Every time workers dig into the ground in Attawapiskat First Nation, Chief Sylvia Koostachin-Metatawabin says there is a chance they will uncover a problem the community has lived with for decades.

During repairs near her home, she said a worker stopped to tell her what he had found beneath the surface, close to a water line.

“Hey, chief, I saw the fuel on your property. A pool of fuel,” she recalled him saying.

But there was no equipment to clean it up, she said, so the excavation was covered again.

For community leaders, these discoveries are reminders of what they describe as a decades-long problem of diesel contamination beneath Attawapiskat, a Cree community in Ontario’s Far North on the western side of James Bay. It’s an issue both the federal and Ontario governments have known about for years but have failed to fully address.

Federal records show the issue was brought to the attention of Minister of Indigenous Services Mandy Gull-Masty last year, in a briefing note received on July 2, 2025.

A copy obtained through an informal access-to-information request revealed almost none of its contents. Most of the material was redacted under provisions of the Access to Information Act protecting personal information, government advice and recommendations and information subject to legal privilege.

A copy of the heavily redacted briefing note received by Minister of Indigenous Services Mandy Gull-Masty last July, regarding the contamination of the core of Attawapiskat.

These heavy redactions make it impossible to determine what officials advised the minister or what action, if any, was recommended.

But, a recent lawsuit filed by the First Nation claims that, a week after the briefing note was received, Canada refused to contribute to the costs of a remediation plan.

After years of negotiations and this alleged recent, unsuccessful, attempt to secure funding for a comprehensive clean-up, the First Nation is asking the courts to intervene.

Attawapiskat is seeking $200 million in compensation, including aggravated and punitive damages, from Canada and Ontario over diesel contamination in an area known as the Core of Community, provincial land that sits in the middle of Attawapiskat but is not legally part of the reserve.

“[The core] is not fenced off. It’s not separated physically from the community,” Chris Evans, a lawyer with Woodward & Co. Lawyers LLP, which represents Attawapiskat, told The Narwhal. 

The land isn’t empty. It is where children go to daycare and patients seek medical care. It contains a grocery store, a gas station, a place to access mental health and wellness services and the diesel generating station that provides backup electricity during outages.

“Many members of the community are unaware that it’s not part of the reserve because it’s fully integrated into it,” he said.

The lawsuit alleges Ontario has also failed to commit to funding, for the portion associated with the provincially-funded Weeneebayko Area Health Authority which owns facilities in the core.

The First Nation also says the contamination is preventing the core from being added to its reserve, wasting land it urgently needs for housing.

“There comes a time when we just say, enough is enough,” Koostachin-Metatawabin said.

Attawapiskat is also asking the court to declare that Canada and Ontario failed in their legal and moral responsibilities by breaching their fiduciary duties, the honour of the Crown and their duties of care.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

In a written statement, Indigenous Services Canada told The Narwhal it is reviewing the claim, adding, “As this matter is currently before the court, we cannot comment further at this time.”

The Ontario premier’s office, Ministry of the Attorney General and Ministry of Indigenous Affairs and First Nations Economic Reconciliation did not respond to requests for comment.

A problem generations have lived with

Attawapiskat relied primarily on diesel-generated electricity for generations, from the 1960s until it was connected to Ontario’s power grid in 2003. Diesel continues to be used for backup power.

The nation alleges the pollution resulted from spills and leaks from the diesel infrastructure, including pipelines, trucks, storage tanks and the generating station.

“There have been many diesel spills,” Evans said. “They’ve happened for various reasons. Most likely, it’s because this system was not installed properly and maintained properly over the years.”

According to the statement of claim, there was no room for the generating system on the reserve. The federal government measures the reserve to be about 15 square kilometres, an area 1.5 times the size of Toronto’s High Park for a population of 2,000 people. The infrastructure was instead built on neighbouring provincial land. In 1973, after some reserve land was surrendered to build an airport north of the community and an equivalent area was added to the west, the core became the centre of Attawapiskat.

The lawsuit says the diesel infrastructure was owned or operated at different times by organizations including the local Roman Catholic mission, Ontario Hydro and its successors. Ownership of some infrastructure has since been transferred to Attawapiskat in connection with the community’s move to grid electricity, and is now used as a backup power system.

According to the claim, some individual spills have been partly cleaned up over the years, but the contamination across the core has never been fully remediated.

“There have been piecemeal efforts made at various times to identify and clean up the contamination,” Evans said. “But generally, it hasn’t been done.”

For many residents, the contamination of the core is part of an endless cycle.

J.R. Nakogee school closed in 2000 because of diesel contamination beneath the building and school grounds. Students spent more than a decade attending classes in portables before Kattawapiskak Elementary School opened in 2014.

The former school site is separate from the land involved in the current lawsuit. But Koostachin-Metatawabin said the earlier contamination continues to shape how residents understand the potential risks.

She said some former employees and families believe the contamination has caused them to become ill. 

“They attribute their health, their families’ health that pass on or are sick to being constantly exposed to fuel contamination,” she said.

Reminders of the contamination return whenever ground is disturbed, Koostachin-Metatawabin said.

“When you start excavating, you get the smell of diesel. It’s persistent,” she said.

The statement of claim alleges diesel has migrated from the core onto reserve land in several places. It also alleges the contamination could eventually reach Attawapiskat’s drinking water supply and the Attawapiskat River if it is not remediated.

“The diesel moves and migrates over time and the longer it stays in the soil the more likely it is to get into our water supply — and that would be catastrophic,” Deputy Chief Kara Fireman said in a press release about the court case. “It could even force us to entirely relocate.”

Diesel and fuel oils are complex mixtures that can contain substances such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes. Benzene has been considered toxic by Health Canada since 1993, and labelled it a “known human carcinogen” as recently as 2024. The health implications of a specific contaminated site depend on factors including which chemicals are present, their concentrations and whether people are being exposed through soil, water, air or direct contact.

The site-specific assessment prepared for the remediation project, which analyzes the concentration of chemicals in the core, has not been released publicly.

A clean-up plan was ready. Then it stopped

In 2023, Attawapiskat approached organizations with legal interests in the diesel infrastructure to develop a comprehensive remediation plan.

Attawapiskat, Hydro One Remote Communities Inc., the Weeneebayko Area Health Authority and the local electric transmission company hired Stantec Consulting Inc. to investigate the contamination and prepare a remediation action plan and budget.

According to the statement of claim, Stantec completed a draft plan in January 2025. The participating organizations agreed to a preferred option involving off-site disposal and bioremediation and agreed on how the costs would be apportioned among them.

The environmental report and total projected cost have not been released publicly.

“The parties agreed on an option and an apportionment of costs for implementing those options,” Evans said.

According to the lawsuit, the plan stalled at a meeting on June 9, 2025.

Canada advised the parties it would not contribute to the cost of implementing the remediation plan, the claim alleges. Attawapiskat had expected Canada to cover the share associated with assets assigned to the community, but the federal government advised the parties it would not contribute to the cost of implementing the remediation plan, the claim alleges.

“Attawapiskat doesn’t have the means to pay the apportionment that was assigned to it, and relied on Canada to cover that cost, and Canada refused,” Evans said.

Similarly, the claim says the Weeneebayko Area Health Authority expected Ontario to fund its portion, but the provincial government didn’t commit. 

The claim says Hydro One Remote Communities Inc. and the local electric transmission company remain supportive of the remediation effort and willing to cooperate, and that work could have begun in August 2025 and been completed within two years if funding had been secured. Instead, no comprehensive remediation has started.

Attawapiskat says housing crisis another reason diesel contamination must be cleaned up

Evans said testing has found considerable contamination beneath the daycare and health facility. Those findings are described in general terms in the statement of claim, but the underlying environmental report is confidential.

“Knowing that there is a toxic pollutant sitting there in the ground in the centre of your community, and that it’s been sitting there for decades in a place where people go and where little kids go to the daycare, where sick people go to the health facility, it’s extremely concerning to them,” Evans said.

Koostachin-Metatawabin said concerns also surfaced during construction of a youth centre, when workers discovered what she described as pooled fuel during excavation.

The discovery required remediation and delayed construction, she said. Further disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic left parts of the building exposed, contributing to mold and additional repair work.

“It’s been on the ground for a long time,” she said. “We know it’s there.”

The contamination is also an obstacle to one of the community’s most pressing priorities: finding more room for housing.

The statement of claim alleges the community received far less reserve land than it was promised under Treaty 9, which provided for 2.5 square kilometres for every five members. At the time of signing, the community had a population of about 550 people, equivalent to an area of about 300 square kilometres — 20 times larger than its current reserve.

Attawapiskat filed a separate specific claim with Canada in 2023 regarding its Treaty 9 reserve-land entitlement.

The current lawsuit states some members live in overcrowded, dilapidated or condemned homes, while others lack housing altogether.

The community has sought for years to have the core added to the reserve. But, according to the statement of claim, Canada’s rules about adding land to reserves require contaminated land to be environmentally assessed and, where necessary, remediated before it can be added to a reserve.

Because of the contamination, Evans said, “They can’t use [that land] to do things like add housing to remedy what is a just shocking humanitarian crisis that we’re seeing in the community, resulting from a lack of housing and overcrowding.”

Attawapiskat also provides services in the core, including water, garbage collection and snow removal, even though the land is not part of the reserve and the community says it does not receive federal funding to provide those services.

“I just want them to clean that site to turn it into reserve status,” Koostachin-Metatawabin said. “Because we need and can build some things there.”

The case may take years. The contamination remains

For Evans, the lack of a comprehensive clean-up raises questions about environmental injustice for Indigenous people.

“It’s hard to imagine there being a similar level of complacency toward the contamination here compared with other communities,” he said. “It’s been allowed to sit there for decades.”

He said the implications could extend beyond Attawapiskat.

“Attawapiskat is not alone in having these kinds of contamination problems in its community,” he said. “There are many communities in Ontario and Canada, especially remote communities, that are powered by diesel.”

The lawsuit is in its early stages.

Canada and Ontario had not filed statements of defence at the time of publication. Evans said the governments would ordinarily be required to respond within 30 days, although he expects they will seek more time because of the case’s complexity.

“It will be a few years at a minimum before we get a decision from the court,” he said.

For Koostachin-Metatawabin, the court case is one part of a much longer effort to make the community safe and create room for it to grow.

She said pursuing litigation was never her preferred option.

“I personally don’t like going through the legal court system. I don’t really want to do it,” she said. “But what other means do we have when we’re trying to get them to do the right thing?”

Rajpreet Sahota is a community and policy reporting fellow. Her position is generously funded by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. As per The Narwhal’s editorial independence policy, the foundation has no editorial input.

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.

Summary

• Alberta’s plan to build a pipeline to B.C.’s south coast includes a new terminal capable of servicing supertankers sailing into the Salish Sea.
• If the project goes ahead, very large crude carriers (VLCCs) capable of carrying up to 2.2 million barrels of oil could be loading up at Roberts Bank in the Fraser River estuary.
• A major expansion of the Roberts Bank superport is already in the works with potentially catastrophic impacts on local endangered species.

At the mouth of B.C.’s largest river, industrial development has encroached on important ecosystems for decades. Now, Canada’s plans to boost shipping infrastructure and create a new terminal for oil tankers could increase stress on endangered species and critical habitat.

The Fraser River is truly vast. Its tributaries carry water from nearly one-quarter of B.C., and its delta — the area where the river’s waters mingle with the Salish Sea — stretches from the Vancouver neighbourhood of Point Grey to the American settlement of Point Roberts.

In between, there are mudflats, sandy beaches, eelgrass beds and salt marshes that provide critical habitat for young salmon, migrating birds and countless other species.

“These are really productive environments for fish, for shellfish, for mammals, for birds,” Misty MacDuffee, a salmon biologist and director of Raincoast Conservation Foundation’s wild salmon program, says. 

