Summary

• The Ontario government has designated Kinross Gold Corporation’s Great Bear mining project under a process meant to speed up project approvals.
• It is the third mine to receive this designation, called One Project, One Process.
• Downstream of the Great Bear project, Grassy Narrows First Nation (Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek) has already opposed a water-taking permit for the mine, and awaits a hearing for its legal challenge of Ontario’s Mining Act.

We’re trying out staff-written summaries. Did you find this useful? YesNo

At a mining conference in Toronto last week, with more than 20,000 people in attendance, demonstrators demanded answers from Ontario Premier Doug Ford as to when Grassy Narrows First Nation (Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek) would be compensated for the mercury contamination that has poisoned the community as a result of past industry presence.

Ford was there, flanked by ministers, to announce his government’s plan to speed up road-building to the Ring of Fire mining district on Treaty 9 territory, known by some First Nations as Bakitanaamowin Aki, which means “the Breathing Lands.”

The demonstrators were swiftly removed by security as Ford continued his announcement.

On Feb. 17, a couple weeks earlier, the Ontario government added a third mine to the list of projects it plans to fast-track in a bid to shore up the economy against tariffs posed by U.S. President Donald Trump, despite concerns from Grassy Narrows First Nation, downstream. 

Minister of Energy and Mines Stephen Lecce announced the mine, Kinross Gold Corporation’s Great Bear project would move ahead under the One Project, One Process, framework meant to streamline approvals. The Ford government says the Kinross project is expected to create 900 jobs during operation and deliver “new economic opportunities to the region,” according to the announcement. 

“By fast-tracking Kinross Gold’s Great Bear project, we’re getting shovels in the ground, proving that world-class projects can be built with speed and in partnership,” Lecce said in a press release. “Ontario’s accelerated permitting regime, reliable energy and skilled workforce is positioning our province as the world’s most attractive and predictable investment opportunity.”

Absent from the press conference and release on the project was mention of a recent challenge by Grassy Narrows First Nation against Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks over a water permit granted to Kinross for exploration at Great Bear.

The nation is also awaiting its day in court over a legal challenge to Ontario’s Mining Act, filed in 2024, where Grassy Narrows has claimed open access to mineral staking, including on First Nations territory, is unconstitutional and not aligned with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, known as UNDRIP. That followed a 2018 land declaration by Grassy Narrows First Nation, which banned “mineral staking and mining” on its lands. Since then, 6,000 mining claims have been registered through the province on Grassy Narrows’ territory.

Six northern First Nations also filed a case over Ontario’s Mining Act shortly after Grassy Narrows.

Chief Sherry Ackabee of Grassy Narrows was reached for comment but unable to provide a response prior to publication. In 2024, former chief Rudy Turtle said, “The mining act takes us in the opposite direction of reconciliation and healing, and forces more grief and conflict on my people whose burden is already too great. I will not stand for this, and I hope that the courts will see that justice is done here for Grassy Narrows and for all First Nations.”

The British Columbia Court of Appeal recently ruled on a similar challenge in December 2025, finding that the province’s free-entry mining regulations did not abide by the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, as well as the province’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. The B.C. government has sought leave to appeal this decision.

As for the fast-tracking legislation, the Ford government has stated that the Crown’s duty to consult First Nations “remains fully upheld,” with the framework providing a more “coordinated and transparent approach” to consultations. 

Kinross Gold CEO J. Paul Rollison said the One Project, One Process framework “reflects the province’s commitment to strengthening coordination, predictability, integration and accountability for responsible mining development, all while maintaining high standards of environmental oversight and meaningful indigenous consultation.”

Three mines designated under Ontario’s fast-tracking framework

Ontario has already designated the Crawford Nickel mine, outside Timmins, Ont., for fast-tracking, as well as Frontier Lithium’s project near Red Lake, Ont., under the One Project, One Process framework.

The province has said the new process, established under Bill 5, will “reduce government review times by at least 50 per cent.”

Under Bill 5, the new One Project, One Process designation will reduce what the Ford government calls “red tape” by designating the Ministry of Energy and Mines as a single point of contact. The ministry will create a “mine authorization and permitting delivery team” to write fast-tracking plans and see projects through. They will also coordinate with “any other ministry to expedite the application, review and decision-making processes for the permits and authorizations specified in the plan.”

Minister of Red Tape Reduction Andrea Khanjin has said environmental safeguards will remain in place under the new process. 

