Category: The Conversation

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael Price, Adjunct professor, Department of Biology, Simon Fraser University

Every year, Pacific salmon return from the ocean to the rivers and streams where they were born. These migrations nourish ecosystems, sustain Indigenous cultures and support fisheries that people across Western Canada rely on. Yet something essential has quietly eroded: Canada’s efforts to count wild salmon.

That loss of basic information matters. It becomes especially important at a time when major industrial decisions affecting salmon watersheds are being made more quickly, and with less ecological information than in the past.

Twenty years ago, Canada adopted its Wild Salmon Policy (WSP), a landmark commitment to conserve the genetic and geographic diversity of wild Pacific salmon. At its core was a simple promise: to regularly assess the health of distinct salmon populations so declines could be detected early, and recovery action taken when needed.

Our recent analysis of publicly reported monitoring data shows that this foundation is weakening. Since the WSP was introduced, the number of spawning populations counted each year has declined by roughly one-third, driven largely by the loss of high-quality surveys.

We now lack sufficient publicly available data on nearly half of Canada’s Pacific salmon populations to assess whether they are healthy or at risk. Among those that can be assessed in British Columbia, around 70 per cent are in decline.

Read more:
Habitat loss and over-exploitation are leading to a decline in salmon populations

Why monitoring matters

Counting salmon isn’t bureaucratic box-checking. Salmon are foundational to coastal ecosystems and communities, and spawner counts are one of the simplest and most reliable ways to assess population health.

These data inform researchers and fisheries managers whether populations are stable, declining or recovering, and they underpin difficult decisions: when fisheries must be closed to prevent further harm, or when sustainable openings can support food security and livelihoods.

Without consistent monitoring, managers are forced to make decisions with limited evidence. Warning signs can be missed, and fisheries or habitat degradation may continue while populations quietly decline.

And the timing couldn’t be worse. The erosion of monitoring is occurring just as pressures on salmon are intensifying.

Climate change is warming rivers, altering ocean food webs, increasing the frequency of floods and droughts and reshaping freshwater habitats across Western Canada. In a changing environment, monitoring is the only way to distinguish natural variability from sustained declines.

At the same time, Canada is moving to accelerate industrial development. Recent federal legislation allows faster approval of projects deemed to be in the “national interest.” This push for speed is occurring while federal capacity to monitor salmon ecosystems weakens.

While expediency may be appealing, it carries real environmental risks unless matched by corresponding investment in mitigation and monitoring. When development accelerates while monitoring declines, decisions are increasingly made without a clear picture of what is being put at risk — or how impacts will be detected and addressed once projects are under way.

Data collection needed

The decline in monitoring is not simply the result of shrinking budgets or unavoidable austerity. Over the past two decades, federal investments in other salmon-related programs — such as enhancement and aquaculture development — have consistently exceeded investments in policy targeting salmon conservation.

In 2021, the federal government committed a historic $647 million to salmon conservation through the Pacific Salmon Strategy Initiative. Yet the systematic rebuilding of monitoring programs — the basic data collection needed to assess population health — was not made a central funding priority.

The challenge is likely to intensify. Recent federal budgets have committed to significant cuts to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the department responsible for fisheries oversight and environmental monitoring. This would likely further constrain the capacity to rebuild monitoring programs.

In plain terms, Canada has not invested in the collection of information needed to know whether conservation efforts are actually working — or where action is most urgently required.

What rebuilding monitoring would look like

Reversing the decline in salmon monitoring is achievable, and relatively inexpensive compared to the costs of recovery once populations collapse.

First, the monitoring infrastructure and systems that allow governments and communities to track salmon populations must be treated as essential public infrastructure.

Second, coverage matters as much as precision. Monitoring more populations consistently, even with imperfect counts, often provides better insight than highly precise estimates at a few sites. Data gaps are far more damaging than moderate uncertainty.

Third, Indigenous-led and community-based monitoring offers a powerful opportunity to rebuild capacity. Many Indigenous nations have deep knowledge of salmon systems and strong stewardship responsibilities. Supporting monitoring partnerships, while respecting Indigenous data governance, can expand coverage, strengthen legitimacy and provide economic opportunities in local communities.

