Category: The Conversation – Canada

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Evelyn Namakula Mayanja, Assistant Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies, Carleton University

In March 2025, President Félix Tshisekedi of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) offered the country’s critical mineral reserves to the United States and Europe in exchange for security and stability.

At the time, the March 23 (M23) militia insurgency was unleashing violence: killing civilians, committing sexual violence, displacing communities and looting mineral resources. Since 1996, eastern Congo has been engulfed in wars and armed conflicts driven by regional powers and more than 120 armed groups.

The U.S.-brokered peace agreement between Rwanda and the DRC raises critical questions: Is this a genuine path to sustainable peace, or a continuation of U.S. President Donald Trump’s strategy to secure access to critical minerals through coercive diplomacy?

---

Read more:
4 things every peace agreement needs – and how the DRC-Rwanda deal measures up

---

Global arms race for critical minerals

The global shift toward renewable energy, digital infrastructure and military modernization has sparked a geopolitical scramble for critical and rare earth minerals.

In early 2025, Trump signed a series of executive orders that introduced aggressive and imperial-style tactics to secure access to mineral wealth. He threatened Canada with annexation and tariffs, demanded access to Greenland’s resources and linked U.S. support for Ukraine to access to its mineral reserves.

The DRC’s offer must be viewed through this lens of global resource competition.

Congo’s critical mineral wealth

The DRC holds some of the world’s richest deposits of critical minerals and metals. A 2012 article estimated the value of Congo’s untapped mineral wealth at US$24 trillion, a figure nearing the U.S. first-quarter 2025 GDP of $29.962 trillion.

The DRC produces 70 per cent of the world’s cobalt, ranks fourth in copper, sixth in industrial diamonds and also possesses vast reserves of nickel and lithium, including the Manono deposit expected to yield 95,170 tonnes of crude lithium.

But the struggle to control these resources has fuelled a cycle of armed violence, displacement and exploitation. Despite several peace agreements, peace and stability remain elusive.

America’s interests in Congo

U.S. involvement in Congo stretches back to the Cold War, when it played a role in the 1961 assassination of Patrice Lumumba, Congo’s first elected prime minister who sought economic sovereignty.

In 1996, the U.S. was accused of backing Rwanda and Uganda in the initial invasion of eastern Congo. A U.S. diplomat, “Mr. Hankins,” was quoted in Goma saying: “I am here …to represent American interests.”

In 2024, President Joe Biden met Tshisekedi to advance the Lobito Corridor, a strategic trade route to counter China’s dominance in the region. Chinese companies currently control around 80 per cent of Congo’s copper market.

When Trump signed the 2025 peace agreement, he openly stated the U.S. would gain “a lot of mineral rights … foreign trade and investment from the regional critical mineral supply chains.”

U.S.-brokered peace deal

The deal, however, prioritizes America’s access to minerals over the well-being of Congolese citizens. Historically, Congo’s mineral wealth has enriched elites and foreign powers while leaving its people impoverished and vulnerable. The new agreement could entrench existing inequalities and inflame tensions further.

The U.S. has also cut off aid for war survivors, including emergency medical kits and antiretrovirals for rape victims, undermining humanitarian efforts.

Crucially, the agreement overlooks:

• The root causes and drivers of conflict at national, regional and international levels.

• The role of Rwanda and Uganda, whose militaries and intelligence services have long been implicated in supporting groups like M23. Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, son of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, has referred to M23 as “our brothers” and threatened military action in Congo.

• The voices of Congolese civil society, war survivors and the public, who were excluded from the negotiation process.

• State fragility and institutional collapse — major enablers of protracted violence.

• The grievances of Hutu and Tutsi communities in the DRC, deeply rooted in colonial and regional politics.

• The presence of more than 120 armed groups, many of them proxies for foreign powers engaging in what some scholars call “geocriminality.”

Between January and February 2025 alone, more than 7,000 people were killed in the DRC. The United Nations and several human rights organizations have documented mass atrocities, including crimes of genocidal magnitude.

A path toward real peace

The peace agreement fails to demand justice for crimes committed against the Congolese people. Nobel Peace laureate Denis Mukwege condemned the deal for “rewarding aggression, legitimizing the plundering of Congo’s natural resources, and sacrificing justice for a fragile peace.”

It also ignores the roles of international mining corporations and external entities that have long profited from Congo’s instability.

True and lasting peace in the DRC cannot be imposed from the outside. U.S.-led mineral extraction without justice risks deepening the crisis. Since 1999, UN peacekeepers have been deployed in the Congo , yet violence continues.

Sustainable peace will require:

• An end to impunity;

• Thorough investigations into war crimes;

• Regional truth-telling processes;

• Justice and reparations for victims;

• And most importantly, inclusion of Congolese voices in shaping their future.

Without these commitments, the U.S. risks replicating a long history of exploitation, trading in minerals while ignoring the human cost.

Evelyn Namakula Mayanja receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and from Carleton University

– ref. Congo and critical minerals: What are the costs of America’s peace? – https://theconversation.com/congo-and-critical-minerals-what-are-the-costs-of-americas-peace-260567

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Elaine McWhirter, Chair, Melanoma/Skin Disease Site Group, Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton Health Sciences, and Associate Professor, Oncology, McMaster University

There is certainly growing awareness of the damaging effects of overexposure to the sun, including skin cancers.

Still, I see in both my medical practice as a skin cancer specialist and in the course of my research as an associate professor of oncology that there are still many harmful habits and ideas about tanning that still circulate.

As a result, many may think they’re already doing enough to look after themselves and their families when the incidence of skin cancer is actually growing. Clearly, we need to do more to stay safe, and that starts with knowledge.

Perhaps someday, we will look at lying on a beach slathered with oil in the same way we look at smoking cigarettes. Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is also a carcinogen and, like smoking, is a modifiable risk factor for cancer.

Here are some sun facts to think about and act on:

• Being outdoors and in the shade is better than being in the direct sun, but even in the shade, one is still exposed to damaging UV rays, especially if there are nearby reflective surfaces, such as water or sand.

• Sun protection is necessary all year round. Damage can happen when people think July and August are the only months when it’s necessary to pay attention to sun exposure. Hauling out the bike during a winter thaw? Protect yourself. Spring gardening or fall raking and it’s only 10 degrees outside? It’s time for some protection. Check your local weather forecast for the UV index; if it’s three or greater, wear sunscreen.