Freshwater from the Fraser pushes all the way out to the Gulf Islands and the tidal flow from the Salish Sea can make its way all the way to Mission, MacDuffee told The Narwhal. That mingling of freshwater and saltwater creates crucial habitat for young salmon as they make the transition from river living to ocean swimming.“We’ve got all five species of salmon going into the Fraser. It’s Canada’s most productive salmon system — our largest Chinook producer — and it’s really important for the rearing and the migrations of adult and juvenile salmon.”This region has long been subject to development, from canneries and agriculture, to airports and port infrastructure. But now the pressure is ramping up. 

The pipeline pivot to Roberts Bank

On July 2, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced federal support for $10 billion in infrastructure upgrades at the Roberts Bank superport as part of a memorandum of understanding with B.C. 

In the agreement, the federal government also pledged to preserve the ban on oil tankers transiting the waters near B.C.’s North Coast. Keeping the tanker ban in place “without alteration, suspension or narrowing of scope,” as the agreement states, removed the port at Prince Rupert as an option for the terminus of Alberta’s proposed pipeline. Prince Rupert is Canada’s deepest natural harbour, capable of accommodating very large crude carriers (VLCCs), huge tanker ships capable of carrying up to 2.2 million barrels of oil — three times as much as the largest oil tankers currently servicing the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Later the same day, Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced plans for a new West Coast pipeline (funded primarily by state-owned pipeline company Trans Mountain), which would follow the same route as the current Trans Mountain pipeline with one key difference: it would detour further south to end at Roberts Bank, instead of in Burnaby. 

Alberta’s submission to the federal Major Projects Office includes a two-berth terminal able to serve very large crude carriers. These ships are 330 metres long — that’s more than three World Cup soccer pitches laid end to end — and have a fully loaded draft of 20 metres. To reach water deep enough for these massive vessels to float in, the terminal’s causeway and jetty would extend about five kilometres out into the Strait of Georgia.

If the project goes ahead, it would be the first time that oil tankers of this size have ever docked in B.C. The largest tankers that can fit beneath the Second Narrows bridge to service Westridge Marine Terminal — the current terminus of the Trans Mountain pipeline — are Aframax tankers, which have a maximum capacity of 800,000 barrels of oil. Currently, even those tankers can only be filled to about 80 per cent, so the port authority has applied to dredge Burrard Inlet to make room for larger loads (a plan the Tsleil–Waututh Nation is fighting). 

On land, the proposed oil terminal would take up 260 hectares — nearly two-thirds the size of Stanley Park. About half of that space would be covered with 15 storage tanks capable of holding 6.5 million barrels.Roberts Bank’s location — hemmed by wetlands, Tsawwassen First Nation treaty lands, parcels in the Agricultural Land Reserve and residential neighbourhoods — raises questions about whether there is enough room for Alberta’s proposal. The Major Projects Office did not respond when asked whether any assessments about fitting the proposed tanker terminal in that location have been completed.A question about whether the oil tanker terminal could be built in conjunction with the proposed port expansion or would have to wait until Roberts Bank Terminal 2 is complete also went unanswered.

The Fraser River estuary has lost 85 per cent of its salmon habitat to the effects of development and there are already plans to double the size of the terminal.

MacDuffee described the estuary as an “incredible natural asset” that has economic and environmental value.

“It supports these vibrant ecosystems that people are travelling from all over the world to visit, to see the Salish Sea, to see whales, to see birds, to see these migrations, to see these special places and here we are moving to take this incredible asset and turn it into an industrial sacrifice zone.”

Tanker terminal piles risk on top of risk

Roberts Bank Terminal 2, as the $3.5-billion planned port expansion is known, would increase the port’s container capacity by 50 per cent. The 2020 federal assessment of Roberts Bank Terminal 2 concluded the expansion’s impact on wetland function, Chinook and chum salmon and southern resident killer whales “is high in magnitude, permanent and irreversible.” In 2023, the federal cabinet concluded the public interest in the port expansion superseded those impacts and approved the project, subject to nearly 400 conditions.

In 2025, the Vancouver Port Authority submitted Roberts Bank Terminal 2 to the Major Projects Office, hoping to see it designated a “nation-building project” and fast-tracked for final approvals. That designation would mean streamlined regulatory processes and assessments.

Alberta’s proposal will also be evaluated by the Major Projects Office. The office did not respond to a question about whether the tanker terminal will be assessed to determine the potential cumulative effects of the project on the Fraser River estuary and Salish Sea.

The proposal to add another terminal and introduce oil supertankers to the Fraser estuary is raising concerns amongst B.C. environmentalists.

“This is supercharging the impact in case of an accident,” Anna Barford, Stand.earth’s oceans campaigner, said. “If we have a spill, if there is a critical problem, if one of these ships loses power and runs aground, we’re looking at incredible devastation in an area that is wildly biodiverse … at the mouth of a very important salmon-bearing river.”

The logistics of bringing such large vessels into the crowded waters of the Salish Sea is also a concern, Barford added.For MacDuffee, the tanker terminal proposal flies in the face of the federal government’s acknowledgement of the Fraser estuary’s importance. With more than $2 million in federal funds, Raincoast has been working to restore salmon habitat degraded by marine infrastructure.

“We’re allowing the flow of water — of nutrients, of sediment, of fish, of everything — back onto Sturgeon Bank, trying to restore the function of this estuary and the opportunity for rearing salmon,” MacDuffee told The Narwhal.

Port expansion poses significant risk to endangered species and critical habitat

Even without adding an oil tanker terminal to the mix, Roberts Bank Terminal 2’s impact on endangered species could be catastrophic, Barford said. 

“We’re looking at increased underwater noise, which we know is very difficult for fish and for creatures like southern resident killer whales that use echolocation to find their food.” 

More than 100 species in the Fraser River estuary are at risk of local extinction by 2045, a 2022 study found. At-risk species include the southern resident orca, whose population was just 74 individuals as of last year’s census. 

Many migrating bird species, including the western sandpiper, could also be negatively impacted by the terminal expansion. During their annual migration from Peru to Alaska, western sandpipers stop in the Fraser estuary, where they fuel up on biofilm, communities of microorganisms that flourish on the estuary’s mudflats. Losing access to this crucial food source would be a significant blow to western sandpipers and the many other migratory bird species.

“Roberts Bank is critical habitat,” Barford said. “Just because it looks muddy … doesn’t mean that it isn’t a paradise for endangered and migratory species.”

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.

Summary

• Nunavut hunters and trappers are concerned about a proposal to expand the Mary River mine on Baffin Island.
• Hunter and trapper organizations in three Inuit communities have raised concerns about detrimental effects to the environment, as well as a lack of consultation.
• The proposed expansion by Baffinland Iron Mines Corp. comes amid a financial crisis for the company, which owes $2.6 billion to creditors and recently received a $660-million loan from the federal government to provide it with “breathing room.”

Hunters and trappers organizations in three Nunavut communities are raising concerns Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation’s proposal to expand its Mary River mine, including the construction of a 149-kilometre rail line, will be detrimental to wildlife in Foxe Basin.

The organizations from Naujaat in the Kivalliq region, and Igloolik and Sanirajak in the Qikiqtaaluk region, are seeking consultation and a full review of the expansion plan, arguing it will impact their right to harvest.

Made up of the shallow waters off the west coast of Baffin Island, Foxe Basin is an important environment for marine species including narwhals, walruses and bowhead whales. 

Inuit in all three communities rely on the area to harvest these animals for food and as a way of life. But the expansion is likely to change that, according to John Ell-Tinashlu, chair of the Arviq Hunters and Trappers Organization in Naujaat. 

Baffinland’s proposed Steensby expansion, which received environmental assessment approval in 2012, is aimed at increasing iron ore production at the mine from 4.2 million tonnes per year to 22 million tonnes. Transportation for the iron ore would take place via the rail line from the mine, south to a proposed port on Steensby Inlet, as well as a sea route through Foxe Basin. 

“The big difference will be the numbers of ships going in and out [of Foxe],” Ell-Tinashlu says, adding the size of the ships transiting in the area to transport the iron ore each year — as well as their presence year-round — will affect the entire food chain. 

“With narwhals, when they hear the lightest noise, they quit making sounds until the [shipping noise] gets farther,” he says. “And it’s not just narwhals — bowhead whales, walruses, harp seals, ringed seals, shrimp, cod.” The increased shipping, he says, will have impacts on marine life at every link of the food chain, “from a small predator to a big predator.”  

Mirroring concerns from Mittimatalikmiut 

A spokesperson for Baffinland said the company has been approved for 242 transits through the Foxe Basin waterway each year, transporting iron ore as part of the expansion. James Gunvaldsen Klaassen, a lawyer with Ecojustice, says this will deeply affect the local narwhal population, in particular, as the ore carriers will follow the same path as the local narwhal population’s migration route — from summer in Repulse Bay, where Naujaat is located, to Foxe Basin and Hudson Strait in the fall — causing serious impacts to the marine mammals. 

The impacts of such activity are already known in communities such as Mittimatalik, or Pond Inlet, which is located on Eclipse Sound just east of Baffinland’s current port on Milne Inlet. In 2018, Baffinland began seeking approval to increase production to six million tonnes per year, with a proposed second phase that would involve increasing production to 12 million tonnes per year. 

The Nunavut Impact Review Board recommended against the increase to 12 million tonnes and former federal minister of northern affairs Dan Vandal rejected the proposal in 2022. Under its current operating licence, Baffinland is allowed to mine up to 4.2 million tonnes of ore from Mary River annually, and since 2018, has been granted temporary permission to mine up to six million tonnes per year. 

“The Arviq [Hunters and Trappers Organization] has heard from other Inuit who live in Pond Inlet and are dependent on the narwhal in Eclipse Sound that when the ore carriers travelled there the narwhal were very sensitive to noise and it disrupted migration patterns,” Klaassen says. 

“At that point, the narwhal started to go to other places and disappear from the locations they’re normally found in. Some still return, but there’s a big difference in how many come back year over year.”

Inuit in Mittimatalik have found the health of narwhals to have been impacted by the stresses associated with ships as well, Klaassen added. 

“The Arviq [Hunters and Trappers Organization] has seen this happen in the north side of Baffin and they’re extremely concerned it’s going to happen in their area as well when the shipping starts, so this is a big concern.” 

By email, Baffinland’s spokesperson Peter Akman said Baffinland is taking concerns raised by the Arviq Hunters and Trappers Organization seriously, and has invested significantly in underwater acoustic monitoring, through which it has found “while noise from project vessels is detectable in the underwater soundscape, vessel noise exposure is temporary in nature and below sound levels that could cause acoustic injury.” 

“We’ve implemented measures to reduce vessel noise and mitigate potential impacts on these sensitive species,” Akman said. “Our approach includes reducing vessel speeds to minimize noise and disturbance, implementing a designated marine shipping lane, avoiding ecologically sensitive areas and scheduling vessel transits to avoid breaking ice at the beginning of the shipping season.” 

Akman added Baffinland also requires vessels to maintain minimum distances from marine mammals and to follow strict protocols including observing a speed no faster than nine knots, maintaining fixed routes and avoiding ecologically sensitive areas. 

“Hudson Strait connects Foxe Basin to the Labrador Sea, forming a marine ‘superhighway’ for narwhal, bowhead and beluga whales. Foxe Basin also supports the largest walrus population in Canada,” Sam Davin, lead specialist for conservation and shipping at World Wildlife Fund Canada, says. “More ships will mean more pollution, noise, black carbon and a greater risk of ship strikes.” 

In the case of narwhals, Davin said the marine mammals are among the most sensitive to underwater noise and are “more stressed than ever as industrial activity and shipping in their habitat intensifies.” 

“A Fisheries and Oceans Canada study, supported by WWF-Canada’s Arctic Species Conservation Fund, found that cortisol levels of narwhal in Eclipse Sound, near Pond Inlet, increased by 200 per cent from 2013 to 2019,” he said. “Already under intense pressure from rapid climate change, these species will be placed under even greater stress if proposals to dramatically increase shipping and related infrastructure in the Canadian Arctic proceed.” 