Read more:
Learning from Indigenous knowledge holders on the state and future of wild Pacific salmon

Finally, if governments choose to fast-track major projects, they must strengthen, not weaken, baseline ecological monitoring in affected watersheds. Speed should not come at the expense of understanding.

Canada has a clear framework for conserving wild salmon in the Wild Salmon Policy, but its effectiveness is undermined by low investment in basic monitoring. Without consistent and representative data, it becomes impossible to know what populations are in trouble, whether conservation efforts are working or where action is most urgently needed.

In effect, we are increasingly managing salmon in the dark — with stark consequences for ecosystems, fisheries and communities. Rebuilding broad, representative, monitoring programs is a foundational step that Canada can take to safeguard wild salmon in a time of rapid environmental and industrial change.

If we stop counting salmon, we should not be surprised when they disappear — quietly.

Michael Price is affiliated with SkeenaWild Conservation Trust as the Director of Science, and Adjunct Professor in the Department of Biology at Simon Fraser University.

Jonathan Moore is the principal investigator of the Salmon Watersheds Lab.

– ref. Canada is losing track of its wild salmon — just when we need that knowledge most – https://theconversation.com/canada-is-losing-track-of-its-wild-salmon-just-when-we-need-that-knowledge-most-273746

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Emily Impett, Professor of Psychology, University of Toronto

For people who have been quietly struggling with doubts about their relationship, the weeks leading up to Valentine’s Day can feel fraught. As Feb. 14 approaches, questions that were once easy to sidestep often become harder to ignore.

In a study that tracked romantic couples over a year, relationships were about 2.5 times more likely to end during the two weeks surrounding Valentine’s Day than during the fall or spring. When researchers accounted for relationship length, prior relationship history and gender, the odds of a breakup during this window were more than five times higher.

At first glance, this timing may seem strange. Why would couples break up just before a holiday devoted to love, connection and commitment?

Other findings from this study reveal that the increase in breakups appeared only among couples who were already struggling, not among those who were stable or getting stronger.

A psychological turning point

These findings suggest that Valentine’s Day functions less like a wrecking ball and more like a spotlight.

For couples who have been struggling for months, Valentine’s Day can bring those feelings into sharper focus, forcing people to confront questions they may have been postponing: Are we happy? Are we moving forward? Is this relationship something I want to celebrate?

Psychologists refer to moments like Valentine’s Day as temporal landmarks: points that divide time into a psychological before and after. They prompt people to take stock of their lives and make decisions they have been postponing. Romantic relationships are no exception.

Rather than creating doubt, these dates tend to accelerate decisions that were already unfolding, turning private uncertainty into a sense that change is overdue.

The pressure to perform

Not all temporal landmarks carry the same emotional weight, however. Valentine’s Day is an unusually ritualized and commercialized landmark. Consumer research shows that the holiday tends to evoke polarized reactions — people are far more likely to either love or loathe Valentine’s Day than to feel neutral about it.

In the weeks leading up to the holiday, advertising, store displays and social media amplify expectations about what counts as love: gifts, effort, public displays and visible commitment. Taking part in the ritual signals commitment and investment in a shared future; opting out can invite questions or disappointment.

In this sense, Valentine’s Day does not just invite reflection — it demands a performance.

This helps explain why breakups often happen before Valentine’s Day rather than after. Ending a relationship afterward can feel deceptive, especially if gifts were exchanged or plans were made. Many people would rather leave than perform romance they no longer feel, or accept gestures that imply a level of commitment they are unsure they can sustain.

That timing reflects a broader tendency to delay difficult decisions around holidays. Ending a relationship is emotionally uncomfortable at the best of times, and research shows people sometimes delay breakups to spare their partner pain. Holidays can intensify that hesitation.

In a nationally representative survey, 22 per cent of American adults said they ended relationships before Valentine’s Day because they did not want their partner to buy them gifts or spend money when they already knew the relationship was ending.

Uncertainty becomes impossible to ignore

The sense of being torn — wanting to avoid hurting a partner while also feeling unable to keep pretending — reflects a state psychologists call ambivalence.

Ambivalence is not indifference; it is the uncomfortable experience of holding competing motivations and emotions at the same time. Many people feel ambivalent long before a relationship ends, even in relationships that look stable from the outside. Research shows that this kind of internal conflict predicts lower satisfaction and greater instability over time.