• Sun exposure is cumulative over the course of a lifetime. If you had too much sun as a child or young adult, it’s even more important to protect yourself over the entire course of your adult life. Having two blistering sunburns as a child or young adult increases the lifetime chance of developing the most harmful form of skin cancer, melanoma, by 10 times.

• Any suntan or sunburn is evidence of sun damage. Developing a tan is the body’s response to harm to the DNA of cells in our skin. The persistent idea of a “healthy tan” is simply incorrect. When I see someone tanning, I see a future with premature wrinkles and risk of skin cancers, including melanoma. A burn is far more damaging. Avoid both.

• While fair-skinned people with red or blonde hair and blue or green eyes are the most susceptible to serious harm from the sun, all people, regardless of their skin, hair or eye colour, are vulnerable and should limit exposure.

• Sunscreen with a sun protection factor (SPF) of 50, applied every two to three hours, starting 30 minutes before exposure, is the most practical protection for exposed skin. Pick something you like, whether a lotion, stick or spray, and be sure to use enough. Reapply more often when you are very active outdoors, and hourly if in water. Remember when applying sunscreen to protect your feet, which is easy to forget in flip flops. I see a lot of ears and back of necks get missed as well!

• Wear a hat, of course, but also choose your hat carefully. Ball caps leave the ears and neck too exposed. The best hats have broad brims that go all the way around the head. The very best hats have a flap in the back that covers the neck.

• It is possible to experience sun damage even through your clothes. Special SPF clothing, made from purposely formulated material and labelled as such, is optimal for reducing sun exposure. A white cotton summer T-shirt offers an SPF of maybe four or five — a small fraction of the protection a good sunscreen or SPF clothing will provide.

• Though sun exposure does provide beneficial Vitamin D, it is better to use Vitamin D supplements year-round — something in the range of 600-800 IU is a good benchmark – rather than risking unprotected sun exposure.

• Using tanning beds is unhealthy and significantly increases the risk of melanoma and other skin cancers. A tanning bed can have a UV index in the 20s. Compare that to natural conditions, where 10 is considered very high.

• Cloud cover is deceptive. While there is a little protection in clouds, it’s less than most think. The sun’s ultraviolet (UV) rays still get through and cause damage. Use sun protection even on cloudy days.

• Protecting children and helping them develop sun awareness is vital. If they are in and out of the water, they will need to reapply sunscreen more often. Babies under six months should not be using sunscreen and are especially vulnerable to sun damage; they should be kept out of direct sunlight. I recommend SPF-fabric covers for playpens and strollers.

• You can still get sun damage while travelling in a car with the windows rolled up. Front windshields do offer some protection, but side windows and even sunroofs, unless specifically tinted to protect from sun damage, can let in harmful UV rays.

• People exposed to the sun at higher altitudes, such as skiers, are receiving more UV exposure than people at lower altitudes and should protect themselves accordingly.

• Skiers, boaters, swimmers and fishers are all more susceptible to sun damage because they are both in the direct path of the sun and receive significant UV exposure from light reflecting off snow or water. Many people describe receiving a windburn from such outdoor activities when what they have is a sunburn.

• People who swim outdoors should seriously consider a special swimming shirt — like a rash guard or board shirt that surfers use — made from swimsuit fabric with SPF.

Remember to check your skin monthly for skin cancer using the ABCDE rule. Our warm weather season is short, and it’s important to enjoy the outdoors. The point isn’t to be sun-scared — just stay sun-safe.

Elaine McWhirter has participated in advisory boards for BMS, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis,Regeron and Sanofi. She was a Board member of Melanoma Canada from 2015-2024.

– ref. Sun advice from a skin cancer researcher and physician – https://theconversation.com/sun-advice-from-a-skin-cancer-researcher-and-physician-260749

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Andy Curtis, Distinguished Guest Professor, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, City University of Macau

Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered is the title of the highly influential 1973 book written by the German-born British economist E.F. Schumacher.

The book marked its 50th anniversary in 2023, but a couple of years later, we find ourselves in a time where “big is best,” at least according to the 47th president of the United States, Donald Trump, and his administration.

The most recent example of their the-bigger-the-better mentality is the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill that recently became law.

Understandably, the focus in the extensive news coverage of the nearly 900-page document has been on the contents of the bill, especially the economic implications for American citizens, institutions and organizations.

But very little attention has been paid to the actual language of the bill, not least because, well, who has the time to pore over 900 pages of language?

Linguistic analysis

This is where a new kind of political language analysis can help.

In my 2022 book, I deconstructed and analyzed the speeches of past American presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden. In my subsequent 2024 book, I subjected five of Trump’s major campaign speeches to an in-depth level of linguistic analysis that had not been applied before.

One of the findings of my 10 years of analyzing Trump speeches since 2015, when he famously announced his plans to run for the presidency while riding on a golden escalator, is how effective the advice was of his former adviser, Steve Bannon. He reportedly told Trump in 2018 “to flood the zone with shit.”

In other words, Bannon was advising Trump to ensure there was so much information, disinformation and misinformation coming from the Trump campaign that neither the political opposition nor the media could keep up with it.

And even if they tried, distinguishing fact from fiction and disentangling exaggeration and bombastic hyperbole from carefully calculated lies became an insurmountable task even for the most dedicated of investigative journalists, including Canadian-born Daniel Dale.

Why another four years?

Applying Schumacher’s idea that “small is beautiful” to language analysis is one way of countering the kind of deliberate language overload employed by the Trump administration.

Taking small but complete slices of language and subjecting them to a new kind of forensic, linguistic analysis can help us understand, in this case, why more than 77 million American voters decided that what their country and the world needed was another Trump presidency. What role did Trump’s language play in that outcome?

An example of a small but complete piece of language is the official announcement of the One Big Beautiful Bill on the White House website on July 7.

The announcement was entitled: “President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill: A Win for Workers, Farmers, and America’s Future.”

The first thing to notice is what this is not. It is not presented as a bill passed by the U.S. government or even the Republican Party. It is Trump’s bill, which may be a small but clear, concise example of the ways in which a nation’s government can be reduced to a single person, like autocratic dictatorships and absolutemonarchies.

Then there is the title of the legislation, which has been described as “absurd” and therefore easy to dismiss. But the three-B alliteration is nonetheless catchy, which makes it memorable and all the more irresistible to the world’s mainstream media.

The title also identifies three supposedly big winners in the bill: American workers, American farmers and America the Beautiful.