The Chiefs of Ontario have previously raised concerns about the province’s proposed fast-tracking legislation. The organization, which represents First Nations interests across the province, has said it supports responsible resource development, but not at the expense of First Nations’ Treaty Rights and environmental stewardship. A representative from the organization acknowledged an interview request, though was unable to comment by publication time. Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict previously stated, “We are concerned that this legislation may directly or indirectly impact how mining companies interact with First Nations inherent, Treaty and constitutional rights. True economic reconciliation cannot happen through exclusion.” 

The Canadian Environmental Law Association stated in a submission to Ontario’s environmental registry that while it supports an “expeditious and efficient permitting process for mining operations,” it had concerns that the fast-tracking law did not “recognize the trade-offs between expediting the permitting process and the need for a thorough and rigorous review of mining operations.” The association, which has represented Grassy Narrows in legal proceedings, noted “mining projects are very complex and can have significant adverse impacts on the environment and the health and safety of Ontarians.”

It also referenced a study from British Columbia that found economic conditions, such as commodity prices, are more often the cause of delays in developing mines, rather than government regulations.

Kinross did not respond to The Narwhal’s detailed questions about how the fast-tracking designation would affect environmental oversight, including safeguards around water quality. The Ministry of Energy and Mines also did not respond to questions by publication time.

More permits pending in Grassy Narrows, adding uncertainty to water system safety

In Grassy Narrows, about 100 kilometres south of Red Lake, Ont., the ecosystem and people are still living with the catastrophic effects of tonnes of mercury released by a pulp mill into the Wabigoon-English River system.

In 2025, the nation took the provincial Environment Ministry to the Ontario Land Tribunal over permits the ministry had issued Kinross for water taking during its exploration phase. In its application, Grassy Narrows argued that no meaningful free, prior and informed consultation had occurred when these permits were granted. And the nation brought forward concerns that water containing sulphates would be released back into the already-contaminated water system and accelerate the formation of methylmercury, a deadly neurotoxin.

The Ontario Land Tribunal stated in its decision that “no reasonable person” would have issued the permit, which the tribunal agreed “could result in significant harm to the environment,” and granted the community the right to appeal under Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights framework. 

Before the appeal could proceed, Kinross withdrew the application. The company then reapplied for similar permits shortly after, which are still pending; both are classified as “Category 3” permits, which are defined as “water takings [that] are anticipated to have the highest potential of causing unacceptable environmental impact or interference.”

It is unclear whether permits like this can now be fast-tracked under the new provincial framework. The Ministry of Environment did not respond to requests to clarify how the new permit process will interact with the Environmental Bill of Rights or if the new process applies to permits to take water. 

The Ford government has also recently proposed exempting mining companies from the requirement to obtain permits to take water for what they describe as “certain low-risk early exploration activities” and “aspects of advanced exploration projects,” but stated environmental protections will be maintained, according to a posting to Ontario’s Environmental Registry.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

As Ontario’s legislature returns for fall session and rules that put the province’s controversial Bill 5 into place roll out, critics say the remaining tools under the Environmental Bill of Rights are being blunted to the point of obsolescence. 

Gord Miller, a former environmental commissioner of Ontario — a position the Ford government eliminated under the bill of rights in 2018 — said if he were still in his former role, he would be challenging the province over Bill 5, and its efforts to “override the will of 50 years of legislation” written to protect the environment of Ontario.

The Ford government has on several occasions introduced new legislation with exemptions from the Environmental Bill of Rights, in particular the requirement for informing the public of policy changes — and Bill 5 is a prime example.

Miller, who served as environmental commissioner from 2000 to 2015 and is now chair of the environmental group Earthroots, told The Narwhal he was particularly concerned with the use of special economic zones and replacing the Endangered Species Act with the watered-down Species Conservation Act under Bill 5. In both cases, the public’s ability to participate and become informed of environmental impacts is muted.

The office of the premier and Ontario’s Environment Ministry did not respond to requests for an interview or specific questions about the Environmental Bill of Rights by publication time.

The Environmental Bill of Rights began as a private members’ bill in the 1990s, at a time when there was growing recognition that the public should have a say in environmental decision-making: the newly elected NDP had long promised to enact the right to a clean environment, Canada had passed its Green Plan and acid rain had been pouring down for two decades.

The bill came into effect in early 1994 and was considered groundbreaking legislation, designed to give the public a voice in environmental decisions and a means to hold the government accountable. 

From outlining the Ford government’s plans to remove parcels of land from the protected Greenbelt to allow for development, to its more recent proposal to give portions of Wasaga Beach Provincial Park over to the local municipality, the bill has offered a key resource for the public — but its effectiveness is degrading. 