Davin added, “There is no scenario in which a project of this scale does not have a significant impact on marine mammals and other species in the region.”

Former Nunavut premier opposes expansion, cites lack of consultation 

Paul Okalik, former premier of Nunavut and lead Arctic specialist with World Wildlife Fund Canada, said he understands Arviq Hunters and Trappers Organization’s concerns about the Steensby expansion as he got involved in advocacy against the Mary River Milne port expansion in 2018. 

As well as proposing to increase production to 12 million tonnes per year under its phase two expansion, Baffinland wanted to build another railway to move all of that ore to the Milne port, rather than by road.

“I had grown up 800 kilometres south of the current project, and we had only been exposed to narwhal in early spring, before ice breakup,” he recalls. After the mine received approval to increase annual production to 6 million tonnes, he says, “we were starting to see narwhals in the summer months — in August — because they were being displaced and dispersed.”

“Since [Baffinland was] not approved for expansion on the eastern front through Milne port, they now have started to focus their attention on trying to ship ore through Steensby, and that’s going to be brutal for Naujaat, in particular, where they depend on narwhal in the summer months.”

According to Okalik, a key difference between the Milne port expansion and the one proposed at Steensby is that Inuit from Mittimatalik were consulted about the former, while Inuit in Naujaat were left out of the 2012 approval of shipping through Foxe Basin. 

“Fortunately for Mittimatalik and the surrounding communities, they were able to take part in the hearings and have an influence on the decision of the proposed phase two [expansion at Milne port] and they were able to push back and say, ‘This is not acceptable to us,’ ” Okalik says. 

“For the Steensby port and railroad project, there has never been any hearing. There has never been any input from Naujaat to influence that decision that took place in 2012 because they were never approached, they were never able to take part in any hearing. That’s a really flawed decision in my opinion, because any community that’s going to be impacted deserves to have a say and influence on the impending project.” 

The lack of consultation with Inuit in Naujaat in 2012 — and in the 14 years since — is why Ell-Tinashlu said the Arviq Hunters and Trappers Organization is working with Ecojustice to call on the Nunavut Impact Review Board and Inuit associations for a complete review. 

They have seen some response since organizing a news conference for this call with the Igloolik and Sanirajak hunters and trappers associations in Iqaluit on May 15. Klaassen confirmed the Arviq Hunters and Trappers Organization participated in Nunavut Impact Review Board meetings in Iqaluit as part of their assessment of the cumulative effects of the Mary River project in early June. On June 29, the review board announced a final virtual information session on July 14, acknowledging some in-person sessions in May had been impacted by weather and travel issues. 

However, Klaassen emphasized the organization continues to “have some concerns about its scope and whether it will lead to any meaningful changes in relation to the project’s impacts on their livelihood and harvesting rights under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.” 

According to Akman, consultation on Steensby “has been extensive” and the Nunavut Impact Review Board’s original scoping of potentially affected communities was public and included the community of Coral Harbour, which is also in the Kivalliq and close to the proposed shipping lane. 

Akman said Naujaat did not elect to participate in the public review at the time and as a result was not integrated into Baffinland’s community and stakeholder engagement plans for this expansion. He also said the Arviq Hunters and Trappers Organization has never reached out to Baffinland for a meeting but the corporation is working to address concerns raised by hunters who are part of it. 

Akman added that Baffinland itself led direct engagement efforts in all Qikiqtani communities affected by the mine between 2023 and 2024 to develop the necessary applications following the environment assessment authorizations. 

“Following the submission of our applications, the federal government commenced an extensive engagement process with the same affected communities, completing several rounds of written and in-person exchanges between March 2025 and January 2026.” 

In the case of Igloolik and Sanirajak, Akman said Baffinland has organized in-person consultations to discuss environmental monitoring and mitigation measures for the expansion 48 times since 2023. The engagement has involved discussions about “community access to vessel routing information, marine mammal and caribou protection measures, incorporation of Inuit knowledge and the inclusion of approximately nine proposed snowmobile and ATV crossings along the railway at locations identified through consultation with Inuit to support safe travel and land use.”

In a May 2025 response to the Canadian Transportation Agency’s consultations on the Steensby expansion, the Igloolik Hunters and Trappers Association said consultations have been piecemeal and the association has “serious unresolved concerns,” which is why it believes permits for the expansion should not be issued at this time. 

The Igloolik Hunters and Trappers Association also said the original review and assessment of the expansion is over a decade old, and therefore outdated. It called for new assessments instead, arguing that under federal legislation, a mining company has five years to begin operations. After that, a re-consideration of the terms and conditions is required. 

“These ‘sunset clauses’ exist because environmental conditions and knowledge change over time, sometimes necessitating reassessment,” the association said in its response. 

“This same logic should be applied to Baffinland’s plans to build a port and railway to Steensby Inlet.” 

For both Klaassen and Ell-Tinashlu, consultations remain but a first step in the process — what they would like to see is concerns about the expansion addressed and alternatives found for the impact the Steensby expansion will have on the way of life for Inuit in Naujaat, Igloolik and Sanirajak. 

“We’re in a tough situation and we need Canada, our government, to step up,” Ell-Tinashlu says. 

“This shipping route will run for 40 to 45 years if they go ahead and our Foxe Basin animals will be absolutely gone.” 

Baffinland debts put future of mine, expansion into question

Baffinland’s current financial crisis has also put the future of its proposed expansion into question. As the biggest industrial development project and largest private-sector employer in Nunavut, the Mary River mine contributes nearly a quarter of the territory’s GDP. 

The Milne phase two expansion, had it been approved, would have generated $2.4 billion for Inuit organizations including Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and the Qikiqtani Inuit Association over 17 years of operations, according to Baffinland. 

In addition, the corporation had said it expected $680 million in revenues generated for the Government of Nunavut annually as well as a total of $1.7 billion in revenues for the Government of Canada over the life of the mine. 

Baffinland anticipated the total gross domestic product generated in the Canadian economy over the Milne project’s life span to be over $30 billion. 

However, as recently reported by the CBC, as of May 14 the corporation currently owes a total of $2.6 billion to creditors.

On June 30, Baffinland received a $660 million loan from Export Development Canada to provide the company with “breathing room,” according to a news release, and continue operations at the Mary River mine site. The company remains under creditor protection, according to a news release, which could lead to “recapitalization or potential sale of the company.”  

“Ultimately, what the Arviq [Hunters and Trappers Organization] would like to see is a different route for this railway and port,” Klaassen says.“Arviq [Hunters and Trappers Organization] is not opposed to the operations at Mary River. It must be done responsibly and carefully. … The big concern is not to shut down that operation, but to make the route much better and more carefully arranged so that the rights of Inuit are protected and the environment is protected.”Klaassen also says as an organization made up of Inuit from Naujaat, Arviq has constitutional rights based on the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and the ability to assert those rights in court if necessary. While no legal actions have been filed so far, he says they continue to be “a distinct possibility.”“We’re talking about a way of life and food security for the Inuit living [in Naujaat],” Klaassen says. “Those must be protected, otherwise it’s going to be a disaster.”

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.

Summary

• The Alberta government is hoping to attract $100 billion worth of data centres to the province over the next four years. If built, the data centres would require enormous amounts of electricity to operate.
• With a cap on how much electricity data centres can purchase from the provincial grid, most will have to generate their own power by burning natural gas, a fossil fuel.
• A global surge in demand for natural gas plant infrastructure is driving up costs and extending wait-lists, calling into question how realistic Alberta’s data centre ambitions are.

The Alberta government has big ambitions for AI data centres, but those dreams will have to contend with the harsh reality of a heated global competition for electricity. 

Around the world, there is a shortage of turbines used in natural gas power plants, as more and more electricity generation is built to feed hungry data centres. Estimates for wait times to obtain the critical components are now upwards of five years. Prices have also increased dramatically. 

That has serious implications for Alberta’s plan to attract $100 billion worth of data centres over the next four years, not only in terms of how quickly the facilities can be built, but also at what cost. 

As if to drive the point home, the province joined private industry on July 2 for the announcement of the $4.6 billion Greenlight natural gas power plant, which is 2.6 times more expensive than a similar sized power plant completed by the same company two years ago. That plant will feed electricity to a $15 billion Meta data centre.

“We’re definitely seeing the impact of that turbine supply crunch,” Will Noel, senior electricity analyst with the Pembina Institute, says. 

These power plants burn natural gas, a source of the potent greenhouse gas methane, to spin turbines that generate electricity. Natural gas power generation accounts for approximately 77 per cent of Alberta’s electricity grid.

The turbine shortage comes on the heels of the province’s overhaul of its electricity market, a move that has stalled power plant investment as companies wait for more certainty before committing. It also follows the government’s crackdown on renewable power generation, which decimated the market for wind and solar in Alberta.

Data centre developers face lengthy waits and a highly competitive process if they want to connect to Alberta’s grid, but can move quickly if they build their own power supply — which the grid operator requires to be natural gas, at least for now. 

The operator, in response to questions from The Narwhal, said that’s because developers must be able to meet their power demand at all times.

“Renewables and stand-alone storage are currently excluded because of weather dependency and duration limitations,” a spokesperson said by email. “As of now, they are not qualified to reliably offset a data centre’s around-the-clock draw the way dispatchable gas generation can.”

New technologies could change that, according to the operator. 

If the proposed data centres don’t already have their turbines ordered, it’s going to be a long wait. 

Noel says we don’t actually know how many of the 41 data centre centre proposals in Alberta as of July 7 have finalized designs and parts on order. It’s also not known if any will eventually connect to the grid. 

“This is obviously speculation,” he says, “but I imagine most of these data centres don’t have turbines ordered.”

The global turbine shortage

Across the world, but particularly in the U.S., data centres are being built at a furious pace. That, along with a broader turn to electrification and production challenges, is creating a bottleneck for turbines and additional power plant components. 

A report from Bloomberg says the cost of building a natural gas plant in the U.S. increased 66 per cent between 2023 and 2025, while the time it takes to complete construction has increased 23 per cent in the same time period. 

The pressure to build and the lack of components is creating bidding wars on turbines and swelling the bottom lines for turbine manufacturers.

GE Vernova, one of the few large-scale turbine suppliers, saw significant growth last year and into 2026, and has a backlog of orders that account for 100 gigawatts of potential power supply. (For reference, that’s nearly one-third of the electricity the entire city of Calgary uses in a year.) 

All three of the major turbine suppliers are reporting delays.

That supply crunch has led some data centre developers in the U.S. to go to extreme lengths to get power, including repurposing old jet engines. 

Noel calls those fixes “inefficient and very costly,” but notes “the revenue they’re getting from the data centres is outstripping the extra cost, so they’re just kind of doing what they can to get any power on site as fast as possible.”

In Alberta, a power surplus could quickly evaporate

There is nothing to that extent happening in Alberta, which quickly instituted a hard cap on how much power was available to data centres from the existing power grid.

The Alberta government has embraced the AI boom as a way to increase demand for the province’s vast natural gas reserves. 

“Jurisdictions that can provide reliable and affordable power will have a serious advantage in attracting investment, and with our vast natural gas resources and mature industrial infrastructure, that is exactly what Alberta can offer,” Premier Danielle Smith said while announcing the recent Greenlight project.

The Alberta Electric System Operator, which manages the province’s private grid, allocated 1.2 gigawatts of power for data centres in a competitive process that ended with two developers allowed to tie into the grid. 

Another round will dole out additional power and the system operator recently announced data centre developers planning to build their own power plants could temporarily tie into the grid while those plants are being built, up to 1.6 gigawatts. 

The operator said by email that the “bridging provision” is a “general mechanism accommodating a time gap (up to three years) between a load being ready to operate and its generation being fully built and in service for any reason.”It is up to the developer to ensure it has the necessary power after that three-year window and if there is a power shortage during those three years, data centres using the bridging provision would be the first to have electricity curtailed. 