Stoking fears

“Winner takes all” appears to be the mantra of the second Trump administration, but it’s important to notice the exclusions of large groups, including those who live in the U.S. but aren’t working — like children, retirees and the unemployed, which is the majority of citizens — and those who aren’t farmers, which is more than 99 per cent of all Americans.

It’s also critical to be aware of the aggrandizing and misleading language of the bill. The introductory paragraph on the page announcing the bill describes it as a “sweeping legislative triumph” — despite the fact that the legislation passed by a single vote — while referring to “the largest tax cuts in history” and “historic funding for national security.”

The recurring references to American history are at odds with the fact that Trump lacks knowledge of both U.S. and world history, which has been on display many times over many years.

The introductory paragraph also highlights the importance of “America’s defences” and “our nation’s defence,” which continue to give the impression that the U.S. is a country under siege and vulnerable to attack from various enemies at any time. But given how much the U.S. spends on its military, there is probably no other country in the world more capable of defending itself.

But the language is the point. By constantly repeating the “we are under attack” line, fear is effectively created and maintained, especially the fear of anyone who doesn’t look or sound like Trump and his followers.

Using words to manipulate

Keeping with the wartime-like language, the introduction claims that the One Big Beautiful Bill “unleashes economic prosperity and empowers every American.” Such statements are already being shown to be untrue, as many millions of American are likely to be severely, negatively impacted by the legislation.

The introduction is followed by 10 statements that are, in effect, “product endorsements” published in obscure, pro-Trump media, like The National Hog Farmer, all expressing gushing enthusiasm and unqualified support for the points made in the introduction.

This new kind of in-depth linguistic analyses of the language of the world’s most powerful people can help us move beyond their obviously false and misleading statements and claims, to become more aware of how their words may be being used not to communicate — but to manipulate.

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

– ref. Big Beautiful Bill: Why Donald Trump is obsessed with the manipulative language of size – https://theconversation.com/big-beautiful-bill-why-donald-trump-is-obsessed-with-the-manipulative-language-of-size-259358

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Louis Busch, Psychotherapist, Doctoral Candidate (UofT OISE), Bear Clan Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation., University of Toronto

For nearly two decades, I worked as a therapist in a large psychiatric hospital in Toronto, supporting people living with severe mental health challenges. Many of those I encountered were navigating complex intersections of psychiatric diagnoses, chronic physical illness, poverty, and the breakdown of family and social support. Stories of fear, isolation, abuse and abandonment were pervasive.

Occasionally, I witnessed transformative outcomes; patients reconnecting with loved ones, reclaiming aspects of their identity and building meaningful lives beyond their diagnoses. Unfortunately, such outcomes were typically the exception. More commonly, individuals cycled through repeated hospitalizations, and were placed in institutional or custodial settings. Some lost their lives before they got any better.

While our mental health system certainly fails people of all backgrounds, I observed a unique disservice done to the Black, brown and Indigenous patients I encountered.

---

Read more:
Racism impacts your health

---

The system seems designed to fail them not only in its methodology, but also in the basic values it is built upon.

Within my own journey of mental health recovery, I found healing alongside helpers across Turtle Island, rather than within the confines of a mental health institution or pages of a manualized treatment protocol.

It’s common for First Nations Peoples to refer to “helpers” or “helping work” when describing individuals who provide relationally-based support to others. As a community psychotherapist and later PhD student, I became increasingly interested in these helpers as unsung heroes of community wellness. They didn’t necessarily have a graduate degree in a mental health field, and they were rarely recognized or compensated for their efforts, yet they made great personal sacrifices to support the healing journeys of those around them.

Who are Indigenous helpers?

My doctoral research investigates who these Indigenous helpers are, the nature of their helping work and the role of language and dialogue in the relationships they form with those they help.

Here is what I’ve learned so far:

1. Knowledge is defined by lived experience
Indigenous helpers are individuals who emerge naturally from within their families and communities rather than being self-appointed professionals or receiving accreditation from a college or certification board. Their knowledge and skill is defined by their lived experiences, their kinship obligations and the trust placed in them by their community. They seamlessly blend practical support such as caregiving and crisis intervention with relational and spiritual guidance rooted in ancestral values and traditions.

2. Helping work is holistic and relational
Helping work is a holistic, relational practice rooted in cultural values and kinship responsibility. It involves a continuous, reciprocal process of healing, where the act of helping heals the helper, their relative and the collective. Helping work is guided by an ethic of relational accountability and powered time spent together and deep, action-based dialogue. It integrates physical, emotional, cognitive and spiritual dimensions through storytelling, presence and joint engagement in work, rest, play and ceremony. It is a long-term process that is highly contextual and nonlinear.

3. Language is medicine
Indigenous languages hold the blueprint for helping and healing work. Embedded within Indigenous languages are complex relational networks that shape how people understand themselves, their families, their worlds, and their roles within the broader community. While English is an analytic, noun-based language, Nêhîyawêwin (the Cree language) and many other Indigenous languages are polysynthetic, verb-based and highly contextual. This linguistic structure encodes kinship ties, responsibility and ways of being in relation to others (human and non-human).

Cree protectors and caretakers

One powerful example of the complexity of Indigenous languages comes from the words used to describe “Elders,” which is often a point of contention, as the English word doesn’t capture what people are trying to say when referring to the helper-leaders in our communities.

The Nêhîyawêwin (Plains Cree) word for an Elder is kisêyiniw. This is often translated simply as “old man,” but in reality carries a much deeper meaning.

The root kisê- comes from the Cree word ê-kisêt, which describes an animal feigning injury to protect its young. The second root -niw- means “a person,” making kisêyiniw not just an old man, but a protector and a caretaker who sacrifices for future generations.

Kisêyiniw describes those who embody relational responsibility: protecting, guiding and enduring suffering for the well-being of others. So rather than just being an aged person, or even an aged person who has wisdom or leadership qualities, the word kisêyiniw describes those who embody relational responsibility — protecting, guiding and enduring suffering for the well-being of others.

This contrasting of meaning reveals how the Cree language structures identity, healing and responsibility in ways that the English translation fails to capture.

A child forced to cease speaking their native language, and speak only English, would lose all of the values and meaning that exist within the relational networks that comprise the word and its concepts, and be left with a simple arbitrary label. I believe this to be at the core of much of the intergenerational suffering found in the wake of the Indian Residential School system.

Culturally specific mental health care

This is one of the reasons Indigenous-led approaches must reclaim language as central to healing, recognizing that Indigenous languages hold entire systems of wellness, governance, relationship and emotional regulation.

