On the eve of B.C.’s 44th general election, FortisBC’s bid to significantly expand its liquefied natural gas (LNG) production was given a key green light by the B.C. government.

Less than 24 hours before David Eby’s snap election call sent cabinet ministers out onto the campaign trail, Environment and Parks Minister Tamara Davidson and Energy and Climate Solutions Minister Adrian Dix announced the project received its environmental assessment certificate. The approval was issued roughly two months after the final public comment period on the project ended.

Environmental groups condemned the government’s speedy approval as a rubber stamp.

“Approving more new fossil fuel infrastructure in a climate crisis is reckless and irresponsible, and yet more evidence that Premier David Eby is happy to break his past promises on fighting climate change,” Isabel Siu-Zmuidzinas, climate campaigner with Stand.earth, said.

The final press release from this version of the Eby government published on Sept. 21 touted the major expansion at Tilbury — a tenfold increase in the facility’s liquefied natural gas production capacity — as “a major economic, clean-energy opportunity for B.C.” But even if the expansion is powered by electricity, as planned, experts worry chemical emissions from the facility could affect the health of people living and working in nearby communities, including Delta, Richmond and New Westminster.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment has called for the B.C. government to fully assess the potential health impacts of the LNG industry, from the fracking fields in northern B.C. to LNG production and shipping facilities, like LNG Canada in Kitimat.

“If this industry is safe, the province should be willing to prove it before our families and our healthcare system pay the price,” Dr. Kai Irani, B.C. representative for the doctors’ association, said in the wake of the Tilbury Phase 2 approval.

FortisBC’s Tilbury LNG plant currently produces about 250,000 tonnes of LNG per year, which is used as fuel by some marine vessels and to heat homes and businesses. The Phase 2 expansion could allow the facility to produce up to 3.4 million tonnes each year, with roughly 2.5 million set aside for export. That’s slightly more than the 2.1 million tonnes Woodfibre LNG in Squamish expects to export once it begins operations.

The project’s environmental assessment certificate includes 18 conditions aimed at mitigating its impacts, including air quality monitoring and emission reduction. B.C.’s environmental assessment will inform the federal government’s own assessment of the project and pending decision on whether to approve Tilbury’s expansion.

FortisBC has been working on beefing up its operations at the Tilbury site for about a decade. In July, Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions Adrian Dix announced the government’s support of an earlier expansion proposal, known as Phase 1B, which will add a marine jetty to the site and increase production capacity to 650,000 tonnes of LNG per year. Once Phase 1B is completed, Tilbury LNG will be able to fuel more marine vessels with LNG, which is a lower-emission fuel than the diesel many ships use for power. 

A July cabinet order signed by Dix exempted Phase 1B from review by the B.C. Utilities Commission. That means the expansion will not undergo an independent assessment to examine whether it is necessary and serves the public interest. Last year, the B.C. government also exempted the North Coast transmission line from such a review.

Dix’s order prompted one of his fellow cabinet ministers to take the unusual step of speaking out against a government decision. Kelly Greene, who served as Minister of Emergency Preparedness and Climate Readiness, said she was disappointed with the decision to advance the Tilbury expansion. She has since decided not to seek re-election in the Richmond—Steveston riding she won in 2020.

The order also created the option for First Nations co-ownership of the project, which the Musqueam Indian Band has expressed interest in. 

Tilbury LNG Phase 2 is a separate proposal for the same site in Delta that would see the construction of a new LNG storage tank with a capacity of up to 142,400 cubic metres, about 57 Olympic swimming pools. There would also be new gas liquefaction facilities capable of producing up to 7,700 tonnes of LNG per day, along with other infrastructure needed to support the expanded operations.

B.C. is betting on major projects as Canada looks to open new markets and reduce its reliance on the U.S. Tilbury Phase 2 is among the 41 energy and mining projects the province has identified as a priority. 

Here’s what you need to know.

Why this project?

Tilbury’s Phase 2 expansion will boost the gas system in the Lower Mainland and help meet peak demand for heat during cold weather, according to the provincial government. Building the project will support 1,210 jobs, the province’s major projects site states — though how many people will be employed after the expansion is built is not yet known.

The project description does not mention the LNG export aspect of the expansion.