If governments of the day can and are choosing to bypass its requirements, does the Environmental Bill of Rights still serve a purpose, or has it lost its bite?

A lost opportunity for public feedback

A critical component of the Environmental Bill of Rights allows for public participation through the online environmental registry, on which the government is required to post proposals and decisions affecting the environment. 

The bill also allows for two or more citizens to request that a ministry review a policy or decision, or investigate a potential environmental violation, and it gives the public the right to appeal certain decisions to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The environmental registry is arguably the most powerful tool, as it issues advance notice of environmentally significant decisions and legislation — whether it’s allowing a permit for taking water, a development proposal that risks harming an endangered species or an amendment to mining regulations. It provides an opportunity for a formal chance for feedback on those decisions and, at the very least, makes the public aware of them.

Philip Pothen, in-house counsel and Ontario environment program manager for Environmental Defence, said the registry is “one of the most effective tools for the public to be able to shape and dissuade the government from environmentally harmful legislation.”

The registry played a crucial role in informing the public of what would come to be known as the Greenbelt scandal. In late 2022, an environmental registry posting outlined the Ford government’s plans to remove 7,400 acres of land from the protected greenspace around the Greater Toronto Area, confirming and explaining in detail what had long been suspected. Ontarians responded en masse, with more than 30,000 comments received in the 30-day submission period after the posting went up. In spite of this, the updated notice states, “No changes were made to the proposal as a result of public consultation.” It was ultimately the public and media’s attention on the proposed harms to the Greenbelt, and the process that led to its opening, that saw the Ford government reverse the decision.

“It is not the official environment registry, consultation or submissions to the environment registry that make [the] difference,” Pothen said. “The notice to the public at large … is what enables effective public awareness and organizing around that decision.”But the Ford government has undermined the power of the Environmental Bill of Rights in its use of the environmental registry.

Ontario’s auditor general’s 2024 report on the Environmental Bill of Rights found the province passed two bills before the consultation periods listed on the environmental registry had ended, meaning ministries had not fully considered public feedback in their decisions and, “even with full consultation periods, ministries could not always show they considered the public’s feedback when making decisions.”

The push to reduce red tape and ease development forward under Bill 5, the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, exempts the redevelopment of Ontario Place from the requirement for posting on the registry. 

Richard Lindgren, a lawyer with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, was a member of the task force that drafted the bill of rights along with lawyers from the government, environmental and industry groups. He said the exemptions in Bill 5 effectively mean there are “no formal public notice opportunities, public comment opportunities or the right to seek leave to appeal those approvals to the Ontario Land Tribunal.” In practice, this means the redevelopment of Ontario Place can move forward without the usual public oversight afforded under the bill of rights.

The province proposed similar exemptions under the new Species Conservation Act, which will replace the Endangered Species Act, significantly watering down protection for at-risk species. Those proposed regulations also state that permits to harm at-risk species, and other decisions related to species listed as threatened or endangered, will not have to be posted on the environmental registry. 

The public can still request a review or investigation of decisions under the Species Conservation Act, via the Environmental Bill of Rights. But without the environmental registry functioning as intended, “there really is no opportunity for people to have a democratic impact,” Pothen said. A prime example is the proposed changes and impacts to Wasaga Beach Provincial Park, where the Ford government is proposing to transfer a portion of the protected park land to the Town of Wasaga Beach.

“The people don’t know that the piping plover in Wasaga Beach is at dire risk of losing all its protection, provincial park protection, and has already lost its endangered species protection,” Miller explained. Without an independent watchdog, he said, issues like this can fly largely under the radar.

A system without a watchdog: life after the environmental commissioner

Another significant aspect of the Environmental Bill of Rights was the creation of the environmental commissioner, who reported directly to the Ontario legislature, rather than the government of the day.

“When we first drafted the Environmental Bill of Rights, we really wanted an independent environmental watchdog established to help hold the Ontario government accountable for its compliance, or non-compliance, with the [bill],” Lindgren explained.

In 2018, as part of Bill 57, Restoring Trust, Transparency and Accountability Act, the Ford government amended the Environmental Bill of Rights, removing the independent role of the environmental commissioner. Those duties now fall to the auditor general’s office, and the Ministry of the Environment.

The auditor general’s office has put the province’s environmental record under scrutiny since it took the reins, including in a recent report on the province’s progress on greenhouse gas emissions reductions, released in late September. The report found that “the province’s own projection shows that Ontario will miss its 2030 target. Our review shows that there is a high likelihood that Ontario’s [greenhouse gas] emissions will be even higher than [the Ministry of Environment] projected. This would result in Ontario missing its 2030 target by an even wider margin than projected.”