Truly culturally responsive care must prioritize language revitalization, ceremony and kinship-based care as core practices.

Funders, policymakers, researchers and clinicians must recognize, fund and integrate Indigenous helpers — Elders, ceremonial leaders, traditional knowledge keepers and natural helpers identified by their communities — as core mental health providers, not cultural add-ons.

Governments, universities and regulatory bodies must remove barriers preventing Indigenous helpers from full participation in mental health professions. Efforts to include Indigenous helpers should avoid forcing Indigenous helping practices into western psychotherapy models with strict, compartmentalized boundaries.

Instead, we must restore intergenerational, kinship-based healing through relationships, ceremony, land-based practices and daily caregiving.

Genuinely culturally responsive and anti-colonial mental health care requires shifting resources and power back to Indigenous helpers, languages and communities.

Louis Busch receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), including a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship and a SSHRC Impact Award.

– ref. ‘Indigenous helpers’ are essential to culturally responsive mental health care – https://theconversation.com/indigenous-helpers-are-essential-to-culturally-responsive-mental-health-care-249128

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Treena Orchard, Associate Professor, School of Health Studies, Western University

With plummeting subscriber numbers, rising costs and users who are sick of endless swiping, the dating app industry is in crisis. Recent layoffs at Bumble are raising questions about the future of dating apps and alternatives for people who want to find romance and connection offline instead.

One of the most popular alternatives is a return to in-person dating activities like speed dating, running clubs and daytime raves.

For millennials and older generations, in-person dating is familiar territory, but if you’re part of Gen Z — often described as the “digital generation” — that isn’t necessarily the case.

This inter-generational divide was on display recently at Canada’s first sex tech conference, where I made a presentation on masculinity, dating apps and in-person alternatives to swiping. During the Q&A, a young woman chimed in with a comment that stopped me in my tracks: “Check your extrovert privilege,” she said.

After a few moments of awkward silence, the discussion resumed with a new focus on how difficult it is for younger folks to date in-person. Many of you are disillusioned with dating apps and lack the interpersonal experience some of us older generations take for granted.

So where does that leave you? Telling Gen Z to just “get out there” is not only culturally tone-deaf, but it could also contribute to rising levels of loneliness and feelings of not mattering that already affect many young people today.

---

Dating today can feel like a mix of endless swipes, red flags and shifting expectations. From decoding mixed signals to balancing independence with intimacy, relationships in your 20s and 30s come with unique challenges. Love IRL is the latest series from Quarter Life that explores it all.

These research-backed articles break down the complexities of modern love to help you build meaningful connections, no matter your relationship status.

---

In-person dating is trending

If dating apps are starting to feel more like a chore than a chance at connection, you’re not alone. A New York Times article by reporter Catherine Pearson encourages Gen Z to create meaningful communities and be open to different kinds of relationships versus the pressure-laden focus to find “the one.”

Some dating apps have joined the movement to support in-person dating. For example, Hinge hosts One More Hour, a social impact initiative to help people make in-person connections. It’s aimed at Gen Z, many of whom report anxiety around face-to-face interactions.

The hyper-digitized environment many Gen Z are a part of can feel pretty disingenuous over time, which makes connecting with someone at a park, bar or library refreshing and novel.

Meet-cutes in physical places can also take frustrating app-based practices like catfishing out of the equation. Interestingly, 38 per cent of Gen Z polled in a recent survey expressed a desire to have designated spaces for hookups and self-love at work.

How one organization is re-thinking dating

Although not specifically for Gen Z, another noteworthy force in the in-person dating landscape is the relationship-building organization called We Met IRL, founded in 2022 by entrepreneur Maxine Simone Williams.

Born out of frustration with dating apps and the lack of diversity in traditional dating spaces, We Met IRL hosts speed dating events, mixers and social gatherings that encourage romantic or platonic connections offline.

The desire for in-person romance among Gen Z is beginning to shift the cultural needle, at least in the United States where a recent survey indicates that only 23 per cent of Gen Z adults met their partner through a dating app, social media or online community.

So, if a lot of these young people are already dating in-person, why is it often spoken about as being hard or stressful?

In-person dating is hard

Dating in-person can be challenging for a number of reasons. Key culprits include the fact that dating apps focus on performative and inauthentic forms of communication, the challenges of coming-of-age during the pandemic and the cultural shift away from relationships all together.

A study I conducted with Gen Z students also highlighted the reasons behind the decline of relationships. Gen Z want meaningful partnerships, but fear getting cheated on, ghosted or emotionally hurt.

Socio-cultural factors like the retreat of men from intimacy and vulnerability also feed into the dismantling of traditional relationship structures and gender relations more broadly. These shifts have a cascading effect on younger generations and boys, in particular, are described as being “lost” and less emotionally resilient.

The rise of misogynistic influencers and politicians openly denigrating women as part of their radicalization of boys and young men is only making things worse.

And yes, some of the awkwardness around in-person dating might come down to what that young woman called “extrovert privilege.” A recent study found that Gen Z are more shy than other generations but not for no reason. Growing up immersed in smartphone technology and social media means Gen Z have had fewer opportunities to develop interpersonal skills.

In-person dating can be hard, but not because there’s something wrong with you or because there are fewer good catches out there. It’s hard because connection, trust and vulnerability are difficult in a complex world that doesn’t always create the space you need to learn about relationships and interpersonal communication.

How to build confidence with in-person dating

As a formerly painfully shy young person, I can say with confidence that the categories of introvert and extrovert are not written in stone. There is ample evidence to show that Gen Zers who are less confident in the realm of romance can learn to enhance their in-person skills and reduce anxiety around social events.

Here are seven tips from licensed counsellors for ways to build your in-person skills:

1. Prepare for the event ahead of time when possible.

2. Reframe how you view and feel about uncertainty — not as a threat, but as an opportunity for growth.

3. Stay grounded in who you are.

4. Practise social skills to gain confidence.

5. Pay attention to your body language — to make sure you appear open and welcoming.

6. Remind yourself you’re not the only one struggling with feeling confident.

7. Consider seeking the help of a therapist if fear or anxiety is overwhelming.

Reframing your vulnerability as being less about your ingrained tendencies and more an opportunity for you to reflect on who you area as a social being is one of the most powerful things you can do.