The province also has a healthy cushion of extra power after a buildout of capacity prior to market reforms and a renewable crackdown. But that won’t necessarily last. 

Noel points to the insatiable data centre demand and resulting supply crunch, combined with population growth and increasing electrification as pressures on the system. 

“And then we’ve got the old coal plants that were converted to run on gas — those are coming up soon on their end of life,” he says. “So I think mid-2030, if we don’t kind of deal with this now — whether it’s more gas or more renewables or whatever — I think there’s a real possibility that we will go from flush with power to just scraping by again.”

The office of Alberta’s minister of affordability and utilities, RJ Sigurdson, didn’t reply to specific questions about the turbine shortage and its impacts, but said the government prioritizes the “well-being of Albertans” and “will not compromise the reliability or affordability of the electricity that millions of Albertans, Indigenous communities and our local industries depend on.” 

The minister’s office said the government “does not prescribe a specific generation technology for powering data centre projects.” It said the decision by the grid operator to limit generation to natural gas at this time is an independent decision by the arm’s length body. 

The Alberta Electric System Operator says its role is to ensure the safety and reliability of the grid and it does not track whether private developers have ordered the necessary equipment.

So what does this all mean for Alberta’s AI data centre dream?

The Narwhal reached out to all of the big natural gas generators in the province to see if they were being impacted by turbine delays and cost increases, but received no responses. Emails to two data centre developers, Beacon Data Centers and Synapse, also did not not get a response. 

It can be difficult to assess how the various companies could be impacted by the current race for power plant components, but applications to the Alberta Utilities Commission, the regulator for power plants, provide some insight. 

Synapse, which hopes to start construction on a data centre near the town of Olds in October, hasn’t disclosed who will build its turbines, but says once final decisions are in place, it could have them on site within a month. It plans to use modular generators, operating alone, before completing construction of a full system while the project is online.

In the company’s application to Alberta Environment and Parks, Synapse says it will use generators from Alberta-based Eco Power Equipment, which specializes in portable gas generators. Eco Power said it doesn’t manufacture turbines. 

Another data centre moving through the regulatory process is Beacon Data Centers’ Indus project, southwest of Calgary. 

Its application to the regulator shows details on turbine components and has a target of Dec. 31, 2028, for completion of the project, pending approval.

Alberta’s electricity market overhaul stalls investment as companies wait for more certainty

As those projects move through the regulatory process, large electricity generators remain cautious about building new projects to help keep the lights on.

There are also questions about how the data centre boom could impact prices. Premier Smith says the Greenlight project could help bring down transmission costs, which ultimately show up on electricity bills. Noel agrees that’s possible. 

But the flip side is increased demand for natural gas and the trickle down of massive cost increases for building power plants could potentially increase electricity or heating bills. 

“I think everyone’s kind of sitting and waiting to see how the [restructured electricity market] plays out,” Noel says. 

“In 2028 we’ll phase out the old market and bring in the new, and maybe then we’ll start to see investment, but that’s a pretty long 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.

Summary

• The Montreal-based tech firm Deep Sky is proposing to build a direct air carbon capture facility in southern Manitoba, and documents obtained by The Narwhal show the company has garnered support from First Nations, rural municipalities and at least one bank.
• Direct air carbon capture involves sucking carbon out of the atmosphere and then burying it deep underground. Deep Sky says its technology is “viable,” but critics have expressed skepticism.
• If built, the facility will require 15 megawatts of electricity to run — which is about enough to power 10,000 homes. Deep Sky hopes to connect to Manitoba’s electrical grid to obtain that energy.

A direct air carbon capture facility proposed for southwestern Manitoba has been shoring up allies in local and Indigenous governments and large corporations, as Montreal-based Deep Sky aims to convince the provincial government its project is ready to launch.

The venture-capital-backed tech firm sent the province a package of support letters late last year encouraging the government to provide the regulatory support and electric power supply needed for Deep Sky’s Manitoba facility to move forward, according to documents obtained by the Free Press and The Narwhal.

“Deep Sky Manitoba is not a speculative concept,” the company wrote in a December letter. 

“It is a commercially viable infrastructure project that is backed by real market demand and presents an economic opportunity for Manitoba on a global scale.”

Deep Sky is proposing a 145-acre facility in the agriculture- and oil-dominant southwestern region that will scrub 30,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere each year and inject it into porous rock formations 1,000 metres below ground. The company says it will use technology first tested at its existing accelerator in Innisfail, Alta., and will finance the $200-million Manitoba project by selling carbon credits.

Deep Sky will need up to 15 megawatts of power — roughly the power draw of 10,000 homes — for the first stage of the project, CEO Alex Petre told The Narwhal and Free Press in December. 

The package included term sheets and letters of intent from five customers and investors, as well as support from local communities. 

While some of the documents are redacted under a section of the freedom of information act that protects corporate privacy, The Narwhal and the Free Press obtained copies of letters from the Dakota Grand Council, the rural municipalities of Pipestone and Two Borders, Frontier and the Bank of Montreal. 

“These documents illustrate that this project is ready to break ground,” the company wrote. 

“We have the customers and the support to bring this investment to the province. We are simply waiting for the final regulatory framework and the confirmation of power supply to unlock this investment.”

Direct air carbon capture: big promises, yet to be proven

Deep Sky’s proposal has been met with skepticism from area residents and climate action groups, who have posed questions about the safety, affordability and long-term impacts of direct air carbon capture. 

While oil and gas companies and some climate experts view the technology as a useful tool to help achieve global net-zero targets, critics say it is prohibitively expensive and not guaranteed to work.

Despite energy agencies, including the Canada Energy Regulator and Manitoba Hydro, predicting direct air capture will sequester millions of tonnes of emissions annually by 2050, facilities aren’t yet keeping pace. The two dozen facilities currently operating worldwide capture less than 10,000 tonnes per year.

But Deep Sky maintains its project will be able to succeed given Manitoba’s “natural advantages,” including suitable geologic conditions, a low-cost hydroelectric grid and a local workforce familiar with oil and gas operations.

The company recently sold North America’s first verified carbon removal credits after successfully storing carbon at its Innisfail facility, according to a press release Monday.

According to the December letter, it has now also secured “strong local buy-in” after hosting information sessions through the fall and winter. 

“Over the past year, we’ve engaged with Indigenous communities, municipalities, provincial partners and regional stakeholders across Manitoba to better understand local priorities and explore how this industry can create lasting economic opportunities for Manitoba,” Jason Vanderheyden, Deep Sky’s vice-president of government affairs and public policy said in an emailed statement. 

“All of these conversations continue to inform our approach as the project advances.”

Deep Sky points to First Nations support for proposed facility

Vanderheyden noted the company’s partnership with the Dakota Grand Council, a collaborative organization representing Manitoba’s Dakota nations.

In a letter to the province dated Dec. 5, 2025, Dakota Chiefs Dennis Pashe and Raymond Brown expressed “strong support for the Deep Sky Manitoba project,” noting it presents an opportunity to reverse “decades of economic exclusion in the region.” 

The project is anticipated to create between 750 and 1,000 jobs during construction, with around 100 permanent positions during operation. The Dakota council said it is working with Deep Sky to ensure its members are prioritized for these roles, and will explore equity opportunities through the relationship agreement. 

“Deep Sky’s Manitoba executive team engaged with us early, right from the start of the project and we found them to be extremely transparent,” Pashe said in an emailed statement. 

“They were also very informative when explaining the project and carbon removal technology, which is important when communities consider something new.”

The company will still need to complete impact and benefit agreements to receive consent from the Dakota Nation, he added.

Local rural governments come out in support of Deep Sky project

The package also included resolutions passed by the rural municipalities of Pipestone and Two Borders in early 2025 declaring support for carbon capture and storage projects, including the Deep Sky initiative, and urging Manitoba to amend its carbon storage rules in collaboration with the company.

Manitoba passed the Captured Carbon Storage Act in May 2024, outlining the legal framework for such projects. The accompanying regulations, which will outline the finer details of a company’s responsibilities when storing captured carbon, were initially expected this spring, according to a December interview with Manitoba’s Business, Mining, Trade and Economic Development Minister Jamie Moses.

It’s not yet clear when the regulations will be finalized.

In response to detailed questions from The Narwhal and the Free Press regarding the province’s support for Deep Sky’s proposal, progress on carbon storage regulations and the company’s power supply request, Moses’ office said in a three-sentence reply, “any decisions regarding that project will be communicated in the coming months” and consultation will continue to take place with affected communities.

Deep Sky looks for connection to provincial grid and hydroelectric power

Alongside local support, Deep Sky has the backing of several large corporations in the technology and finance sectors. 

Frontier is an advanced market commitment group representing some of the world’s largest tech and financial companies — including Stripe, Google, Shopify and Anthropic — in an effort to stimulate the carbon storage industry. 

The company is “actively evaluating Deep Sky for future offtake agreements and are encouraged by the pace of their technical progress,” according to a letter included in the Deep Sky package.

“However, to unlock this global market demand for Manitoba,” the company states, “two critical enablers are required: the allocation of hydroelectric power and a finalized regulatory framework.”

Bank of Montreal executive Grégoire Baillargeon, who serves as a board member for Carbon Removal Canada, wrote a similar letter of support urging the province to “grant the project a high-priority hydro allocation so that construction can begin and Manitoba can secure a leadership position in this emerging market.” 

Neither company responded to follow-up questions.

Any facility needing to draw more than five megawatts must submit a large power supply application, according to Manitoba Hydro (Deep Sky will need up to 15 megawatts of power in its first phase). In an email, media relations officer Peter Chura explained Hydro reviews applications thoroughly to determine feasibility, then forwards requests to the province for review and prioritization. 

Chura said Hydro could not confirm whether it had received a request for power from Deep Sky, as the Crown utility does not publicly discuss customers, applications or proposed developments. He confirmed Hydro has not received any directives from the Manitoba government regarding the Deep Sky proposal.

Julia-Simone Rutgers is a reporter covering environmental issues in Manitoba. Her position is part of a partnership between The Narwhal and the Winnipeg Free Press.

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.

Summary

• Grade 7 students Veda Nair and Latavia Douglas discovered their school and community no longer had access to recycling services after Ontario shifted responsibility for blue box collection to a producer-run system.
• Although the First Nation is eligible to join Ontario’s Blue Box Program, it has not registered due to logistical concerns.
• Nair and Douglas continue to advocate for recycling in their community, arguing they should have the same opportunity to protect the environment as anyone else.

In September 2025, Veda Nair and Latavia Douglas set out to start a recycling program at their school.

The Grade 7 students attend Mamawmatawa Holistic Education Centre, locally known as MHEC, in Constance Lake First Nation, about 500 kilometres northeast of Thunder Bay, Ont. They planned to encourage their classmates to sort paper, plastic and other recyclables through a student-led initiative called Project Z.E.R.O.

Project Z.E.R.O. stands for “zero mistakes, engage everyone, recycle and one school, one goal,” Nair said. 

But the project quickly became complicated. 

“When we first started, we just hoped that this would be a little project where we would just buy some recycling bins and everyone would recycle, but it evolved into a lot more,” Nair said.

For one thing, they learned there were no longer recycling services available in Constance Lake — not for their school, or the roughly 200 homes in the community. Any recycling they collected and sorted had nowhere to go.

Up until 2023, Ontario municipalities were responsible for their own recycling programs. Then, the Ontario government decided to make a major change, shifting that responsibility over to Circular Materials, a not-for-profit organization run and funded by the major producers of recyclables, like plastic and cardboard.

Municipalities and First Nations have gradually transitioned over to the new program — but not all of them, at least not yet. Constance Lake’s recycling had been handled through an agreement with the nearby Town of Hearst, Ont., but now, like more than 100 other First Nations, it is lacking that service.