FortisBC’s website describes the Phase 2 expansion as a way to “continue reliably serving our customers in a lower-carbon energy future while providing economic growth and benefits to local and Indigenous communities.”

Increasing Tilbury’s LNG production capacity will allow the company to “respond to the growing demand for LNG as a lower-carbon fuel,” according to the site.

In an emailed statement, a FortisBC spokesperson highlighted that the Tilbury facility runs on electricity and therefore has “a lower carbon footprint compared to fossil fuel-based power sources commonly used in LNG production elsewhere.”

“The proposed Phase 2 expansion will be required to meet all applicable regulatory, environmental and permitting requirements, including those established by Metro Vancouver.”

What’s different about Tilbury LNG?

While the other LNG facilities operating or under construction in B.C. are located at some distance from nearby communities, Tilbury LNG is an urban facility.

It sits on the banks of the Fraser River, just across the water from Richmond and downstream from New Westminster, making it the only urban LNG facility in the province. Highway 17, one of the Lower Mainland’s major transportation corridors, runs right alongside it.

“It is a 10-minute walk … to the nearest brewery,” Anna Barford, oceans campaigner for Stand.earth, said in an interview. 

Loaded LNG tankers leaving the Tilbury facility will have to transit the south arm of the Fraser River mouth to make their way out into the Salish Sea, a busy shipping corridor that could become much more crowded over the next few years if and when a number of other projects come to fruition.

How does this fit into a bigger conversation about shipping traffic?

At Roberts Bank, just south of where LNG tankers from Tilbury would enter the Salish Sea, the Port of Vancouver is planning to expand its existing container port by 50 per cent. If that $3.5-billion proposed expansion goes ahead, the port location could handle an additional 2.4 million 20-foot (six-metre) shipping containers each year, adding hundreds of container ship transits to the Salish Sea’s waters.

Meanwhile, the completed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is expected to increase tanker traffic in the area by nearly 350 tankers per year.

And then there’s Alberta’s proposed pipeline to the Pacific coast, which would also terminate at Roberts Bank. The tanker terminal would be built to accommodate very large crude oil carriers, massive ships capable of carrying 2.2 million barrels of oil that are longer than three World Cup soccer pitches laid end to end.

“These are enormous vessels that the Tilbury tankers are going to navigate around — they will each need to sort of make way for each other,” Barford said. “This is also critical habitat for southern resident killer whales, who we know vessel traffic is a problem for.”

The Environmental Assessment Office will consider potential impacts on southern resident killer whales and other local species and their habitats as part of its evaluation of the Tilbury LNG Phase 2 proposal. Measures by FortisBC to mitigate those impacts will also be assessed.

What exactly will the expansion look like?

To enable the facility to process more gas, the Phase 2 expansion includes a ground flare — basically, an outlet to burn off excess gas when needed. Instead of a flare stack like the one high above the LNG Canada facility in Kitimat, B.C., Tilbury LNG will burn off excess gas at ground level. 

The ground flare option was chosen because it “limits the opportunity for wildlife interactions with flames and greatly reduces noise and flame-related visual effects,” a FortisBC spokesperson said in an email.

The expansion would increase Tilbury LNG’s emissions to one million tonnes per year, according to a report from the Pembina Institute. Most of those emissions — 0.7 million tonnes — would come from so-called upstream emissions, related to the fracked gas and its transportation to Tilbury LNG via pipelines. The other 0.3 million tonnes of emissions would come from the facility’s operations. 

However, the assessment excludes emissions during the start-up phase, a time when LNG facilities often flare more gas than they would once they are established. Flaring involves burning off gas as waste rather than shipping it or using it. LNG Canada, which has been operational for two years now, has been flaring up to 15 times more gas than it was expected to, due at least in part to an issue with the facility’s flare tip. LNG Canada reported flaring 350 million cubic metres of gas in 2025, according to figures reported to the BC Energy Regulator — 10 per cent of all the gas transported to the plant that year. 

What are the possible health impacts for people living near the project?

Experts say significantly expanding an LNG facility in an urban area raises a range of concerns, including possible impacts on human health.

Emissions from an expanded Tilbury LNG will be entering an airshed already permeated with pollution, Tim Takaro, a physician-scientist in environmental medicine, said. Exhaust from vehicles, including heavy trucks travelling to and from port facilities, mingle with emissions from industrial operations along the Fraser River. 