Tools like reflexive vision boards or self-reflection exercises can help you explore your values, goals and identity in meaningful ways. These reflective practices are even more effective when supported by schools, communities or organizations that can help young people turn moments of risk or fear into opportunities for personal exploration.

Building resilience is like building muscle: it needs to be exercised and challenged to grow into the resource we need it to be. With the right support and space to practice, you can build the kind of confidence and self-awareness that carries into every part of your life, not just dating.

Treena Orchard has received funding from SSHRC, CIHR, and Western University, however, no research funding was awarded or used in the creation of this article.

– ref. Why in-person dating is making a comeback — and why Gen Z is struggling with it – https://theconversation.com/why-in-person-dating-is-making-a-comeback-and-why-gen-z-is-struggling-with-it-257210

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Neil McArthur, Director, Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics, University of Manitoba

People are falling in love with their chatbots. There are now dozens of apps that offer intimate companionship with an AI-powered bot, and they have millions of users. A recent survey of users found that 19 per cent of Americans have interacted with an AI meant to simulate a romantic partner.

The response has been polarizing. In a New Yorker article titled “Your A.I. Lover Will Change You,” futurist Jaron Lanier argued that “when it comes to what will happen when people routinely fall in love with an A.I., I suggest we adopt a pessimistic estimate about the likelihood of human degradation.”

Podcaster Joe Rogan put it more succinctly — in a recent interview with Sen. Bernie Sanders, the two discussed the “dystopian” prospect of people marrying their AIs. Noting a case where this has already happened, Rogan said: “I’m like, oh, we’re done. We’re cooked.”

We’re probably not cooked. Rather, we should consider accepting human-AI relationships as beneficial and healthy. More and more people are going to form such relationships in the coming years, and my research in sexuality and technology indicates it is mostly going to be fine.

Ruining human connection

When surveying the breathless media coverage, the main concern raised is that chatbots will spoil us for human connection. How could we not prefer their cheerful personalities, their uncomplicated affection and their willingness to affirm everything we say?

The fear is that, seduced by such easy companionship, many people will surely give up their desire to find human partners, while others will lose their ability to form satisfying human relationships even if they want to.

It has been less than three years since the launch of ChatGPT and other chatbots based on large language models. That means we can only speculate about the long-term effects of AI-human relationships on our capacity for intimacy. There is little data to support either side of the debate, though we can do our best to make sense of more short-term studies and other pieces of available evidence.

There are certain risks that we do know about already, and we should take them seriously. For instance, we know that AI companion apps have terrible privacy policies. Chatbots can encourage destructive behaviours. Tragically, one may have played a role in a teenager’s suicide.

The companies that provide these apps can go out of business, or they can change their terms of service without warning. This can suddenly deprive users of access to technology that they’ve become emotionally attached, with no recourse or support.

Complex relationships

In assessing the dangers of relationships with AI, however, we should remember that human relationships are not exactly risk-free. One recent paper concluded that “the association between relationship distress and various forms of psychopathology is as strong as many other well-known predictors of mental illness.”

This is not to say we should swap human companions for AI ones. We just need to keep in mind that relationships can be messy, and we are always trying to balance the various challenges that come with them. AI relationships are no different.

We should also remember that just because someone forms an intimate bond with a chatbot, that doesn’t mean it will be their only close relationship. Most people have lots of different people in their lives, who play a variety of different roles. Chatbot users may depend on their AI companions for support and affirmation, while still having relationships with humans that provide different kinds of challenges and rewards.

Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg has suggested that AI companions may help solve the problem of loneliness. However, there is some (admittedly very preliminary data) to suggest that many of the people who form connections with chatbots are not just trying to escape loneliness.

In a recent study (which has not yet been peer reviewed), researchers found that feelings of loneliness did not play a measurable role in someone’s desire to form a relationship with an AI. Instead, the key predictor seemed to be a desire to explore romantic fantasies in a safe environment.

Support and safety

We should be willing to accept AI-human relationships without judging the people who form them. This follows a general moral principle that most of us already accept: we should respect the choices people make about their intimate lives when those choices don’t harm anyone else. However, we can also take steps to ensure that these relationships are as safe and satisfying as possible.

First of all, governments should implement regulations to address the risks we know about already. They should, for instance, hold companies accountable when their chatbots suggest or encourage harmful behaviour.

Governments should also consider safeguards to restrict access by younger users, or at least to control the behaviour of chatbots who are interacting with young people. And they should mandate better privacy protections — though this is a problem that spans the entire tech industry.

---

Read more:
Teenagers turning to AI companions are redefining love as easy, unconditional and always there

---

Second, we need public education so people understand exactly what these chatbots are and the issues that can arise with their use. Everyone would benefit from full information about the nature of AI companions but, in particular, we should develop curricula for schools as soon as possible.

While governments may need to consider some form of age restriction, the reality is that large numbers of young people are already using this technology, and will continue to do so. We should offer them non-judgmental resources to help them navigate their use in a manner that supports their well-being, rather than stigmatizes their choices.

AI lovers aren’t going to replace human ones. For all the messiness and agony of human relationships, we still (for some reason) pursue other people. But people will also keep experimenting with chatbot romances, if for no other reason than they can be a lot of fun.

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

– ref. More people are considering AI lovers, and we shouldn’t judge – https://theconversation.com/more-people-are-considering-ai-lovers-and-we-shouldnt-judge-260631

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Zhanna Lyubykh, Assistant Professor, Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University

About one in four employees has a diagnosable mental health condition, and up to 65 per cent say mental health concerns interfere with their ability to work.

The economic toll is staggering. In the United States alone, mental health concerns cost over $280 billion annually. Worldwide, that figure reaches an estimated US$1 trillion annually.

Mental health is increasingly being recognized as critical to workplace functioning. Organizations invest substantial resources in wellness programs, mental health training and employee assistance programs. Some even offer on-site therapy sessions at no cost to their employees.

Yet despite these efforts, many employees remain hesitant to seek help or disclose their mental health conditions. This reluctance can leave employees under-supported and contribute to increased absenteeism and turnover. Those who choose not to disclose often miss out on access to workplace accommodations and support, which can exacerbate their conditions and even increase the risk of job loss.

Disclosure can be a gateway to vital support, but questions remain about how to facilitate such disclosures. Our research, recently published as an open-access article, shows the decision to disclose a mental health condition isn’t purely personal and can depend on the broader workplace environment.