“We were unable to continue it because the Town of Hearst isn’t responsible for the recycling anymore,” Nair said. 

Constance Lake is located about 32 kilometres by road northwest of Hearst. After the First Nation’s landfill site was closed in 2018, a solid waste and waste diversion service agreement was signed and the town provided recycling services for the First Nation, which has about 900 members living on reserve. According to the agreement dated March 28, 2020, Hearst would accept the First Nation’s waste and recycling material at the municipal landfill site in exchange for a service fee.

But that changed a few years later, according to Éric Picard, the chief administrative officer for the Town of Hearst, to prepare for Ontario’s new recycling regime, the Blue Box Program. Lillian Sutherland, infrastructure and public works manager for Constance Lake First Nation, said the community has not received any recycling services since around 2022, when the provincial program was ramping up.

The First Nation’s waste is still handled by the town, but the recyclable materials are no longer accepted under the renewed agreement because blue box services are now administered by the province and producer-led organization.

That has left Nair and Douglas trying to figure out where their school’s recyclables could go.

Why doesn’t Constance Lake First Nation have a recycling program?  

Ontario’s Blue Box Program recycles printed paper and packaging, including plastics, paper, glass, aluminum and steel. It is regulated by the provincial government and managed by Circular Materials. Its recycling services are largely contracted out to GFL Environmental Inc.

The Doug Ford government finalized its Blue Box Regulation in June 2021 and began transitioning responsibility for residential recycling from municipalities and First Nations to Circular Materials. The new system officially launched in July 2023. Under the regulation, all participating communities were to be included in the new system by Dec. 31, 2025.

Ontario’s Blue Box Regulation defines an eligible community as a local municipality, local services board area or First Nations reserve south of the Far North region of Ontario — but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re participating.

Constance Lake, for example, is eligible for the program, according to a spokesperson for the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority, the regulator mandated by the Ontario government to enforce the province’s recycling law. But it hasn’t signed up — and it’s not alone.

As of Jan. 1, 2026, only 12 First Nations out of 102 residing south of the Far North border had transitioned over to the new program. 

Eligible First Nations must first register and submit information about their community and existing waste collection services. That information is then shared with Circular Materials. Once a First Nation is registered, Circular Materials is required to provide an offer of collection services or funding on behalf of the producers that finance the system.

Constance Lake First Nation Chief Richard Allen told The Narwhal the community did not apply to be a part of Ontario’s Blue Box Program due to logistical concerns — the cost of transportation to and from the community and concerns GFL would not service it because the reserve is on federal Crown land.

Part of the challenge facing Project Z.E.R.O. is that students and school staff have received conflicting information about why recycling services through GFL Environmental are unavailable in the community, and if it’s related to being on federal lands.

“We were a little panicked because, what would we do if the only company that was responsible for our recycling cannot help us with recycling?” Douglas said.

The Narwhal reached out to GFL Environmental Inc., but the company declined to comment, explaining that it is a contracted service provider, and referred questions to Circular Materials.

In an emailed statement to The Narwhal, Circular Materials wrote it is not currently engaged in any discussions about providing recycling service to Constance Lake First Nation and not in the position to comment on operations or any possible third-party private contract negotiations. It further wrote eligibility is determined by Ontario’s Blue Box Regulation.

“Circular Materials is committed to supporting First Nations communities with their needs and requirements around the blue box transition, in alignment with Ontario’s Blue Box Regulation,” Jennifer Kerr, a spokesperson for Circular Materials, wrote.

“Communities’ eligibility for participation in the Blue Box Program is determined by the Blue Box Regulation.”

‘It just seems a bit absurd’

Nair and Douglas began working on the project through their school’s enrichment program, a project-based learning class led by Cameron Straughan, who teaches science, technology, engineering and mathematics — or STEM.

Since learning about the lack of recycling service, the students have written letters to Kapuskasing-Timmins-Mushkegowuk MP Gaétan Malette, federal Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin and Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty, asking for advice and help.

“We recently did surveys at our school, and the results show that we have a lot of students and staff who are dedicated to recycling,” they wrote in the letter.

The students wrote that it “feels wrong” for paper and plastic to go into the garbage just because of where the community is located and that they have the support of their school to put a program in place, but need help to “find the right path.”

Nair said only Dabrusin’s office responded.

“And the funny thing is that they told us that they would transfer this to another person who is the Minister of Indigenous Services of Canada and we already sent them a letter,” she said.

Straughan said he was surprised by the limited response.

“I thought being students, a student-led project at a First Nation school, I thought that there’d be more response by far,” he said.

Indigenous Services Canada told The Narwhal the community has received $222,000 annually for their solid waste management needs since 2020-2021, which can cover recycling, garbage and compost.

The Narwhal reached out to Malette and Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, which oversees the blue box legislation, but did not receive a response before publication.

Mushkegowuk-James Bay MPP Guy Bourgouin declined to comment, but a spokesperson at his office said additional information is still being gathered and the situation continues to be reviewed.

Straughan said the situation is frustrating because Hearst is only about a 30-minute drive from Constance Lake First Nation. He knows because he lives there and drives to the school every weekday.

“It seems a bit absurd to me that [GFL] cannot send a recycling truck to pick up recycling for this community,” he said.

“And yet they do pick up garbage. They do have a garbage truck in Constance Lake. Garbage is delivered to the dump in Hearst, but not recycling.”

Straughan understands the issue is complicated, but believes the students have exposed a real problem.

“It just seems absurd that we’re tied by red tape, our hands are tied by red tape that we can’t get that recycling truck to deliver,” he said.

Straughan said he has been impressed by how Nair and Douglas handled the complexity of the recycling issue. And the school may still have a path forward. They’re currently looking into the First Nations Waste Management Initiative, a federal program that supports First Nations in developing sustainable waste management systems. Straughan expects to write a proposal over the summer. 

“We have some more work to do ahead of us before we can actually get the recycling program up and running,” he said.

Students want decision-makers to understand that recycling should be available to their school — and community, Nair said. “As an Indigenous school or as any school, students use a lot of paper every day, we should have the rights to recycle and save our environment.”

Rajpreet Sahota is a community and policy reporting fellow. Her position is generously funded by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. As per The Narwhal’s editorial independence policy, the foundation has no editorial input.

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.

Summary

• A proposal by developer Cliff Bay Muskoka Corp. includes new condominium and hotel units, restaurants, a spa, an event centre and a marina in the small town of Gravenhurst, Ont., along with particularly controversial water villas over Lake Muskoka.
• The proposal relies on obtaining a Minister’s Zoning Order, or MZO, to bypass local municipal planning rules. 
• The MZO was a condition of the purchase when the developers bought it from the province, which one legal expert told The Narwhal could pose a conflict of interest.

Ontario cottage country — famous for its hundreds of clear lakes nestled in the Canadian Shield — is experiencing a first. 

The Cliff Bay resort project, proposed for the south end of Lake Muskoka, is planning for a Minister’s Zoning Order, a provincial decree that limits local government oversight in order to move development ahead. It’s known across the province as an MZO although, until now, Muskoka doesn’t appear to have experienced one. 

Now that it is, locals and cottagers have a lot to say. Throughout the town of Gravenhurst, Ont., lawn signs urge passersby to “Protect Muskoka Bay.” An attempt at an online public meeting initiated by the developers failed in May 2025, after its capacity of 100 attendees was quickly reached, with many more stuck in the waiting room eager to voice their concerns. 

The proposal by developer Cliff Bay Muskoka Corp., part of the KS Group of Companies, shows new condominium and hotel units, two restaurants, a spa, an event centre for weddings and a marina with space for 80 boats. While the developers originally proposed 1,400 units split between hotel and residential space, they told The Narwhal in an email that number has been “significantly reduced,” but didn’t say by how much.

All of this will spread across 33 hectares, or about the size of just under 50 soccer pitches.

A particularly controversial aspect of the Cliff Bay resort plan are additional water villas proposed to be built directly over the lake. Their construction would impact Crown lake-bed, which supports invertebrates and insects that are the backbone of the lake ecosystem.

“The building over water is what gets me the most,” Bruce Parlette, who spends half his time at his cottage on Lake Muskoka, told The Narwhal. Parlette began an online petition opposing the project that has accumulated more than 5,300 signatures over the last year.

By current municipal rules, buildings on the bay typically have to be at least 20 metres, in some cases 30, from the shoreline. “But they’re looking to build all these villas on the water … so the whole shoreline protection, that buffer zone, would be gone,” Parlette said.

So far, Gravenhurst’s leadership has been quiet on the project within its borders. A spokesperson told The Narwhal in an email that the town has not taken a position or issued any news releases or statements as “there hasn’t really been anything to share,” adding that they are awaiting the final proposal for “some form of statement or release.” 

When asked about public concerns over the impact of the project, the spokesperson said “the town does not own the property, process or decision here,” adding that council “certainly heard the concerns” at the developer’s public information session and might be able to take an eventual position when the process is further along.

The spokesperson did express council’s desire to see the property, a mix of undeveloped Crown land and a former sanatorium, put to productive use for the community. 

Meanwhile, Parlette and advocates at the Muskoka Lakes Association are selling the lawn signs, emailing officials and participating in public meetings about what the association calls the “deeply troubling details of a massive development proposal.”

“Nobody wants to see it done with an MZO, because then it’s going to override any local planning, zoning and decision-making,” Parlette said.

The developer website reads that, “in partnership with the Province of Ontario, we’re redeveloping this iconic site into a vibrant, mixed-use tourist complex,” in a project that reflects their “commitment to thoughtful growth, economic development and preserving the natural beauty of Muskoka for generations to come.”

The Narwhal also sent questions to Infrastructure Ontario, which sold the land to Cliff Bay, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Neither of the provincial agencies involved responded to detailed questions about the sale of the land, the Minister’s Zoning Order and public concerns about the impact of the project.

Muskoka’s first MZO and the Doug Ford government’s track record using them

A Minister’s Zoning Order is a powerful control tool. It lets the provincial Housing Minister unilaterally decide how land is used and developed by bypassing local municipal planning and public consultation processes that would otherwise be required under the Planning Act. 

After searching publicly available government records, The Narwhal was unable to find evidence of any other MZOs being issued in the Muskoka area, including in the three major towns of Gravenhurst, Bracebridge, Huntsville and smaller hubs like Bala and Port Carling. 

Phil Pothen, legal counsel and program manager of land use and Ontario environment at advocacy organization Environmental Defence, told The Narwhal the Muskoka proposal raises concerns because the developers stated publicly that obtaining a Minister’s Zoning Order was a condition of the purchase and sale agreement between Infrastructure Ontario and the developers.

“It would actually place the province in something of a conflict of interest,” Pothen said, “in the sense that [the province] is both the landowner who stands to gain more if the land is more highly valued and the regulator who’s actually making the decision.”

Discussion of the MZO came at a public information meeting held over Zoom in July 2025, a redo after the over-capacity attempt that May. There, Kirill Soloviev, head of strategic planning for Cliff Bay, told hundreds of attendees that, as part of the deal for the developer to buy the property from the province, a “Ministerial Zoning Order was included, and now it’s a formal part of the transaction.” Bob List, a land use and environmental planner acting as a consultant for the project, echoed the statement.

The Cliff Bay project’s developer wrote in an email to The Narwhal that a Minister’s Zoning Order was a “necessity” because mixed land use — mostly recreational and commercial — is currently not recognized in existing zoning for the property. Ensuring a Minister’s Zoning Order would come through was essential to the decision to purchase the land, as without it, the decision to rezone the property for the purposes of the resort would have been left with the township, and not guaranteed.

In 2024, the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario conducted an audit of Minister’s Zoning Orders in the province and found that between 2017 and 2023, 114 were issued. With the Doug Ford government first elected in 2018, that average of 23 per year represents a 17-fold increase from the prior two decades. The audit concluded that these orders “have been used to override municipal planning.”