Valentine’s Day intensifies ambivalence because it transforms private uncertainty into public signalling. Participating in the holiday sends a message that a relationship is intact and future-oriented. Dinner reservations, office flower deliveries and social media posts all carry symbolic weight.

Social comparison can add fuel to the fire. Valentine’s Day makes other people’s relationships unusually visible, often in idealized form. Couples appear everywhere — online and offline — celebrating love with carefully curated gestures. Decades of relationship research show that commitment is shaped not only by how satisfying a relationship is, but by how it compares to expectations and perceived alternatives.

When Valentine’s Day raises the bar for what love is supposed to look like, a relationship already marked by ambivalence can suddenly feel inadequate by contrast.

Not everyone experiences this pressure in the same way. Research shows that people who are uncomfortable with emotional closeness or public displays of romance often find Valentine’s Day especially stressful, which can amplify dissatisfaction and make withdrawal more likely.

Valentine’s Day rarely ends relationships on its own, of course. But it can make months of uncertainty suddenly very real, turning private doubts into decisions that feel urgent and unavoidable.

Emily Impett receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. When Valentine’s Day forces a relationship reckoning – https://theconversation.com/when-valentines-day-forces-a-relationship-reckoning-274898

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Shelagh McCartney, Professor, Urban and Regional Planning, Toronto Metropolitan University

The recently launched Build Canada Homes (BCH) initiative marks the federal government’s most ambitious effort to build affordable homes since the Second World War.

The $13 billion initiative promises a building surge to emulate Canada’s post-war national housing program by doubling the national output of housing.

Read more:
Canada is a suburban nation because of post-Second World War government policy

This effort to aggressively stimulate growth in Canadian affordable housing construction includes the creation of the BCH new national agency working as a developer, rapid construction on public land, innovative modular construction methods and partnerships with private capital to push the pace.

For many Canadians, this may seem like a decisive response to the country’s housing crisis while also promoting Canadian sovereignty during tumultuous relations with the United States and other geopolitical developments.

But for the North, the parallels between the role of housing policy now and in the post-war era should give us pause. The building boom following the Second World War established many of the chronic housing, health and economic challenges northerners face today.

Lessons from the post-war era

Amid Cold War tensions and fears of Soviet encroachment following the Second World War, Canada and the United States moved to militarize and secure the Arctic.

Both countries established weather stations, the Distant Early Warning Line, airbases and other strategic infrastructure to assert sovereignty over the region. This geopolitical anxiety also fuelled Canadian efforts to create or expand permanent northern settlements.

These efforts imposed fixed communities on Indigenous peoples who previously moved seasonally through vast territories in patterns shaped by ecological knowledge and deep relationships with the land. This was often pursued through forced or incentivized relocations, reshaping Indigenous mobility and ways of life.

This push to secure the North was accompanied by a rapid expansion of federal housing initiatives in the 1950s and ‘60s to meet national housing strategies. Southern-style houses were imported into the North, detached from northern cultures, landscapes and climates, and administered through colonial governance structures.

Construction of these homes relied on southern labour and materials, leaving communities with buildings but not the authority, tools or training needed to construct or maintain them. Rather than recognize and learn from the approaches to housing construction and sustainability that northern, Indigenous peoples had been practising for generations, the government sought to impose control and authority through northern housing.

This era laid the groundwork for the housing precarity that northerners continue to feel today. Yet BCH uses the same language and approach — framing housing issues as a crisis, advocating rapid deployment, standardized technologies, reliance on southern supply chains and a short-term time frame. This undermines northerners’ abilities to self-determine and direct their own sustainable housing systems.

A different approach required

The North of 2026 is not the North of 1950. Climate change is accelerating permafrost thaw, reshaping ecosystems and exposing structural vulnerabilities in buildings and infrastructure caused by southern construction methods.

Dependence on imported materials and southern labour is even more unsustainable. Simultaneously, Indigenous Peoples across the North have developed community-led housing strategies, design innovations and governance models that offer powerful alternatives.

A Northern Housing Ecosystem (NHE) approach re-imagines northern housing not as a one-off construction campaign but as an interconnected system involving governance, economy, design, training, maintenance and social well-being.

It aligns with Indigenous-led housing innovations already underway — from the work of the K’asho Got’ine Housing Society and Yellowknives Dene First Nation, to regional training and design initiatives across the North.