“There’s just no reason to build a new fossil energy facility in a populated area,” he said.

New Westminster and Richmond had some of the highest levels of nitrogen dioxide of any community in B.C. in 2024, according to a report from the BC Lung Foundation. Nitrogen dioxide is a product of high-temperature fossil fuel combustion and is pushed into the air from vehicle tailpipes and industrial smokestacks. Long-term exposure is linked to impaired lung growth in children and more frequent asthma attacks.

For Takaro, also a member of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Tilbury LNG’s impact needs to be considered in the context of existing air quality conditions. 

“What does this facility add to the existing air quality?” he said. “Because that’s what people breathe — they don’t just breathe the new part.”

The Tilbury expansion’s ground flare is also a point of concern for Takaro.

“Their flare is going to be at ground level, which is, of course, where people live,” he said.

B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Office is in the final stages of evaluating the Phase 2 expansion. The last public comment period ended in July and the office received 631 completed surveys about the project.One of the survey’s 18 questions asked respondents to select any issues they believed had not been appropriately assessed or that lacked information. A majority of respondents flagged greenhouse gas emissions as an area of concern. Impacts on wildlife, fish and habitat were also selected on a majority of surveys.

Ground flares are often about the height of a single-story building, said Tim Doty, a former employee of Texas’s environmental agency who spent years inspecting oil and gas facilities across the state.

“In theory, that’s going to bring the emissions closer to the community,” he said. 

“I would expect this facility, as it expands, to further impact the community and air quality around Delta and the Vancouver [area].”

Tilbury Phase 2’s environmental assessment takes into account current air quality and modelling of the expansion’s effects, according to an emailed statement from the assessment office.

The federal government’s pending decision can now be informed by B.C.’s environmental assessment. This provincial environmental green light allows the federal process to continue moving, saving Tilbury LNG Phase 2 from lingering in limbo as the snap election unfolds.

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.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government has introduced legislation to expand its “national interest” regime meant to speed up major projects, overhaul federal environmental scrutiny of industrial activity and consolidate Indigenous consultations.

In doing so, the government is largely moving ahead with sweeping proposals it made in May, and making them permanent, despite spending the summer hearing from a public concerned about exactly this: that the Liberals’ plan could sideline scientific expertise and concentrate political power.

Transport Minister and Government House Leader Steven MacKinnon introduced Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act, in Parliament on Sept. 21. The nearly 250-page omnibus bill will entrench new powers to bypass normal government approval processes for projects like pipelines, highways and nuclear facilities, by removing a five-year time limit that was built into last year’s Building Canada Act.

The Building Canada Act first introduced a special designation to allow projects to skirt regular rules if the government deems them in the “national interest,” coming in the wake of U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs and threats to annex Canada. 

Asked by reporters on Wednesday to justify why the government was making its temporary powers permanent, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said Canadians “understand what we’re facing is unprecedented in Canada’s history.” 

“We need to make sure that we have the proper tools in the toolbox to favour economic security in our country,” he said.

The government claims the bill will “bring greater speed, certainty and predictability to infrastructure project reviews” while maintaining “strong environmental safeguards” and upholding Indigenous Rights. 

One of the key changes in the bill is to force all projects subject to federal reviews through a one-year timeframe for approval or rejection, compressing the time to examine things like environmental impacts into a matter of months.

“If you’re going to say no — decide it within a year,” is how Carney put it on Tuesday, addressing criticism of the bill on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

But this shortened timeline is one of many proposals Canadians have been cautioning Ottawa against since it was first made last May, warning that such fast-tracking could create conditions incompatible with the time and space necessary to properly assess big projects. 

The government received more than 26,000 emails and over 40 written submissions on its spring proposals from provinces, territories, Indigenous groups, industry representatives, environmental organizations, academics and think-tanks, according to a summary report published earlier this month.

While much of the feedback was broadly supportive of the effort to speed up approval of major projects and cut down on inefficient government processes, there was also “widespread agreement that reform should not come at the expense of environmental protection or Indigenous Rights,” the report noted.

In particular, Canadians expressed a “recurring concern” around the concentration of decision-making authority in a single minister, or in a small group of powerful people. 

“Many cautioned that increased ministerial or Cabinet discretion could weaken accountability, increase politicization, reduce predictability, and diminish the role of independent scientific, technical, environmental, and Indigenous expertise,” the report stated.