The audit also found that most information packages prepared for the office of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as it evaluated each order “did not contain the kind of detailed risk information normally factored into municipal zoning decisions.” That included key information about the capacity of local roads, sewers and other infrastructure; the risks posed by natural hazards and the environment; and likely financial burdens to regions, municipalities and taxpayers.

These orders cannot be appealed at the Ontario Land Tribunal. Of the 25 Minister’s Zoning Orders the auditor general scrutinized for the report, they found that half showed “no evidence the ministry engaged with any affected Indigenous communities” prior to issuing the order. 

“This is a threat, frankly, to the rule of law in Ontario,” Pothen said. “It’s a process that is much more susceptible to impropriety than a conventional planning process where multiple individuals all need to be lined up in support of a proposal.”

What’s next for Cliff Bay resort in Ontario cottage country?

Right now, the area surrounding the site boasts a tree-lined shore spotted with cottages, ranging from quaint to luxurious. Docks surround the large, clear blue bay, with Muskoka chairs set up with views across the lake. Not far from the water on the site, the eerie, now-closed hospital building sits abandoned and overgrown.

Maintaining shorelines is critical to ecosystems and the wildlife they support; it’s where fish spawn, turtles lay eggs and birds nest. Healthy shoreline vegetation also filters rainwater and can even limit flooding, a risk that is increasing in the face of climate change.

In a response to questions from The Narwhal, the Cliff Bay developers said that upcoming changes to their plans will add more features for public use, like the beaches and public trails Soloviev mentioned during the public meetings, and address public comments they’ve received from people reaching out to them. 

In an email, they said no “significant or unusual environmental impacts are anticipated,” as sewage will be processed at an existing local treatment facility and because “there are no significant natural heritage features on the site.” The developers said they anticipate an updated draft of the Minister’s Zoning Order will be “available for further public review, Indigenous consultation and government processing in several months.”

Despite these efforts, Minister’s Zoning Orders do not come with any legally binding requirement to consult the public — a point project planner List repeated several times at the July 2025 Zoom meeting.

Pothen said the zoning orders provide a direct route for the minister to “leapfrog and circumvent the established planning laws of a municipality” and to approve a development even if it doesn’t conform with the official plan or with the government’s own provincial planning statement.

The Minister’s Zoning Order process does involve collecting comment from municipal governments. But, according to the auditor general’s report, there is no legislated requirement for the ministry to satisfy any municipal requests for specific conditions prior to the orders being issued. 

The Cliff Bay development will have to go through several environmental checks before being built — including a posting on the environmental registry of Ontario for public comment if the proposal goes through. 

There are cases where Minister’s Zoning Orders have been useful, Pothen told The Narwhal, such as during COVID-19 lockdowns, when they allowed for quick creation of emergency shelters.

“They are meant to be used, in our view, for very extreme and emergency circumstances,” Pothen said. “What’s being posed here, it’s really just a way to circumvent the rule, which raises the problem.”

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.

Summary

• In early May, 49 birds were found in tailings ponds at Imperial Oil’s Kearl oilsands mine. Later in the month, 95 birds were found dead at the Suncor Firebag site.
• The Alberta government’s oilsands mine water steering committee made recommendations in 2025 to speed up creating standards for treating and releasing tailings, which are generated as a by-product of the oil extraction process.
• Treating and releasing tailings into rivers has been criticized by downstream First Nations, including Mikisew Cree First Nation.

At Jean L’Hommecourt’s cabin north of Fort McMurray, the birdsong is frequently interrupted by the hollow booming of a cannon, a stark reminder of the proximity of the oilsands in an otherwise tranquil setting of muskeg and boreal forest. 

L’Hommecourt got another reminder of her toxic neighbour last month. Announcements about oiled birds in tailings ponds have L’Hommecourt, who is from Fort McKay First Nation, and other community members thinking about the 1.4 billion cubic litres of tailings ponds upstream of their water supply and food sources in northern Alberta. 

The booming cannons heard from L’Hommecourt’s cabin are an attempt to scare away birds that might otherwise land on tailings ponds and perish — but they don’t always work. Fort McKay First Nation notified members that 49 birds were found in tailings ponds at Imperial Oil’s Kearl oilsands mine between May 1 and 8. “Detection and deterrent systems, including the use of drones for hazing, have remained active during this spring migration period,” the notice to members said. The Narwhal reached out to Imperial Oil to ask whether the birds were found deceased, or if any birds had been retrieved and rehabilitated, but the company did not respond to multiple requests for comment. 

“It’s claiming the lives of our waterfowl. That is our traditional foods,” L’Hommecourt, who has been an advocate for clean drinking water, said.  

L’Hommecourt’s cabin is 13 kilometres away from the Kearl mine site and she no longer harvests plants or berries from the area. She is concerned about the effects of air pollution, though she and her husband will still harvest moose, as they live on a diet of traditional foods as much as possible. 

95 more birds found dead at Suncor site in May

Living downstream of tailings ponds has long been a concern for residents in and around Fort McKay, which is in the middle of much oilsands mining activity, as well as in Fort Chipewyan, a remote fly-in community accessible only by plane or winter road that is downstream of the oilsands. Fort Chipewyan has three Indigenous groups: Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, the Fort Chipewyan Métis and the Mikisew Cree.

On May 24, Mikisew Cree First Nation also notified members that birds were found dead at one of Suncor’s oilsands sites, known as the Suncor Firebag site. 

“After a thorough search of the area, a total of 95 birds have been found deceased in the north-east quadrant of the site, not near any bodies of water,” a spokesperson for Suncor said in a statement.

Birds land on tailings ponds to rest as they migrate. Lights from the work camps, changes in temperature and even a change in headwinds can mean the migrating birds need these pit stops.

When a bird lands in a tailings pond they can become coated with oil, which can reduce the waterproofing in their feathers and can cause them to sink. Birds that can get out of the tailings pond and have the oil removed may have reduced insulation and other negative effects that can lead to hypothermia even from small amounts of oil, according to a federal government report on annual bird mortality in the oilsands.

The Alberta Energy Regulator said it was conducting an inspection of the Firebag site for more information about the dead birds. 

A spokesperson for the regulator said by email that oilsands operators typically use a number of deterrents to stop birds or other wildlife from ending up in tailings ponds, including propane-fired cannons and loudspeakers, scarecrows, human effigies and kites shaped like hawks.

The Narwhal previously reported on an unreleased internal document from the Alberta Energy Regulator in 2021 that showed an “emphasis on the appearance of sophisticated bird protection over data that demonstrate it.”

L’Hommecourt said she is upset that even though there is ample time to plan new deterrents, communities are still receiving notifications about oiled birds and bird deaths. 

Suncor added in a statement that it has a monitoring and mitigation program to prevent its sites from harming wildlife. The cause of death for the birds is currently unknown. 

Bird deaths continue as Alberta plans a new treat-and-release approach to tailings

The announcements have spurred further concern about pollution issues downstream of the oilsands. Mikisew Cree First Nation Chief Billy-Joe Tuccaro went to Ottawa in November to call on the federal government to manage tailings ponds and other industrial waste in a way that protects nearby communities like Fort Chipewyan, where he said he doesn’t feel Indigenous sovereignty or community concerns about water are being taken seriously. 

“So, what they’re saying is that it’s safe. Well, if it’s so safe, build a pipeline, put it right by the [legislature] in Edmonton. The premier can drink it first, then send another pipeline to Calgary, then the Bow, they can drink it as well, those corporate people, and then build one, go to the east, and then Carney could drink it too,” he told The Narwhal. 

“And then they could be the science experiments, the subjects, because we’re tired of it.”

The Alberta government’s oilsands mine water steering committee made recommendations in 2025 to speed up creating standards for treating and releasing the water generated as a by-product of the oil extraction process.

The liquid is a mixture of residual bitumen, heavy metals, clay and sand. Studies show that the “oilsands process-affected water,” as it is called in industry, also contains a toxic slurry of naphthenic acids, volatile organic compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. These can cause health effects including narcosis (cell poisoning) and disrupt the endocrine system, which can cause issues with diabetes, fertility, thyroid malfunction and increased cancer risk.

Tuccaro said there have not been enough studies into the cumulative effects of oilsands mining. While the focus on water safety tends to be on drinking water from the taps, he added there is also an effect from consuming traditional foods such as berries and fish from the area. 

All three Indigenous communities in the Fort Chipewyan area — the Mikisew Cree, the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and the Fort Chipewyan Métis — have expressed concerns about the Alberta government’s plans to treat and release tailings pond water. 

Tany Yao, the MLA for the area, did not respond to a media request about the birds in the tailings ponds nor about the Fort Chipewyan residents’ concerns about the plans to eventually treat and release tailings pond water.

Updated June 17, 2026, at 6:43 a.m. MT: Due to an editing error, a previous version of the summary at the top of this article stated all 49 birds found in tailings ponds at Imperial Oil’s Kearl oilsands mine had died. In fact, the company did not respond to questions about whether the birds were confirmed dead, as the article states. The summary also stated birds at the Suncor site were found dead in tailings ponds when the company said they were not found in water, as the article says.

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.

Federal Minister of Indigenous Services Mandy Gull-Masty has unveiled a new and long-awaited bill to provide safe drinking water to First Nations, which she says was written to ensure “we have provincial partners at the table.” Ontario chiefs say they were shut out and their right to clean water was not recognized. 

Gull-Masty denied her government caved to provincial pressure in Bill C-37, or An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands, that sets out principles to provide safe drinking water and disposal of wastewater for First Nations.

“My conversations with leadership and the chiefs that have spoken to me understand that we are trying to pass a bill that is going to be protected and stand the test of time,” the minister said at a press conference on Parliament Hill on June 16.

“I’m not trying to put a bill forward that is going to be challenged,” she said. “I’m trying to put a bill forward that partners, provinces and territories feel can advance, that they can work with us.”

The Chiefs of Ontario, however, say First Nations were not consulted in the process. The group is “cautiously optimistic” but remains concerned about the approach to this issue by the government of Prime Minister Mark Carney.“Unlike previous legislative efforts, which were developed through meaningful dialogue and partnerships with First Nations Knowledge Keepers [and] technicians, Bill C-37 was introduced without broad or meaningful input from First Nations,” Linda Debassige, Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief, and a member of the Chiefs of Ontario leadership council, said in a Tuesday press conference in Rama, Ont. 

“Our letters of advocacy have been met with a deafening silence, to be honest. We do not have access to parliamentary privileged dialogue or cabinet discussions in relation to this.”

It’s been over a year since the Liberal Party promised in their election platform to “immediately introduce and pass legislation affirming that First Nations have a human right to clean drinking water.” In the last six months, two First Nations in northern Ontario have declared severely worsening water crises due to failed infrastructure; one of the communities, Kashechewan, remains entirely evacuated.

The bill released this week states that the quality of water on First Nations lands must at minimum meet either federal guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality and for wastewater, or the standards in place in the province or territory where the lands are located. It’s backed by $4.6 billion for First Nations communities to build, operate and maintain water and wastewater systems, according to the press release, which adds to the $9.4 billion committed to these projects over the past decade.

The minister will still have to come out with regulations for a “protection zone,” which the bill leaves undefined. The use of these zones would hand First Nations jurisdiction over water sources adjacent to their lands — that is, if the nation and the federal and provincial governments have all agreed on the rules in force. 

“We have to acknowledge that [water] is not stagnant, it moves around,” Gull-Masty said. “For water that is adjacent or flowing in and out, I think that the important part of the work that we’re undertaking is that partners and territories understand that they also have a role to play.”

In addition to defining “protection zones,” the bill empowers the minister to come out with regulations on a dozen different aspects of water services, including source water protections, training and certification, occupational health and safety, monitoring and inspections, emergency planning, permitting and more. The government can even design regulations to govern the disclosure of information.

But the bill doesn’t commit to the same kind of rights language that the Liberals promised in their platform. Instead, it declares that the government’s policy is to “further the progressive realization, for individuals on First Nation lands, of the human right to safe drinking water as protected by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.” That covenant is a multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations that came into force in the 1970s.