The NHE asserts that housing is tied to health, education, economic development, energy use and cultural vitality. Housing cannot be governed within silos; it must be part of a living system.

To support northern housing autonomy and sustainability, BCH must adopt principles rooted in this ecosystem approach.

Principles include promotion of a northern housing economy where housing is collective infrastructure that focuses on community well-being and a sense of home for all northerners, prioritized over a market-based logic.

This fosters housing autonomy via northern and Indigenous control over governance, design, construction, repair and maintenance — the opposite of the dependency system of the post-war era.

Read more:
Housing is health: Coronavirus highlights the dangers of the housing crisis in Canada’s North

A sustainable northern housing future

The foundational question should no longer be: How many houses can we deliver quickly? Instead, it must be: How can we build a sustainable northern housing future?

This requires structural change in housing delivery. Short-term federal funding cycles and crisis-framing create pressure to spend and build quickly. That results in prioritizing communities with more administrative capacity, risks reinforcing inequities and rushes decisions that compromise sustainability.

Without concrete efforts to right the wrongs of the past, BCH will reproduce a housing system that never adequately or sustainably served the North. While BCH represents a major federal investment, the North needs more than housing units. It needs autonomy, climate-appropriate design, skilled local labour and local business development.

A sustainable northern housing future is possible, but only if programs like BCH evolve from a fast unit-counting exercise into an ecosystem-based strategy rooted in Indigenous leadership and northern expertise. That way a northern housing system can be built that will sustain communities for generations — by the North, with the North and for the North.

Mylène Riva, Associate Professor, Department of Geography, McGill University, Canada Research Chair in Housing, Community and Health and Rebecca Schiff, professor at the University of Lethbridge, co-authored this piece.

Shelagh McCartney receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Aimee Pugsley receives funding from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Julia Christensen receives funding from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. Northern housing must be built as an integrated ecosystem — by the North, for the North – https://theconversation.com/northern-housing-must-be-built-as-an-integrated-ecosystem-by-the-north-for-the-north-273789

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Taiwo Afolabi, Full Professor/CRC in Socially Engaged Theatre; Director, C-SET, University of Regina

The culture and creative sector is experiencing unprecedented strain during a period defined by intense polarization and precarity, growing economic and environmental concerns, deepening social inequities and urgent calls for justice.

During the pandemic and amid powerful global movements for racial and social justice, longstanding inequities in the arts sector were brought into sharper focus — as was artists’ continued commitment to imagining alternative futures.

But the frameworks guiding Canadian arts and culture policy are increasingly insufficient to sustain our society.

Future of Canadian cultural policy

The future of Canadian cultural policy — shaping how artists and creative practitioners engage in their work, with each other and society at large — cannot solely be premised on the economic argument for the cultural and creative sector, as was assumed by the 2017 Creative Canada Policy Framework.

Assuming the primacy of economic returns and market performance in cultural production undermines the value of non-commodified, non-economic contributions of culture.

Nor can the future of Canadian cultural policy rest on nation-building narratives of the post-Second World War era.

As playwright and director Yvette Nolan and cultural strategist Sarah Garton Stanley discussed in a 2023 session with the Centre for Socially Engaged Theatre, such narratives marginalize Indigenous Peoples and other cultural identities and perpetuate a settler-colonial vision of cultural citizenship.

In addition to asking how culture can serve economic interests or reinforce a cohesive national brand, we must also ask: how can cultural policy nurture trust, belonging and long-term relationality across communities, identities and experiences?

This was our concern in research we conducted between 2022 and 2024 with 18 self-employed Black, Indigenous and People of Colour (BIPOC) artists and cultural entrepreneurs across Western Canada. Collaborators in this research were playwright Yvette Nolan, as well as art historian Luba Kozak and academic researcher Fonon Nunghe.

Conversations with artists

We explored the question: In what ways might the social value-creation strategies of self-employed BIPOC artists who engage in socially transformative practices shape a more equitable Canadian cultural policy?

Through individual and group conversations, we heard how artists are leveraging their creative practices, entrepreneurial skills and leadership to generate social value in their communities.

We also heard how they are countering discrimination, fostering belonging and advancing justice through culturally grounded, socially engaged art.

We conducted this research during a pivotal period in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and amid powerful global movements for racial and social justice. The reflections gathered are rooted in the social, political and cultural dynamics of that time, yet they remain relevant in today’s shifting landscape.