Meanwhile, Indigenous groups worried the changes could undermine reconciliation and limit their ability to assert their constitutional rights within their territories, warning of potential lawsuits.

After tabling its bill, the government received praise from business groups for taking steps to attract investment and boost the economy. 

Business Council of Canada president and CEO Goldy Hyder urged Parliament to “pass the legislation quickly to safeguard the interests of Canadians and rebuild the country’s reputation as a reliable trading partner.” The Western Business Coalition welcomed the one-year timeline for reviews, among other changes.

The changes also come after months of intense lobbying from the oil and gas industry to “simplify” project reviews and commit to much shorter deadlines for approvals.

Starting in 2025, oil and gas executives and lobby groups launched a public campaign pressuring Carney to “unwind the past decade” of environmental and energy policy, complaining that the current system was “impeding” fossil fuel growth.

The bill also follows regulatory changes Carney’s government made early in September to remove certain oilsands facilities and fossil fuel power plants from federal assessments.

Other groups have expressed dismay that the government was moving ahead despite public concerns of overreach. 

The environmental advocacy group Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement said a one-year timeline is “incompatible with the assessment of complex, large-scale projects” that often involve big risks to watersheds, wildlife habitat and communities. 

Such projects generally require long-term studies and analysis of cumulative impacts — not to mention meaningful public input and Indigenous consultations.

Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak warned Carney against “abusing” his powers to speed the bill through Parliament without adequate debate and consultations. 

The national chief said the government should be open to incorporating amendments to the bill offered by First Nations leaders.

So what else is in Bill C-39? Here’s what you need to know.

Moving pipeline and nuclear reviews away from an environment agency

The legislation takes federal reviews of pipelines, nuclear facilities and power lines out of the hands of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, a federal body that reports to the environment minister and is meant to ensure project designs protect Indigenous Rights and the environment.

Instead, pipeline projects will be reviewed by the Canada Energy Regulator, an agency of the Crown that reports to the energy minister and oversees construction and operation of certain pipelines and power lines.

For nuclear projects, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which also reports to the energy minister, will carry out assessments.

The government said “diverse stakeholders” had expressed support for the move and that environmental, health and Indigenous considerations would continue to be “addressed with rigour.”

Yet making the energy regulator the sole assessor of pipeline projects was one proposal where the public, through “advocacy campaigns distributed through civic engagement platforms and petitions,” had “consistently emphasized concern,” according to the feedback report.

Indigenous representatives also asked the government to hold the energy and nuclear regulators “to the same standard” as the Impact Assessment Agency.

They asked that Indigenous Peoples be involved in updating the laws that govern these agencies, so they’re consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is meant to uphold their “free, prior and informed consent.” 

In 2021 Canada passed a law to embed that declaration at the federal level.

Taking ‘national interest’ projects a step further

Another idea that elicited major unease from the public was the creation of federal “economic zones” where certain projects could be “pre-approved.” 

Carney’s new legislation rebrands these as “regions of national interest.” Once designated, certain projects inside the region would benefit from the ability to bypass normal approval processes, just like “national interest” projects.

The type of “regions” the government is considering are wide-reaching: a telecommunications network, an industrial area or an “energy production” area are all in play, it said. The region doesn’t even have to be currently used — it could be picked for “future development needs.” 

The first step would be to conduct a regional assessment through the Impact Assessment Agency, which the government said would measure the “cumulative effects of current and foreseeable activities in the area” and involve Indigenous consultations over things like impacts, boundaries and “culturally sensitive areas.”

Then a federal minister will recommend whether to list the region as in the “national interest.” If it does, projects will be “considered pre-approved” and be given a list of conditions.

Kerrie Blaise, founder and lawyer at the nonprofit Legal Advocates for Nature’s Defence, warned in a statement that the Ring of Fire mining and development region on Treaty 9 territory in northern Ontario could be designated as a “region of national interest.”

A group made up of representatives from 15 First Nations and the Impact Assessment Agency are in the midst of a regional assessment of development in the Ring of Fire area.

“Effectively ‘pre-approving’ mining projects within the Hudson-James Bay Lowlands — where the Ring of Fire is proposed — risks irreparable harm to pristine rivers, globally significant carbon stores, refuges for wildlife and species at risk and the Indigenous Peoples who call this region home,” Blaise said.