“To me, [this] is insane,” Debassige told reporters. “It’s been a progressive realization for many of our nations for decades.”

Debassige has been working on First Nations water issues for more than a decade and has been involved in negotiations over previous federal bills on the matter. She said that by excluding language like “in collaboration with First Nations” in Gull-Masty’s new legislation, the Carney government is “hiding from their obligations.” 

“We must remember that most of the drafters of Bill C-37 have never spent time in our community,” she said, citing the speedy passage of the federal Bill C-5 and the provincial Bill 5, both of which aim to “fast-track” infrastructure and mining approvals and construction. “And we’ve seen the pushback on the previous iteration of this bill. And now we see the results of that weakening of our inherent rights to pave way for economic development.” 

“I think it’s a deflection of responsibility, a fear of provinces, a fear of nation-building projects not coming through because our nations want to protect water.” 

The bill comes as tensions grow over these issues between the federal government, provincial governments and First Nations. 

Some chiefs, particularly in Treaty 8 territory, which spans northern B.C., Alberta and parts of Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories, asked the federal government to rethink its approach. Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation’s chief said the bill didn’t meaningfully incorporate inherent and Treaty Rights to water while Mikisew Cree First Nation’s chief said the bill didn’t do enough to deal with the potential release of oilsands wastewater into rivers.

Last July, the environment ministers from Ontario and Alberta asked the federal government to “refrain” from introducing a new First Nations water bill, claiming it would “undermine competitiveness, delay project development and disproportionately harm specific provinces and territories without any quantifiable benefits to the natural environment.” 

Ontario’s Environment Minister Todd McCarthy apologized for any “confusion” the request may have caused First Nations. But First Nations have not been convinced by the apology. The Ontario government has skirted meaningful consultation with First Nations in its push to open the Ring of Fire region in northern Ontario, with significant implications for water use and sources, and broadly speed up mining approvals and development. It has also signalled its own plans to make broad changes to provincial clean water rules.

As Canada and Ontario rush to expedite major projects, including in the mining sector, First Nations have long been asking for the same expediency to pass laws to protect drinking water before shovels hit the ground. With a few days left before MPs are scheduled to rise for the summer, this bill is unlikely to become law before the fall. 

“I wish one of Canada’s major projects were to provide us clean drinking water,” Knowledge Keeper Sally Gaikezheyongai said, as she offered a prayer to begin the Tuesday press conference by the Chiefs of Ontario. “I ask the Creator to make sure that happens hopefully within my lifetime.” 

Why does Canada need a law to protect access to clean drinking water on First Nations? 

Indigenous Services Canada reports that there are 36 Indigenous communities that have been under orders for more than a year to boil their drinking water for one minute. Most of these communities are in Ontario. The longest-standing boil water advisory is for Neskantaga First Nation in northern Ontario, just south of the Ring of Fire region. It hasn’t had clean drinking water since 1995. (The federal count is not comprehensive, as some jurisdictions, such as B.C., track their own boil-water advisories in Indigenous communities.)

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to end all these boil-water advisories by March 31, 2021, but did not succeed. Post-colonization, and as stated in the Indian Act, the federal government has a fiduciary obligation to ensure safe, potable drinking water for First Nations. Instead, there is a regulatory black hole for and chronic underinvestment in on-reserve water and wastewater services.

A month before Trudeau’s deadline, a government audit found that Indigenous Services Canada “did not provide the support necessary to ensure that First Nations communities have ongoing access to safe drinking water,” thus prolonging boil water advisories. 

The impacts of these failures are severe, including preventable illnesses, costly reliance on bottled water and long-term evacuations. 

Kashechewan First Nation, a community of 2,000 residents, has been entirely evacuated since January due to a catastrophic sewage pump failure. There is still no access to safe drinking water on their reserve. 

In May, Pikangikum First Nation declared a second state of emergency, a year after the original declaration, due to collapsing water and wastewater systems. The community’s only water treatment plant is operating beyond capacity, even as more than 300 homes remain without direct water service. The community’s reservoir is also at critically low levels and is losing water at a rate roughly four times greater than it can be filled.As a result, the nearly 4,000 on-reserve residents are dealing with daily water rationing and forced evening shutdowns. As wildfire season looms, Pikangikum is now suing the federal government. 

“It’s so important that we take action as a country, as First Nations leadership, to ensure that there are no more Kashechewans, that there are no more Pikangikums,” Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, told reporters. 

“It’s unacceptable that this is a reality that many of our communities are being put in: to try to negotiate on big, major nation-building projects while they’re trying to make sure that their children and their youth can have access to water to drink.”

Why is the federal law to protect clean drinking water on First Nations so delayed?

There have been different iterations of this legislation, Kathleen Padulo, director of environment for the Chiefs of Ontario, told The Narwhal in a conversation before Bill C-37 was released, but none have proved durable.

Since the 1970s, the federal government has been promising to provide Indigenous communities with water and wastewater systems equal to those enjoyed by most Canadians, but no matter which party is in power, it has continuously fallen short of that goal. 

In 2013, the Stephen Harper government passed the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. This law created a regulatory regime to govern water infrastructure on First Nations lands, but without any financial backing or centring Indigenous decision-making or rights. It also didn’t protect the sources of water flowing onto First Nation lands.

“It had no teeth, and it was really watered down,” Padulo said. “It was a piece of paper just floating around for years.” 

As a result, this law was met with widespread disapproval from First Nations. Several, including Neskantaga, launched a class action lawsuit in 2019, claiming “Canada has been negligent, breached its fiduciary duties, breached the honour of the Crown and breached various rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Ottawa settled that lawsuit in 2021, agreeing to provide $1.8 billion in compensation and spend $6 billion on water infrastructure over nine years. The federal government also promised to repeal and replace the Conservative law. 

That didn’t happen until 2023 when the Trudeau government introduced Bill C-61, or the First Nations Clean Drinking Water Act. The landmark bill involved First Nations in its creation, doing so over a two-year-long consultation and co-development process. This bill established clean drinking water as a human right, set minimum standards for drinking water and wastewater on reserves and pledged funding for water-related infrastructure. This bill also created an Indigenous-led First Nations Water Commission to help implement the law and monitor its impact. 

After weeks of consultation with First Nations, the bill did not pass before Parliament was prorogued in January 2025. Then-Indigenous services minister Patty Hajdu said the delay was the fault of opposition parties. 

Padulo said they’ve been waiting for this bill to re-emerge and be passed “with the speed of light like Bill C-5” and then put it in place in communities right away. 

“What is happening here is colonization at the end of the day, that’s what it is,” Padulo said. “And Canadians not understanding that not everybody has basic human rights.”

What happens next?

Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief Debassige is asking the government to ensure “sufficient engagement” with First Nations as this bill goes through the parliamentary process, urging the government to move quickly from legislation to action. 

“We’re cautiously optimistic,” she said, but with the Liberals holding a majority government, “It’s going to be a difficult process.”

“Water is a human right. Full stop,” Debassige said. “We are looking to Canada to help us champion a shift from the outdated and colonial perspectives of First Nations being viewed as second-class citizens to ensuring our people can enjoy the same clean and safe drinking water guaranteed to non-First Nations across this country.” 

Gull-Masty said the government supports consultations with First Nations governing bodies to develop the many regulations that the bill authorizes. 

Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict told reporters that the government needs to focus on accountability to ensure First Nations communities have “confidence in the drinking water.”  

“We are calling on the federal government to move swiftly from legislation to action. The goal must not only be to eliminate advisories, but to prevent new ones from coming on,” he continued. “Legislation is only the beginning of ending these challenges.”

“Our communities have waited long enough.” 

Updated on June 16, 2026, at 8:40 p.m. ET: This story has been updated to include the amount of federal funding dedicated to building, maintaining and operating water and wastewater infrastructure in First Nations communities as part of Bill C-37.

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.

Summary

• With demand for electricity rising fast, BC Hydro says it needs natural gas power plants to keep operating to ensure the province has enough power.
• Island Generation, a natural gas plant in Campbell River, B.C., was supposed to be decommissioned but BC Hydro is now seeking to renew its contract as the province needs the power. 
• Energy Minister Adrian Dix said Island Generation is facing supply issues due to the Squamish-based Woodfibre LNG project. As the project is not yet operational, Dix’s comments have confused and surprised some politicians and experts.

When a heat wave hits Vancouver Island, residents turn up their air conditioning, flick on fans or adjust their heat pumps. Demand for electricity spikes. That’s also true during cold snaps and long, dark winter nights when more electricity is needed to keep homes lit and warm.

It’s on those days of extreme electricity demand that a Campbell River power plant fuelled by natural gas is most likely to fire up. Island Generation, owned by Capital Power, is one of a handful of facilities in B.C. that use natural gas to produce electricity. It’s what is known as a peaker plant, mostly called on to generate power at times of peak demand.

With a capacity of 275 megawatts, Island Generation can create enough electricity to power about 125,000 homes. It accounts for about one-quarter of all the electricity that can be produced on Vancouver Island. Only about 40 per cent of the electricity used on the island is generated locally. The rest comes from the mainland, transmitted via cables laid across the bed of the Salish Sea.

Over the past five years, Island Generation has operated an average of 15 days per year, according to Adrian Dix, B.C.’s minister of energy and climate solutions.

But, the facility has been having trouble getting the gas it needs to generate electricity at critical times, Dix told members of the B.C. Conservative caucus on April 23. He said the supposed natural gas supply issue is connected to liquefied natural gas (LNG) production. 

“The reason why the supply of gas is affected is that gas is going to a project called Woodfibre LNG in Squamish. That has been the issue between ourselves and Capital Power,” he said. 

Dix’s statement surprised and puzzled the politicians and experts The Narwhal spoke to. Woodfibre LNG is still under construction until at least next year. Until then, there’s no obvious reason the Squamish facility would be using gas that would otherwise go to Island Generation. 

But questions to the Energy Ministry, Island Generation and Woodfibre LNG mostly went unanswered. None provided information needed to clarify the situation with Island Generation’s gas supply.

“Woodfibre LNG will be purchasing gas in the future once the facility is operational,” a spokesperson for the facility said in response to multiple emails and questions, an answer that does not directly address whether the facility is currently buying natural gas, as the minister implied.

The Energy Ministry did not respond to The Narwhal’s request for an interview with Dix or to specific questions about the ministry’s knowledge about Island Generation’s gas supply or its efforts to ensure the facility will be able to get the gas it needs to operate.

Green Party MLA Jeremy Valeriote, who represents the Vancouver-Sea to Sky riding where Woodfibre LNG is located, told The Narwhal he has not been able to clarify Dix’s comments.

“I’m just flagging for the public that it’s been hard for either of us to get any public information on this,” Valeriote said.

‘Where would that extra energy come from?’

BC Hydro’s contract with Capital Power was set to end in October 2026, but it recently applied to the BC Utilities Commission for a new agreement. The application mentions both Island Generation and the McMahon Cogeneration facility in Taylor, B.C., near the heart of the province’s oil and gas industry. The two gas-fired plants could help BC Hydro meet about 80 per cent of a 500-megawatt electricity shortfall it forecasts will materialize by 2030.

Demand for electricity has been rising rapidly in B.C., driven partly by large industrial customers such as LNG terminals and mining operations. BC Hydro has been under pressure to find efficiencies in its system and bring on new generating capacity with an emphasis on renewable sources such as wind and solar.

Meanwhile, the provincial government has been working to usher in an LNG boom, which could put pressure on the electrical grid and increase competition for natural gas.

Valeriote noted BC Hydro is supposed to be phasing out fossil fuel electricity generation, not seeking new contracts with gas-fired plants.

“It’s pretty concerning when we talk about firing up what should have been a decommissioned gas plant on the island that may not even have gas … in those critical, peak times,” he said.