But the auditor general has a much more limited mandate than the environmental commissioner had, according to Tony Morris, conservation policy and campaigns director at Ontario Nature.

The former environmental commissioners, of which two people officially held the role aside from Gord Miller, published sweeping reviews and report cards of ministries’ impacts on the environment.

Miller explained that the role called for “somebody who is knowledgeable about such things, ecological concepts, ecological systems, to be the person between bad and good decisions of the government and the impact on the public.”

The auditor general offers more of a check-and-balance, Miller said, defining whether or not ministries have followed the requirements of legislation, including the Environmental Bill of Rights. “Whereas [the] environmental commissioner would take them to task on the lack of content,” he explained.

“I used to say, I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongue,” Miller said

He said the removal of the environment commissioner has had a chilling effect on the public’s awareness of the Environmental Bill of Rights and environmental issues more broadly.

“The former environmental commissioner’s office did a really excellent job in terms of public outreach and education,” Lindgren said, adding that they had a team of staff to help people navigate issues under the Environmental Bill Rights, to really realize those rights.

While Ontarians can still access public notices on the environmental registry, they “have to know it’s there first of all,” Miller said.

The first section of the Environmental Bill of Rights lays out that the environment minister is required to educate the public on the bill, and their ability to participate in decisions that pertain to it. But the auditor general’s 2024 report on the Environmental Bill of Rights found the Ford government is “doing little to educate the public about the [bill] even though it has a legal obligation to do so.”

Morris said the original intent of the bill has been watered down. “We’ve seen that in the sense of, it seems more performative than it is … actually practically taking input from Ontarians and implementing decisions that reflect that feedback.”

Can the Environmental Bill of Rights still fulfill its purpose?

The Environmental Bill of Rights has largely remained unchanged over the last 30 years, and Lindgren said it is due for an update.

In March 2024, the Law Commission of Ontario published a report with 58 recommendations to modernize the bill. The report recommends expanding it to include the right to a healthy environment, including the duty to consult Indigenous communities, and the right to bring legal action for non-compliance with the bill against the government.

Notably, the report calls for the return of the independent environmental commissioner: a role focused on long-term impacts on the environment rather than short-term government objectives, Miller said.

Despite the pattern of non-compliance and erosion, the Environmental Bill of Rights has not been rendered completely powerless. For the Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek (Grassy Narrows First Nation), the bill has helped to protect their already fragile ecosystem from further harm — for now.

Last December, Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks issued a permit to Great Bear Resources Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Kinross Gold, to allow them to take and release water for an advanced gold exploration program on Grassy Narrows’ territory.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association, through its role as an environmental legal aid clinic, represented Grassy Narrows, using the right to appeal decisions to the Ontario Land Tribunal under the Environmental Bill of Rights. The appeal was based on the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks issuing the permit without prior, meaningful consultation and the risk of the process releasing sulphates into the environment upstream of Grassy Narrows.

The community feared these sulphates would accelerate the formation of methylmercury, a potent neurotoxin, worsening the mercury contamination crisis that has impacted their traditional territory and practices for decades due to industry.

In the appeal, Grassy Narrows successfully argued that no reasonable person would have issued the permit, and that it “could result in significant harm to the environment,” as stated in the Ontario Land Tribunal decision.

Ultimately, on May 1, 2025, through an agreement between Grassy Narrows First Nation, the ministry and Great Bear Resources Ltd., the permit was revoked in its entirety. However, Great Bear Resources Ltd. has already reapplied for similar permits, which pose similar risks.

Although the Environmental Bill of Rights allows any Ontarian to appeal, Lindgren bluntly stated, “The practical reality is, if you want leave to appeal to the tribunal, you really need to lawyer up and get great experts.” Without legal guidance and technical expertise, it is difficult to make a successful case to the Ontario Land Tribunal. 

It’s also possible the Ford government designates a special economic zone, under Bill 5, to fast-track development by bypassing other existing provincial and municipal legislation — including the Environmental Bill of Rights. But that is yet to be seen.

Lindgren said the Environmental Bill of Rights “needs to be repealed and replaced by a new — what I call a lean, mean, green — right to sue.” That is, legal recourse, should the government’s decisions affect the public’s right to a healthy environment.

For now, the question remains whether the Environmental Bill of Rights will regain its bite or be defanged by the Ford government one exemption at a time.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.