The regional designation follows a similar process for designating individual projects in the “national interest” that was established in last year’s Building Canada Act.

That process allows the government to automatically grant all federal approvals at the same time, following consultations.

Since passing the law, the government has moved to formally designate four projects as in the “national interest” — a new oil pipeline to the west coast, a nuclear waste depot in Ignace, Ont., the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 in Vancouver and the Mackenzie Valley Highway in the Northwest Territories. 

Many more projects are being considered for the designation by the Major Projects Office, a body run out of the central government agency that supports the prime minister and Cabinet.

A streamlined impact assessment process and the option of earlier project starts

Currently, the Impact Assessment Agency produces a project review to be considered by the environment minister, who then issues a decision on whether it should move forward. 

Other ministers who oversee departments with expertise in different fields, such as fisheries, still have to issue permits for the project after that decision is made, as part of separate processes, which the government says has made the overall project approval process take five years or more.

The new bill would empower the environment minister to issue a decision statement that comes with all required permits issued concurrently from different departments — and all of this happening within a year. 

As well, the environment minister can authorize some work to begin on a project before its Impact Assessment Agency review is completed, if this is deemed in the public interest.

Consolidating Indigenous consultations, making climate one consideration among many

The bill mentions “climate” five times, but vaguely: it’s one of many considerations officials must weigh when deciding on projects like pipelines, power lines or regions of “national interest.” 

The project’s effects on the government’s climate change commitments are among them, but there are no specific dealbreakers, such as an amount of heat-trapping emissions that might trigger a rejection, for example.

Others include “the interests and concerns of the Indigenous Peoples of Canada,” Indigenous Knowledge, scientific information, environmental effects, safety and security, health, social and economic effects, “the existence of actual or potential markets” for pipelines and their “economic feasibility,” and the financial resources of the applicant.

The bill also moves to centralize federal consultations with Indigenous groups by establishing a new “Crown Consultation Hub” within the Impact Assessment Agency, though the energy and nuclear regulators will still oversee their own.

Changes to transportation, navigable waters and fisheries laws

The bill would create a new “National Trade Corridors Council” that would monitor the movement of goods and provide advice to the transport minister on “disruptions.” 

It gives the transport minister new powers to authorize exemptions to the Canadian Navigable Waters Act for dumping materials into waterways. Materials that are currently banned from dumping include sawdust, wood scraps and waste.

As well, some companies would be allowed to harm fish and fish habitat by paying a fee to an environmental damages fund to “offset” it.

The bill also allows the labour minister to end a work stoppage if the government believes that to be in the “national interest.” Labour leaders say that infringes upon Canadians’ right to strike.

Greenpeace Canada dubbed Bill C-39 the “Bulldoze Nature Bill.” 

In a statement, nature and biodiversity campaigner Salomé Sané said, “Carney’s government is locking us into a short-sighted strategy in which decisions about workers’ health and rights, living ecosystems — from rivers, forests to grasslands and communities — are subordinated to a logic of speed and profit, not care and protection.”

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.

In March 2025, the government of Nova Scotia repealed a ban on uranium exploration and mining that had stood for more than four decades. That May, it opened a request for proposals on three sites known to hold uranium deposits, with a deadline in June. Nobody applied.

But for the people who live near Millet Brook in Hants County, N.S., one of the sites chosen for exploration, the matter is far from settled.

“The lack of applications has provided some immediate relief, but it has not provided the sense of finality that many residents are hoping for,” municipal Councillor Kayla Leary-Pinch said. “For them, the concern was never solely about whether a company would come forward through this particular call for proposals. It is about the fact that the moratorium was removed in the first place and that the door remains open for uranium exploration in Nova Scotia.”

As councillor for Vaughan and Upper Falmouth, N.S., her district in the municipality of West Hants covers the Millet Brook site. 

“Until there is greater certainty about the long-term status of Millet Brook, I think that concern will remain,” she said. 

Those concerns include potential environmental impacts, especially to groundwater, as well as private property rights and what exploration now could mean for mining in the future, Leary-Pinch said.

“There is frustration with how quickly the issue moved forward and a feeling that communities were reacting to decisions rather than being meaningfully involved before those decisions were made,” Leary-Pinch said. 