Supportive workplaces lead to better mental health

Across two samples, we surveyed 1,232 employees from Canada and the U.S. We recruited participants from Qualtrics, an online panel provider, and a large financial institution in Canada that operates across multiple locations. We asked employees — both with and without mental health concerns — to indicate the extent to which they perceived their organization as supportive of disclosing mental health concerns.

Employees with mental health concerns shared whether they had disclosed their condition to their employer, how willing they were to disclose in the future, their levels of anxiety and depression, and a range of work-related attitudes and behaviours.

We found that a work environment that was safe and supported the disclosure of mental health concerns was extremely beneficial for both employees and organizations.

First, employees working in highly supportive environments were 55 per cent more likely to disclose their mental health concerns. These environments were also linked to greater willingness to disclose current or potential mental health concerns.

Second, supportive environments were associated with lower levels of anxiety and depression, both of which are important indicators of mental health. This suggests that organizations can contribute to employee mental health by fostering supportive environments.

Third, employees who felt their organization supported disclosure reported higher job satisfaction, greater work engagement, and more organizational citizenship behaviours, such as helping co-workers or going above and beyond their job duties. These kinds of behaviours help create healthy, high-performing workplaces.

In one of our samples, we matched employee responses with their organizational records of absenteeism. We found that when employees rated their organizational environment as supportive of mental health disclosure, they were less likely to miss work due to illness.

Supporting mental health disclosure

Our study identified three elements of a workplace that support mental health disclosure. The first is the absence of stigma and anticipated discrimination. Many employees choose to conceal their concerns because they are fearful of being stigmatized, facing unfair treatment or being passed over for promotions.

Employees often pick up on subtle cues in their environment — consciously or not — to estimate the risk of stigma. If they observe colleagues with disclosed mental health conditions being treated negatively, this signals low organizational support and makes disclosure appear risky.

The second element is the availability of organizational resources. Disclosing one’s mental health concerns should unlock access to organizational supports, such as time off or counselling programs. These supports need to be tangible and go beyond mere mentions in the employee handbook. Employees form perceptions about how seriously their organization takes mental health based on whether these resources are present and accessible.

The third element is the presence of social support. Our research found that social support was an important indicator of informal culture around mental health concerns. Such support may include emotional support from peers or supervisors, and the ability to openly discuss mental health.

Employees notice whether, and how, mental health is discussed at work. When employees are encouraged to talk openly about it, the workplace appears more conducive to disclosure. In contrast, when concerns are dismissed or met with unhelpful advice such as “stay positive” or “toughen up,” the environment is unlikely to be seen as supportive.

How organizations can support disclosure

Our research points to four main strategies organizations can use to foster an environment that signals support for disclosing mental health concerns.

1. Identify areas for improvement.

Our research provides a list of survey items that organizations can use to track employee perceptions and identify priority areas for improvement. For example, employees might be asked whether they feel safe disclosing a mental health concern, or whether they believe the organization responds supportively when others do. These items can be include in annual employee surveys, with anonymity ensured to encourage honest responses.

2. Combat stigma by role modelling.

Workplace leaders are well-positioned to make positive change and role model appropriate behaviours. Employees often look to leaders and model their behaviour. Providing leaders with training about implicit biases, and equipping them with tools to provide support to employees with mental health concerns, can help start the cycle of positive change. Leaders who receive mental health training tend to be more supportive, more likely to encourage disclosure and are better able to guide employees toward appropriate help.

3. Make resources visible and easily accessible.

Even when organizations have resources available, employees may not know about them or may find them difficult to access. Organizations and managers need to frequently communicate about the availability of mental health resources and ensure they are easy to access. Red tape and bureaucracy can deter employees from accessing organizational supports.

4. Talk openly about mental health.

Talking about mental health can help normalize it and encourage employees to share their concerns. This can include intentionally creating opportunities for such discussions, such as mental health days. In addition, when senior leaders share their experiences with mental health concerns, it can help normalize such discussions.

Ultimately, a disclosure-supportive environment benefits employee mental health and encourages positive work behaviours. In other words, when employees feel safe enough to speak up, both employees and organizations benefit from it.

Zhanna Lyubykh receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Justin Weinhardt receives funding fromHaskayne School of Business’s Future Fund, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

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

– ref. Why employees hesitate to disclose mental health concerns – and what employers can do about it – https://theconversation.com/why-employees-hesitate-to-disclose-mental-health-concerns-and-what-employers-can-do-about-it-261158

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sam Routley, PhD Candidate, Political Science, Western University

Prime Minister Mark Carney has suggested a new trade deal with the United States is now most likely to include tariffs. There is, in his own words, “not a lot of evidence right now” that the Donald Trump administration is willing to stand down from imposing levies on Canadian imports.

In making this acknowledgement, Carney has backed down from his previous insistence that Canada would “fight to bring these tariffs to an end.”

But rather than continuing to retaliate with tariffs of its own, the government has begun to confess that such a tactic may be a losing battle.

Carney has instead announced Canada will restrict the tariff-free import of cheap, foreign steel to help domestic manufacturers reeling from American tariffs.

In the wake of the federal government’s recent concession on the Digital Services Tax levied against big American tech companies, it’s another indicator that — unlike the hawkish “elbows up” rhetoric used throughout the federal election campaign — the Canadian government has taken on a more conciliatory tone in advance of the Aug. 1 deadline for a new economic and security deal between Canada and the U.S..

Dual purposes

The timing of Carney’s comments can be interpreted two ways.

Their first and primary purpose is about message control and the need to manage expectations. In announcing this now, the government is not only better able to keep its justification for conceding to Trump at the forefront of media narratives, but it can also prepare Canadians for any further potential concessions in the course of trade negotiations.

The fact that these comments were made prior to a cabinet meeting could be seen as Carney’s attempt to isolate any cabinet ministers who may still favour a more aggressive stance.

More substantively, however, the pivot is also a reflection of the realities of both Canada’s actual position vis-à-vis the U.S. and the pragmatism needed to accomplish real trade agreements.

---

Read more:
U.S. tariff threat: How it will impact different products and industries

---

Although Trump is unpredictable, it increasingly seems that levies on imports are among his genuinely held and signature policy commitments. As Carney noted, the administration’s recent trade deals with both the United Kingdom and Vietnam included tariffs. And, despite the president’s talk of annexing Canada, Carney’s new stance suggests a more reasonable, albeit very costly, deal is possible — even amid Trump’s bluster.

Still, for all the attention they’ve received, tariffs are only part of the ongoing negotiations on the economic and security deal.

What does Trump want?

