Jon Thompson
Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
Ricochet
Canada will continue its environmental assessment process in the proposed Ring of Fire mining development, despite Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s request for the federal government to stand down over what he perceives as policy duplication.
When Ontario unveiled its “One Project, One Process” policy in October, Ford publicly called for Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney to stand aside on environmental assessment in Canada’s largest-ever mining area, which would grant the province the sole authority to define and approve environmental conditions.
“We have to move, and move quick. Let’s get the federal government out of the way. The prime minister assured me that it’s going to be ‘one project, one process’ and we can move forward on that,” Ford said.
“I trust the prime minister. When he gives me his word, he keeps his word.”
The Privy Council Office has confirmed to Ricochet Media that although the federal government is committed to a similar process to the one Ford described, it’s also committed to carrying out its environmental assessment process in the Ring of Fire.
“The Government of Canada is actively working with Ontario, as well as other interested provinces, to implement a ‘one project, one review’ approach for major projects,” the statement reads. “Through the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, the federal government is developing co-operation agreements that will allow federal and provincial assessments to be coordinated, reducing duplication while maintaining strong environmental protections and upholding Indigenous rights.”
The statement says the Major Projects Office will finalize the federal agreement with Ontario, “and ensure projects proceed efficiently, responsibly, and in partnership with Indigenous Peoples.”
The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada will lead the federal environmental assessment in the Ring of Fire, a process involving input from 15 First Nations.
According to the IAAC, that process will make recommendations regarding anticipated development impacts and inform future assessments for projects by “identifying and managing issues upfront.”
The federal assessment does not include any of the three phases in the proposed network of community access roads, which Ontario calls the “Corridor To Prosperity.”
‘Canada and Ontario are failing in their duty’
First Nations living nearby and downriver from the proposed mineral development have expressed disapproval for Ford’s ambition to have Ontario lead the environmental assessment alone. But the news that Canada intends to hold its place in the regulatory regime gives slim comfort to chiefs who are navigating what they say is ongoing disrespect for Indigenous rights and treaty rights under the new federal Bill C-5 and provincial Bill 5. Those twin pieces of legislation allow for cabinet to unilaterally approve projects and erect “special economic zones,” free of environmental regulations.
Nishnawbe Aski Nation Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler, who represents the chiefs of 49 mostly fly-in First Nations in Ontario’s far north, said squabbles between Canada and Ontario are of no concern.
“Both Canada and Ontario are failing in their duty to have meaningful dialogue with our communities, so it doesn’t really matter what they’re fighting about on that level,” Fiddler said. “What matters is what needs to happen on the community level, and it is not happening.”
While a growing number of First Nations are alleging Ontario’s Bill 5 legislation is unconstitutional, NAN is calling on both Canada and Ontario to create a forum where these respectful discussions can happen with both NAN representatives and the First Nations whose territories will be impacted by development projects.
Wunnumin Lake First Nation is among nine First Nations who have filed a challenge against Bill 5, arguing the new legislation violates their Charter rights to life, liberty, and security of the person.
“I still want to defend my land from being exploited,” said Wunnumin Chief Archie Wabasse. “If it’s between Ontario and Canada in terms of their regulatory arguments and some misunderstandings, I think that’s a good thing because somebody will have to give in. Somebody will have to say, ‘we’ll change our policy here and there.’“As we continue to protect and find ways to try to get the governments to change their minds in terms of accessing our lands – we may use legal action, we may use constitutional protections – this will give them second thought.”
