor Javed, and was published in the Toronto Star on May 18, 2025.

Endangered spe­cies will be at fur­ther risk under a new bill that envir­on­mental groups also say gives the gov­ern­ment too much power to fast­track min­ing and infra­struc­ture projects any­where it wants.

Premier Doug Ford has said that Bill 5 is required to speed up much­needed invest­ments and projects — like the Ring of Fire min­eral site in north­ern Ontario, or even a plan to poten­tially tun­nel under High­way 401 to ease traffic con­ges­tion in Toronto — espe­cially as the province tries to weather ongo­ing eco­nomic threats from the U.S.

Envir­on­ment­al­ists say the pro­posed changes could des­troy endangered spe­cies’ hab­it­ats and cur­tail con­sulta­tions with First Nation com­munit­ies, though the gov­ern­ment says that’s not the case.

Anna Bag­gio, con­ser­va­tion dir­ector for the Wild­lands League, said “the pre­tence is gone — we’re not even try­ing to save spe­cies any­more.

“You don’t even need to be much of an expert to see they’ve just taken us back like 50 years … repeal­ing (the Endangered Spe­cies Act), nar­row­ing the defin­i­tion of hab­itat — basic­ally, for­get sci­ence. This is just a super­charged devel­op­ment agenda.”

The bill would allow the province to cre­ate “spe­cial eco­nomic zones” exempt from the usual laws to get shovels in the ground on projects, which Ford has said can take years to start because of the neces­sary 30­plus per­mits or approvals.

In a state­ment to the Star, the premier’s office said “we are main­tain­ing high envir­on­mental stand­ards, labour laws and duty to con­sult. Any asser­tion oth­er­wise is false,” adding that work­ing with First Nations and com­munit­ies across the province has “never been more import­ant” and will con­tinue.

But oppos­i­tion crit­ics said the gov­ern­ment is doing little to ensure neces­sary safe­guards.

Indi­gen­ous New Demo­crat MPP Sol Mamakwa (Kii­wet­inoong) said the bill should be called “`Ontario first, First Nations last,’ because we are just an after­thought.”

Bill 5, he added, “will severely under­mine con­sti­tu­tion­ally pro­tec­ted Indi­gen­ous rights to con­sulta­tion, accom­mod­a­tion and con­sent for any kind of project before it starts. The very concept of fast­track­ing infra­struc­ture on Indi­gen­ous lands, on our home­lands, con­tra­dicts the legal prin­ciple of free, prior and informed con­sent.”

He said there are many projects in his rid­ing where min­ing com­pan­ies “do not con­sist­ently engage with affected First Nations from the begin­ning of the projects. We have to under­stand that con­sulta­tion is not just check­ing a box.”

New Demo­crat MPP Jamie West (Sud­bury) said there’s noth­ing wrong with a more co­ordin­ated approach for per­mit­ting projects, but there have to be guard­rails.

Last Fri­day, more than 100 envir­on­mental and con­ser­va­tion groups sub­mit­ted a let­ter to the province out­lining their con­cerns. Among the biggest: rede­fin­ing spe­cies “hab­itat” to imme­di­ate dwell­ings like dens and nest­ing sites — which will remove pro­tec­tions from large areas of hab­itat upon which spe­cies depend for sur­vival.

“We can’t sup­port scrap­ping the Endangered Spe­cies Act and bring­ing in an act that just talks about where they live today, right now — it’s like say­ing that your house is pro­tec­ted, but it’s OK if we tear down everything around your house,” West said in the legis­lature.

“… You can’t replace something solid with something incred­ibly watered down. Can you improve it? Yes, abso­lutely. But don’t pre­tend this is improv­ing it. This is des­troy­ing the Endangered Spe­cies Act.”

Giv­ing the province respons­ib­il­ity for provid­ing a list of endangered spe­cies instead of leav­ing that to an inde­pend­ent body is also cause for con­cern, allow­ing developers and industry to poten­tially remove spe­cies at will, mak­ing it impossible to “assess, mit­ig­ate and avoid harms to spe­cies,” said the let­ter.

“Bull­doz­ing their pro­tec­tions is only going to unleash more prob­lems for future gen­er­a­tions,” reads the let­ter signed by groups includ­ing Ontario Nature, the Ontario Biod­iversity Coun­cil and the David Suzuki Found­a­tion.

In a state­ment to the Star, the Min­istry of the Envir­on­ment said the legis­la­tion that replaces the Endangered Spe­cies Act will include “improv­ing enforce­ment to limit activ­it­ies that have neg­at­ive impacts on spe­cies” and “intro­duces tougher pen­al­ties, includ­ing hefty fines, jail time and addi­tional com­pli­ance tools, ensur­ing no tol­er­ance for bad act­ors.”

The gov­ern­ment also plans “an enhanced Spe­cies Con­ser­va­tion Pro­gram, which will dir­ectly invest $20 mil­lion each year in projects to con­serve and pro­tect spe­cies across Ontario, quad­rupling cur­rent fund­ing,” the state­ment said.

The pro­posed Bill 5 legis­la­tion, now at second read­ing and head­ing to a com­mit­tee for input, has also received wide­spread cri­ti­cism from civil rights groups, labour groups and First Nation com­munit­ies.

“This (bill) will give cab­inet the power to ignore laws, skip con­sulta­tion and approve devel­op­ment without con­sulta­tion,” said Cristina McCoy, with McCoy Arche­olo­gical Ser­vices. “It’s say­ing Indi­gen­ous con­sulta­tion is red tape, and envir­on­mental pro­tec­tion is bur­eau­cracy.”

But Ford said last week that “you can’t change (the pro­cess) without work­ing col­lab­or­at­ively with all sorts of sec­tors, groups of people.”

“If we just stand still, we’re dead in the water,” he said.

Eco­nomic Devel­op­ment Min­is­ter Vic Fed­eli has accused the oppos­i­tion of “fear­mon­ger­ing.”

The spe­cial eco­nomic zones, “espe­cially with the Ring of Fire, will help pave the way for these projects to go ahead … You just simply can­not have projects that take 10 or 15 years to come to fruition.”

But the bill “essen­tially gives the cab­inet the power to over­ride any law or change any law … within these zones,” said Laura Bow­man, a law­yer with Eco­justice, an envir­on­mental law char­ity. “And within those zones, to exempt any trus­ted pro­ponent or project from any applic­able law.”

She said that because it is so broad, it could mean that any envir­on­mental, labour or muni­cipal laws could be over­rid­den.

“What we have seen with the Green­belt, (min­is­ter’s zon­ing orders) and Ontario Place, the poten­tial for the law to be abused is very high,” she said, refer­ring to devel­op­ment con­tro­ver­sies the gov­ern­ment has faced.

“The poten­tial for there to be favour­it­ism toward cer­tain groups or cer­tain pro­ponents without any policy rationale … is very high. That is really con­cern­ing.”