The U.S. administration, for example, continues to justify higher tariff threats not just for economic purposes, but ostensibly to counter the illegal drug trade.

The fact that the Canadian government has already allotted $1 billion to border defence makes it difficult to assess what would satisfy American negotiators.

More broadly, Trump has expressed a desire to push Canada for changes in security, supply management of the dairy industry, fresh water use and access to rare earth minerals, among others.

---

Read more:
Zombie water apocalypse: Is Trump’s rhetoric over Canada’s water science-fiction or reality?

---

Regardless of how the trade talks proceed in the coming weeks, though, the domestic consequences for Carney will be determined by how willing Canadians are to continue trusting and supporting him.

On the one hand, his comments that tariff-free trade deals with the U.S. aren’t realistic could be costly given the fact that more than two-thirds of Canadians continue to favour a hard-line stance with little to no concessions on key files.

This could result in voters viewing Carney as weak and shifting their support to other leaders. No incumbent stands to benefit from the detrimental effects on economic growth, investments and employment rate Trump’s tariffs will cause.

But support also depends on Carney’s legitimacy. He could maintain public support despite the fact that, on paper, they oppose his actions. Taking a “hard” versus “soft” line in negotiations is itself an ambiguous and fluid set of designations.

A major reason why Canadians elected Carney is because they viewed him as having sound personal judgment and the skill set to deal with Trump. This is why, rather than challenging the value of the decision to compromise on tariffs, the Conservatives and other opponents have focused on conveying him as an unreliable and dishonest leader.

What’s ahead for federal politics?

At this point, polls suggest that Canadians are generally split down the middle on Carney. While around 50 per cent of Canadians are supportive, the other half remain divided between those strongly opposed and those with a more ambiguous position.

Could Carney win over the support of those with an unambiguous view? It seems unlikely. Leaders are the usually the most impactful when they enter office. And while rally-around-the-flag effects are real, they are short-lived. That means the long-term challenge for Carney remains maintaining the support of the voters that brought him to power.

---

Read more:
How Canadian nationalism is evolving with the times — and will continue to do so

---

The Canada-U.S. relationship will continue to develop in a dynamic and unpredictable fashion, even if the economic and security deal is reached soon.

After voters dramatically consolidated around the Liberals and Conservatives in the 2025 election, the most important question for federal Canadian politics moving forward in this shifting global environment is which electoral coalition will endure.

Carney seeks to preserve trust, while the Conservatives search for a compelling alternative. Who will come out on top in the Trump 2.0 era?

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

– ref. Elbows down? Why Mark Carney seems to keep caving to Donald Trump – https://theconversation.com/elbows-down-why-mark-carney-seems-to-keep-caving-to-donald-trump-261304

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jamie Benham, Endocrinologist & Assistant Professor, Departments of Medicine and Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary

Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) is a hormonal imbalance that affects ovaries, periods and fertility in about one in 10 Canadian women. Different from ovarian cysts, PCOS is associated with infertility, pregnancy complications, heart disease and a general decreased quality of life, and yet fewer than half of those affected even know they have it.

This under-recognition and under-diagnosis is a significant problem, because a recent Canadian study suggests these women are 20 to 40 per cent more likely to experience negative health outcomes during their lifetime than the general population, including hypertension (high blood pressure), kidney disease, gastrointestinal disease, eating disorders, depression and anxiety.

Heart disease risk

The Canadian researchers also found obesity, dyslipidemia (abnormal levels of fat in your blood) and Type 2 diabetes to be two to three times more common for women with PCOS. And most importantly, cardiovascular disease, which causes heart failure and stroke, was not only 30 to 50 per cent more likely, but occurred three to four years earlier than average in women with PCOS.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide, so when PCOS symptoms are missed and untreated, women’s health is at risk.

High cost

There is undoubtedly a personal cost to individual women, both physically and mentally, and living with PCOS can be a significant financial, health-care and work-life burden for many women, too, which may disproportionately affect those in lower socioeconomic groups.

These experiences are further compounded by a system failure to properly diagnose and manage their symptoms. Women report doctors ignoring or dismissing their concerns, not believing them and struggling to make a diagnosis. In fact, a large international survey reported it can take several months, and even several years, before women are diagnosed.

Common PCOS symptoms

PCOS symptoms can vary between different women, but it is important to discuss the possibility of PCOS with your doctor, because careful management and/or treatment can help protect against developing more serious related health issues. Common symptoms include:

• Irregular periods
• Excess body hair, called hirsutism (usually darker hair on the face, arms, chest or abdomen)
• Thinning or loss of hair (like excess body hair, this is caused by high levels of male hormones, or androgens)
• Acne and/or oily skin
• Weight gain

Managing and treating PCOS

Despite PCOS first being diagnosed almost a century ago, there is no single test to confirm whether a woman has it, and there is no cure. If your doctor suspects you may have PCOS, they may order blood work to check your hormone levels and an ultrasound to check your ovaries.

Unlike ovarian cysts, which are fluid-filled sacs that develop on or inside an ovary and can be painful, polycystic ovaries are enlarged, with multiple follicles that can be seen on ultrasound.

If PCOS is diagnosed, further testing for cholesterol and glucose levels is likely in order to manage heart disease and diabetes risk.

Researchers also suggest ways women with PCOS can help manage their condition, which include:

• Eating a healthy diet
• Exercising regularly (including strength training with weights)
• Sleeping for at least seven hours each night
• Reducing stress (work-life balance; deep breathing exercises)
• Relaxing in your favourite way (such as yoga, mindfulness and meditation, hobbies)

PCOS research underway

Despite the current problems, improvement is possible, and there have been sustained efforts in recent years — all over the world — to advocate for women with this condition and invest in PCOS research.

In 2023, an International PCOS Guideline, led from Australia, was published. It recommends an individualized approach to PCOS treatment, including lifestyle modifications (for example, healthy eating and exercising), medical management to treat symptoms and regular checkups to provide support and screen for related complications.

In Canada, the province of Alberta recently launched a much-needed clinical pathway to recognize, treat and advocate for PCOS that could be adopted more widely.

At the University of Calgary, Dr. Jamie Benham, one of the authors of this story, leads EMBRACE (Endocrine, Metabolic and Reproductive Advancements), a new women’s health research lab where a team of clinical researchers is focusing on reproductive disorders across the whole of a woman’s life system, including PCOS and gestational diabetes.