BC Hydro’s submission to the utilities commission argues the Clean Energy Act, which requires it to generate and purchase enough energy to meet demand, trumps the regulations regarding phasing out fossil fuels. 

B.C. Conservative MLA Larry Neufeld wants to know what would happen if Island Generation were unable to operate during a demand peak.

“Where would that extra energy come from?” Neufeld, who serves as his party’s critic for oil, gas and LNG, said. 

“Would that be siphoned off of the Lower Mainland? Would it be imported? Those are excellent questions that the minister would be responsible to answer.”

B.C.’s LNG push and electricity demand

By 2030, there could be three LNG facilities operating in B.C. and a huge increase in demand for natural gas. In May, the Canadian government celebrated an agreement that could see one of them, Ksi Lisims LNG, sell one million tonnes of liquefied natural gas (LNG) per year to Germany, starting sometime in the 2030s.

Another is LNG Canada, located on B.C.’s coast, the first large-scale LNG export facility in the country. 

It is already using up a huge amount of gas to operate: last year, LNG Canada received more than 3.6 billion cubic metres of natural gas. Nearly 10 per cent of what it burned off was because of an issue with one of the flare stacks, as The Narwhal previously reported.

And, it might eventually use much more. Earlier this month, B.C. Premier David Eby, federal Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson and LNG Canada CEO Chris Cooper held a press conference about a potential second phase of the project.

The newsiness of this announcement — trumpeting another small step toward a final commitment to proceed — was so thin one reporter asked why a press conference had been called at all. But Phase 2 could make a big difference to the province’s energy supply, as LNG Canada’s demand for natural gas could double as its production capacity rises to 28 million tonnes of LNG per year.

Woodfibre LNG will have a much smaller production capacity. It is expected to produce 2.1 million tonnes of LNG per year and will need about 7.7 million cubic metres of natural gas to do so. That gas will be supplied via a new pipeline branch off the Eagle Mountain pipeline, which currently supplies Vancouver Island, including the Island Generation station.

FortisBC is in the process of building that new section of Eagle Mountain as well as upgrading the section of the pipeline that leads into Squamish. A spokesperson for the company said in a statement that Fortis “regularly assesses system capacity and plans for growth and changing regional needs.”

“FortisBC can meet the needs of existing customers on Vancouver Island and we are continuing to deliver natural gas service in line with our contractual agreements,” the spokesperson said.

The Narwhal also asked Capital Power for an interview to discuss the minister’s comments. In response, a company spokesperson sent a two-sentence statement.

“Capital Power and BC Hydro are engaged in discussions around the future of the Island Generation facility in Campbell River,” the statement said. “Our focus is always to ensure we support the reliable, safe delivery of the power needs of British Columbians.”

A follow-up email with the same questions The Narwhal sent to the Energy Ministry went unanswered.

Conservative MLA Neufeld said British Columbians should not have to worry about a shortage of natural gas, even with a large increase in demand.

“Having spent over 30 years in the industry in northeast British Columbia, I will state that it is my opinion that that is a non-issue,” Neufeld told The Narwhal.

“There is far more than enough natural gas in the ground … we don’t have to be concerned about a supply crunch. Whether that is taken advantage of properly by government and by regulation is another question for the minister.”

But as British Columbians brace for a summer of heat waves and rising electricity demands, the province’s ability to keep power flowing becomes an increasingly important question.

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.

Summary

• The government under Prime Minister Mark Carney has “repealed or weakened virtually every climate policy and regulation that Canada had developed in the last decade,” a former member of Canada’s Net-Zero Advisory Body told MPs.
• Two former members of the body said last week they were left uninformed of new policy directions on fossil fuel development and emissions reductions while their previous advice was ignored.
• Canada’s goal of reaching net-zero emissions — and helping to slow the effects of climate change — by 2050 is now “out of reach,” they said.

The consequences of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s methodical cuts to Canada’s environmental rules are not being communicated honestly to the public, two former government advisors say. 

Climate scientist Simon Donner and environmental advocate Catherine Abreu are both former members of a legislated advisory body of climate scientists and policy experts. Last week, they shared their experience on that body with MPs, saying Carney’s government repeatedly kept them in the dark while it gutted one rule after another — from scrapping the consumer carbon price to setting aside clean electricity rules, ditching the oil and gas emissions cap, pausing electric vehicle mandates and signing a deal with Alberta that delayed rules for methane gas leakage and weakened requirements for industry to pay for its carbon emissions.

The government refused offers to hear their advice and cancelled a high-level meeting at the last minute, Donner, the former co-chair of the Net-Zero Advisory Body and a University of British Columbia professor who runs a Climate and Coastal Ecosystem Laboratory, told the House of Commons environment committee on June 9. 

Donner and Abreu, the former executive director of Climate Action Network Canada and now the executive director of the International Climate Politics Hub, were there to brief MPs from multiple parties on the state of the advisory body.

“We were not informed of policy decisions underway, nor asked to provide advice on those decisions,” Donner said about the government’s myriad changes while he was co-chair.

That included their assessment that the Carney government’s actions were trashing any chance of Canada reaching its goal of negating its planet-heating carbon pollution, which would slow its contribution to the climate crisis that is wreaking havoc on Canadians’ health. That judgment has since been echoed by the Canadian Climate Institute.

Abreu also felt Carney’s enthusiastic support for the oil and gas industry is being downplayed. The industry is the economic sector with the highest amount of emissions and despite Canada’s climate commitments, those emissions are climbing ever higher, offsetting declines in other economic sectors. 

“The shredding of environmental policy that this government has undertaken means that Canada is now on track to violate its own law and to fail to attain net-zero emissions by 2050,” Abreu said.

Carbon pollution worsens climate change, which is fuelling floods and wildfires that can lead to evacuations, toxic smoke and heat waves that smother cities and trigger asthma and mental health issues. Fumes and exhaust from fossil fuel-powered vehicles, power plants and gas appliances are connected with heart disease, strokes, chronic lung diseases, cancer and tens of thousands of premature deaths a year.

Abreu said the government didn’t consult the advisory body before releasing its Climate Competitiveness Strategy, which focused on protecting the global competitiveness of Canada’s oil and gas sector. That strategy “unwound much of the policies that we had advised on in previous years,” Abreu said.

And, she said, because the government designed that document to be a “strategy” and not a formal “plan,” it sidestepped a legal requirement to consider submissions from the advisory body on the plan’s merits.

Canadian oil producers are expected to make as much as $100 billion in profits this year as a result of the Iran war, according to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. The government is not contemplating a windfall tax on those profits, Abreu noted, which would require companies to hand over a portion of that excess profit to public coffers. Instead, the government is moving to further subsidize the industry. 

This spring, Carney formalized a tax credit for companies that use technology to capture carbon dioxide for the purposes of pumping more oil out of the ground. Former environment minister Steven Guilbeault, who announced he would resign his seat last month over the government’s policies, initially quit cabinet in part over the government’s plan to offer this new subsidy.

“Transparently communicating to Canadians, ‘This is a decision we’re making, here’s why and here are the protections that you’re going to lose as a result,’ is critical, and we’re not having that kind of open conversation,” Abreu told the MPs.

“Instead, things are being obfuscated with misleading language, including claims that we will continue to meet our net-zero goal, when clearly that has been put out of reach with recent decisions, and with misleading language like ‘decarbonized’ oil and gas, which is something that I hear this government say regularly, and is actually just a complete contradiction in terms.”

Environment and Climate Change Minister Julie Dabrusin’s spokesperson Keean Nembhard said the Climate Competitiveness Strategy contained measures to drive down emissions, including methane rules, carbon pricing, tax credits, critical minerals support and efforts to mobilize capital for the low-carbon transition. He said the government’s nature, electricity, and auto strategies are also meant to help cut carbon pollution.

“Our government has been clear that fighting climate change, protecting communities and building Canada are top priorities. Climate change is one of the defining challenges of our time and Canadians expect us to meet this challenge head-on,” he said.

The Narwhal also reached out to the prime minister’s office for comment but did not receive a response before publication.

Government ignored research, cancelled meetings with experts

The Net-Zero Advisory Body is authorized to include up to 15 people, but dropped to just six members last summer following Carney’s election, Donner said.

“It became very difficult for us to produce any work of value,” he said. 

The advisory body’s website currently lists five members. In April, Minister Dabrusin issued a statement that the government would be “implementing a series of updates” to the advisory body, as a result of “last year’s departures” as well as a “shift in focus” to “investment and growth in a low-carbon economy.”

The June briefing on the Net-Zero Advisory Body was the first that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has held. The committee’s job is to study and report on matters relating to a range of different environmental departments, agencies and laws, and has recently examined things like single-use plastics, carbon pricing and fresh water.

It’s one of several parliamentary committees in the House of Commons and Senate and is made up of MPs from parties with official status, which is based on the number of seats they hold. Although the Green Party and NDP aren’t committee members, Conservative MPs offered time for those parties’ questions. 

The former advisory body members gave opening statements and then answered questions for roughly an hour. Their testimony focused on the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, a federal law passed in 2021, which mandates that Canada reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The law requires the government to set increasingly stringent targets for lowering emissions and publish its plans to achieve them.

The law also establishes the Net-Zero Advisory Body of which Donner and Abreu were formerly members. It’s a kind of government climate council that provides independent advice to the environment minister on how to achieve net-zero emissions. The United Kingdom, South Korea and Australia have similar legislated climate councils. 

Under Canada’s law, the government is required to take into account “submissions provided by the advisory body” when coming up with an emissions reduction plan.

Abreu and Donner both joined the advisory body in 2021, but resigned last December after becoming frustrated with the cold shoulder they said they were receiving from Carney’s government. 

Last summer, the advisory board volunteered to brief the government on industrial carbon pricing and equivalency agreements with the provinces, Donner said, but he received “no response” from Carney’s office, and an acknowledgement but no appointment from Energy and Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson’s office.

The last straw was when the government proposed a deal with Alberta that weakens industrial carbon pricing, delays restrictions on industrial methane gas and significantly lowers the ambition of a carbon capture proposal from industry, while paving the way for a million-barrel-per-day oil pipeline to the west coast. 

Donner said the environment minister’s office cancelled a briefing with the advisory body scheduled for the day after the Canada-Alberta Memorandum of Understanding was released in November. 

After that, he said, he concluded the group’s work “had become performative.”

“You can’t be saying these deals are still compatible with net-zero by 2050. They’re not. The [Alberta] deal is not compatible with it,” he said.

“Just be honest with Canadians about this. If you’re going to pass deals like this, be honest about the implications.”

‘The oldest, most boring conversation I can possibly imagine’ about pipelines

Abreu told MPs the government has “repealed or weakened virtually every climate policy and regulation that Canada had developed in the last decade,” but with “no alternative policies or pathways being put in place.” 

She argued Carney’s killing of the consumer carbon tax on his first day in office was a decision based on “irresponsible and inaccurate rhetorical politics.” 

The prime minister’s decision to ditch the proposed oil and gas emissions cap opens the door for the government to help build projects, she argued, which will grow the sector’s emissions. 

And delaying the zero-emissions vehicle mandates has coincided with a drop in sales of new electric vehicles, she pointed out, “right at the moment when soaring gas prices are hurting Canadians who are struggling to fuel their gas guzzlers.”

The government’s proposal this spring to overhaul fossil fuel and nuclear project oversight, habitat preservation and species at risk protection and create “federal economic zones” where certain developments can be “pre-approved,” also undermines some of Canada’s longest-standing environmental protections, Abreu said.

She also called out Carney’s “national electricity strategy,” which sets aside clean electricity regulations and allows for new gas-fuelled power plants — which “makes a mockery of the abundant clean energy resources that should be a very celebrated economic advantage in this country.”

Instead, the country is stuck once again “having the oldest, most boring conversation I can possibly imagine, about how we’re going to build another pipeline,” she said.

“We’ve been having the same conversation the entire time that I’ve been in my professional career. It’s sad.”

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.