Issues such as systemic exclusion, under-representation and the need to support BIPOC leadership in the arts continue to demand urgent attention.

Erosion of EDI

Globally, the erosion of equity-based initiatives, especially in the wake of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, has raised alarm.

The backlash against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts across sectors, including the arts, signals a broader populist shift that threatens the fragile gains made in justice-centred work. Canadian cultural institutions are not immune to this trend.

Read more:
We need meaningful, not less, EDI and climate action in turbulent times

Organizations that foreground equity and representation increasingly find themselves under scrutiny, pressured to defend their legitimacy and impact.

Cultural policy is needed that protects equity-driven practices and embeds care, accountability and relationality as foundational principles, especially in times of political volatility.

What does this look like on the ground? Here are three insights that emerged in our conversations with artists:

1. Authentic safe spaces and responsiveness: Artists emphasized that the concept of safety must go beyond institutional declarations of “safe spaces” or symbolic gestures. True safety for BIPOC artists requires culturally responsive policies that acknowledge the emotional, spiritual and cultural dimensions of artistic practice.

This might look different for different artists and communities. Many institutions, while professing inclusivity, continue to restrict practices revealing a limited understanding of cultural protocols. Artists shared that safety must be rooted in the ability to engage in arts production and express themselves authentically, without institutional gatekeeping or pressure to conform to Western norms. This calls for a systemic rethinking of safety that centres cultural sovereignty and the right to self-determined artistic expression.

2. Tokenism and decolonization: Many participants described being invited into institutional spaces as symbols rather than equal collaborators. This dynamic reduces cultural presence to a token, where inclusion is more about optics than genuine engagement. BIPOC artists are often expected to take on dual roles, creating their own work while also educating institutions about cultural practices and histories.

This expectation is not only unsustainable but emotionally exhausting, eroding trust over time. As one artist explained, they are there to tell stories, not to “do the work” of decolonization for institutions. Promises of change are frequently postponed, using excuses such as budget limitations or declining audiences, which can feel dismissive and discourage long-term engagement. These experiences underscore the need to move beyond performative inclusion and toward real power-sharing in decision-making, leadership and representation.

3. Relational accountability and community-based practices: True decolonial work requires relational accountability and the commitment to building respectful, sustained relationships rooted in reciprocity. This cannot be achieved through a checklist-style inclusion efforts or standard contracts. Many artists noted the lack of cultural and relational competency within institutions and highlighted the importance of nurturing trust through shared experiences, dialogue and time.

Read more:
How theatre on the Prairies can imagine an equitable and inclusive future

Community-based artistic practice often blurs the boundaries between personal and professional life, which institutions typically fail to recognize. Care responsibilities, emotional labour and deep ties to community are integral to the creative process for many artists, especially those working in post-COVID contexts.

However, hierarchical institutions that prioritize production and efficiency often undervalue relationships. One participant reflected on feeling torn between her commitment to her urban Indigenous community and institutional pressures focused on outputs. This tension highlights the urgent need for institutional models that respect and integrate relational and community-based approaches to art processes.

Reimagining how institutions define success

What’s needed for the new era in Canada’s arts landscape is a fundamental reimagining of how cultural institutions define success and responsibility. This shift calls for cultural policy that upholds the diverse realities of those who live, create and contribute across these lands and is grounded in their experiences.

Cultural policies must explicitly encourage and require institutions to prioritize care, trust and ethical leadership in their daily practices, instead of focusing solely on outputs and compliance. Policies should centre community and accountability to relationships as core to institutional purpose.

By embedding these values into funding criteria, accountability measures, success indicators and governance frameworks, cultural policy can compel institutions to move beyond short-term, project-based transactional models.

If we are to cultivate a truly inclusive cultural landscape, we must build equity not only in visibility and representation but also in the relationships, processes and structures that sustain cultural life.

Only by embracing this approach can cultural institutions foster trust, belonging and resilience, helping to heal and connect communities across this land.

The researchers/authors received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Council (SSHRC) (Insight Development Grant) for this research.

– ref. Imagining alternative Canadian cultural policy through BIPOC artists’ experiences – https://theconversation.com/imagining-alternative-canadian-cultural-policy-through-bipoc-artists-experiences-273159