This work, supporting patients’ PCOS care, includes a current online needs-assessment survey, and focus groups beginning later this year, to inform the development of a co-designed patient tool to support PCOS management.

Patient engagement

With such a huge demand for answers, the EMBRACE team works closely with a PCOS Patient Advisory Council, chaired by Robyn Vettese, another author of this story, to uncover complex connections between hormones and health, promote screening, find solutions and provide answers. Importantly, the lab’s research questions come directly from clinic patients, and the answers the lab finds go back to those patients and are then shared more widely.

Other recent PCOS advocacy events include Dr. Benham’s presentation at the inaugural Sex, Gender and Women’s Health Research Hub’s Women’s Health Symposium event in Calgary, and her interview with the Libin Cardiovascular Institute.

PCOS awareness

Another exciting research program in Alberta is PCOS Together. Researchers with this group are working to establish methods that will detect early disease risk in all women with PCOS, as well as clinical interventions that will help prevent disease in high-risk women.

Similar organizations exist in the United Kingdom and Australia, including Verity PCOS, a volunteer-based charity, and Ask PCOS, a researcher- and clinician-led organization. Both organizations provide a wealth of information online.

This is a critical (albeit often overlooked) area of women’s health that needs greater awareness and attention so that we can improve and save women’s lives.

Jamie Benham receives funding from the M.S.I. Foundation, Diabetes Canada, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Robyn Vettese receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

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

– ref. Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a big threat to women’s health, but it’s still under-recognized, under-diagnosed and under-treated – https://theconversation.com/polycystic-ovary-syndrome-pcos-is-a-big-threat-to-womens-health-but-its-still-under-recognized-under-diagnosed-and-under-treated-259602

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Meaghan Efford, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia

Burrard Inlet, known traditionally as səl̓ilwəɬ (Tsleil-Wat) in the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ language, has been the heart of the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the səl̓ilwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh Nation) since time immemorial.

The inlet is a water system that wraps through and around what we now know today as the city of Vancouver on the coast of British Columbia. The ecosystem is home to essential habitat for species like Pacific herring, Pacific salmon and harbour seals.

Burrard Inlet is also host to many commercial, industrial and urban developments and interests. This includes the Port of Vancouver, one of the largest marine ports in Canada and the terminal end of the Trans Mountain Pipeline. Today, more than 2.5 million people call the area home and it’s a popular tourism spot.

This is relatively new, however. Colonization and urbanization have caused intense change and damage since Europeans first settled in the area in around 1792, with most changes occurring since the 1880s.

Through a collaborative research project between the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, the University of British Columbia, engineering consultant firm Kerr Wood Leidal and Mitacs Canada, we assessed the impact of colonization on the Burrard Inlet ecosystem since Europeans first settled in the area.

When we look at the cumulative effects of specific events, we are adding the individual impacts of each event together to get a fuller picture of how colonialism impacted the ecosystem.

How we tracked change over time

We chose four sources of stress to the ecosystem to assess for this research:

1) The impact of smallpox on the ancestral Tsleil-Waututh population and the resulting health of the inlet.

2) The impact of settler fisheries, including Pacific salmon and Pacific herring.

3) The impact of settler hunting on land animals, including deer.

4) The impact of urbanization on the health of the ecosystem.

We used an ecosystem modelling software program called Ecopath with Ecosim, and modelled how these events impacted the inlet ecosystem between 1750-1980. We found there was a significant decrease in biomass (how much of a given organism is in an ecosystem) and available habitat.

We focused on 12 animal groups based on another collaborative project that focused on traditional Tsleil-Waututh diets.

To do this, we drew on multiple sources of data, including Tsleil-Waututh traditional ecological knowledge, archeological data, historical and archival work and ecological resources.

By combining these different sources of information, we can address gaps in each data source and weave together information to paint a fuller picture of ecological change over time.

What we found

Our research highlights how shoreline change from events like the construction of the Port of Vancouver resulted in the loss of more than half of the intertidal habitat that clams, crabs, birds and fish rely on.

Along with over-harvesting, this has resulted in a dramatic population decline for these species. Clams and other bivalves have also become unsafe to eat due to pollution.

Over-fishing has been a huge problem. Forage fish, including Pacific herring, eulachon, surf smelt and Northern anchovy, collectively experienced a 99 per cent decline in biomass.

Pacific herring was completely wiped out by dynamite fishing, and only recently returned.

Pink salmon and chum salmon both experienced more than 40 per cent losses in biomass due to over-fishing. White sturgeon were almost wiped out.

Mammals didn’t fare any better: three-quarters of the deer and elk populations and over one-quarter of the harbour seal population in the area around the inlet were lost to hunting.

Smallpox had a devastating effect on Salish communities throughout the region. The loss of lives caused dramatic change in the ecosystem because it reduced how much food was taken out of the ecosystem significantly.

The smallpox epidemics only touch the surface of how colonization impacted Indigenous lives. Other events that we didn’t include in the model — like the Residential School system and the Reserve System, for example — severely limited or criminalized stewardship activities that Tsleil-Waututh and other Nations have been using to take care of their territory for millennia.

Tsleil-Waututh stewardship and sovereignty

Tsleil-Waututh people are specialists in managing and stewarding the marine, tidal and terrestrial resources of the inlet’s ecosystem. Tsleil-Waututh salmon stewardship sustainably maintained a chum salmon fishery for almost 3,000 years.

The research questions, priorities and direction of our project were established through frequent collaborative meetings. This approach ensured Tsleil-Waututh co-authors and colleagues were involved in every step of the research.

This kind of community-driven work is complex. It is also incredibly valuable for understanding ecosystem change over time. Without the leadership and knowledge of Tsleil-Waututh knowledge-holders, this research would have had massive data and knowledge gaps and the work would have much less significance.

This is an example of transdisciplinary research: research that is interdisciplinary, that draws on multiple disciplines for data and methods and is grounded in community from the beginning.

Our research shows that colonialism has had a devastating impact on habitats and biodiversity in and around Burrard Inlet. This is not just an ecological story, but a human story that speaks to the wide-reaching impacts of colonization. It is an intertwined story that shows how harmful colonization and rapid urbanization can be, both to humans and to the ecosystems we call home.

Meaghan Efford received funding from Mitacs Canada through a collaborative project with Tsleil-Waututh Nation.

– ref. Colonization devastated biodiversity, habitats and human life in the Pacific Northwest – https://theconversation.com/colonization-devastated-biodiversity-habitats-and-human-life-in-the-pacific-northwest-260791