Send Notice of Non-Consent to the Minister of Natural Resources & Minister of Environment

For 70 years, Ontario’s public forests have been chemically controlled with toxic herbicides. Before glyphosate, there were 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Now they talk about triclopyr, imazapyr, Navius, or whatever poison comes next. Different decade, different chemical, same dangerous system: clearcut, spray poison, replant, and call it forest management.

It is not safe. It is not consent. It is not sustainable forestry.

image showing the 1999 Federal senate report explaining that all chemical herbicides and pesticides should be phased out of the forest ASAP

Send your notice of non-consent to the Minister of Natural Resources & Environment.

Your First and Last Name *

Your Address *

Your City *

Your Province *

Your Postal Code *

Your Email Address *

The letter is fully editable and will be sent to Minister Mike Harris and cc’d to the Premier, Ontario oversight bodies, and professional forestry regulators.

Letter

Minister Harris and Minister McCarthy,

Please record this message as my official notice of non-consent to chemical herbicide spraying in Ontario’s public forests and connected watersheds.

I am asking you to immediately suspend the 2026 forest herbicide spray season and move Ontario toward non-chemical forest management.

For decades, Ontario has hidden behind federal pesticide approvals. But this is not about one poison, and chemical herbicide use in forestry can no longer be defended as “safe” or responsible simply because a product is registered. Whether the product is glyphosate, triclopyr, or another herbicide, it must be judged in the real forestry context: public forests, watersheds, wildlife habitat, forest foods, medicines, Indigenous harvesting areas, biodiversity, cumulative exposure, lack of consent, and the chemical exposure of nearby communities.

Canada was warned. The 1999 Senate report, Competing Realities, told Canada that herbicide and chemical pesticide use in the boreal forest should be phased out as soon as possible. Quebec ended forest herbicide spraying in Crown forests in 2001. Industry adapted. Ontario ignored the warning, ignored years of public and Indigenous opposition, and kept spraying. Industry has had more than a quarter of a century to transition to non-chemical forestry but has refused to do so. At this point, continuing to spray is not modernization. It is willful government failure.

This is not just a pesticide issue. For 70 years, public forests have been clearcut, sprayed, replanted, and chemically controlled to favour industry-preferred conifers. In a warming climate, replacing diverse natural regrowth with simplified conifer-dominated plantations is dangerous, flammable, and indefensible.

This is also a Section 35 issue. Aboriginal and treaty rights are recognized and affirmed in Canada’s Constitution, yet Indigenous Nations and Métis communities have formally opposed forest herbicide spraying since the 1980s. Ontario foresters are now required to meet professional competencies related to Indigenous Peoples, Lands and Resources, including Aboriginal and treaty rights, Indigenous jurisdiction, and Free, Prior and Informed Consent. How are those standards being upheld while chemical spraying continues against generations of Indigenous opposition?

Sixty Ontario municipalities and one unorganized community are now standing alongside Indigenous leadership, calling for an end to this practice. The public has never consented. Indigenous opposition has not been respected. Federal warnings have been ignored. Ontario’s right to a healthful environment should not be ignored either.

Ontario cannot keep pointing elsewhere. If Ontario maintains the system, approves the plans, and allows chemical herbicide spraying to continue in public forests, Ontario remains responsible.

Please explain, for the public record, what scientific, ethical, constitutional, environmental, climate, fire-risk, and policy basis Ontario now relies on to let the 2026 spray plans move forward.

More importantly, please state what immediate steps you will take to suspend this year’s spraying and move Ontario toward non-chemical forest management.

For the full record, including source links and supporting documentation, visit:
stopthespraycanada.ca/toxic-legacy

I would appreciate a direct written answer.

Sincerely,

If you prefer to copy/paste this letter into your own email program, please keep supporters@stopthespraycanada.ca in CC so we can count your Non-Consent. TO: mike.harris@pc.ola.org; minister.moe@ontario.ca CC: premier@ontario.ca; CMOH@ontario.ca; info@ombudsman.on.ca; auditor.general@auditor.on.ca; registrar@opfa.ca; opfa@opfa.ca; supporters@stopthespraycanada.ca

Who can send this email to the Ministers?
Anyone concerned about Ontario’s public forests can send this Notice of Non-Consent. Boreal forests store carbon, support wildlife, protect shared watersheds, and affect communities far beyond provincial borders. If you live outside Ontario, you are welcome to send this email using your real name and location. You are also encouraged to edit the email by adding a brief personal note about why this matters to you.

A banner graphic for the Ontario Action Hub shows a forested river landscape with the words “Keep Going” and “Ontario Action Hub” in large text. It says “More actions to stop forest herbicide spraying” and lists Ministers, MPPs, MPs, Foresters, and Ombudsman. A large button-style banner reads “Go to stopthespraycanada.ca/ontario.” On the right, a trail leads past a sign that says “Our forests. Our water. Our future.” with a bird perched on top and a monarch butterfly on flowers below.

Minister Mike Harris’ reply defends chemical herbicide spraying while avoiding accountability.

He points to federal pesticide regulators, forest managers, and corporations, but does not answer the real concerns about consent, Indigenous rights, water, wildlife, forest medicines, fire risk, or communities.

Indigenous Nations have opposed forest herbicide spraying on their Traditional Territories for decades. Ignoring that opposition is not consultation. It is not consent. It raises serious Section 35 concerns.