Like many other governments in Canada, Nova Scotia is passing policy meant to supercharge resource extraction. The uranium moratorium, which dates back to 1981, became a legislated ban in 2009. The province repealed the ban as part of Bill 6, An Act Respecting Agriculture, Energy and Natural Resources, an omnibus bill that also amended the Petroleum Resources Act to allow fracking. 

It’s been more than a year since the ban ended and it’s still on community minds. On Sept. 8, 2026, two petitions were tabled at the provincial legislature with over 2,000 signatures asking for a “permanent legislative ban” on uranium exploration and extraction. These new signatures bring the grand total to 10,652 signatures collected since October 2025, NDP MLA Kendra Coombes said.

Despite half a century of scattershot uranium interest, Nova Scotia has never developed the industry. Now, the federal government, along with dozens of countries worldwide, is pushing for what’s often called a nuclear renaissance. Canada is among at least 38 countries that have pledged to work toward tripling global nuclear energy capacity by 2050. 

Part of uranium’s appeal is energy density. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, a single uranium fuel pellet produces as much energy as one ton of coal, 149 gallons of oil or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas. But that energy comes with a long-term cost. Canada has long been trying to find a permanent home for decades’ worth of nuclear waste, with a proposed $26 billion underground repository in northwestern Ontario still years from approval.

NS premier says uranium mining is essential to economic growth and clean energy transition

When the request for proposals was live in June 2025, a unanimous council vote made West Hants one of four municipalities, along with Annapolis, Lunenburg and Pictou, to request a pause on exploration. Premier Tim Houston responded with a letter saying the government was committed to moving forward “on all natural resource projects so long as they can be done thoughtfully and safely.”

The world needs uranium for nuclear energy and cancer treatments, Houston’s letter said. 

 “Uranium hasn’t changed but mining has,” it said, echoing the Mining Association of Nova Scotia, an industry group representing mining and quarrying companies. The group’s website says uranium mining today “is very different” from when the ban was put in place: specifically, it says a shift toward solution mining, also known as in-situ leaching, “produces basically no tailings or waste rock.” 

Uranium is essential to Nova Scotia’s economic growth, the premier said, adding that a blanket ban without discussion is lazy public policy.

“The sad reality is that when you look at the [gross domestic product] per capita across all 60 American states and Canadian provinces, Nova Scotia ranks last,” Houston said. “The worst performing economy in North America.”

But so far, uranium mining has not been an economic driver in the province. The June deadline came and went with no bids to pursue exploration.

In an email to The Narwhal, Lynette MacLeod, communications director for the Department of Natural Resources, said the repeal of the ban didn’t approve any uranium mining or exploration projects. 

“It removed a legislative prohibition and allows the province to better understand the occurrence of uranium using modern science and regulatory safeguards,” MacLeod said.

MacLeod said the province is not exploring for uranium but is doing research using existing data and core samples. She was clearer about the province’s broader mining ambitions.

The department’s focus is ensuring “Nova Scotia remains one of the most competitive jurisdictions for mineral exploration investment in Canada,” MacLeod said. The province is “expanding investment attraction efforts with our partners [and] supporting exploration through targeted funding programs.” 

That means implementing the provincial mining strategy; completing NovaMINE, a government website detailing regulatory requirements and listing the status of mining proposals and projects; digitizing the province’s assets and data; and continuing regulatory modernization, she said. 

Uranium has been on the federal critical minerals list since it was released in 2021, but it’s only been on Nova Scotia’s list since May 14, 2025, the same day Natural Resources Minister Tory Rushton announced a request for proposals for exploration sites at Millet Brook, East Dalhousie and Louisville.

“We’ve lifted blanket bans and we’re targeting minerals that are in great demand for the clean energy transition in Canada and around the world,” Rushton said in a press release. “We’re also focusing on minerals that will help us grow our economy and create good-paying jobs for Nova Scotians.”

The economic promises of uranium have never been enough to convince Nova Scotians it’s worth the cost, Karen McKendry at Halifax’s Ecology Action Centre said. Exploration by companies such as Shell and Esso in the late 1970s prompted a public inquiry that held 44 meetings across the province. The majority of submissions opposed uranium mining, and the government imposed a moratorium in 1981. In 2009, the NDP government led by Darrell Dexter turned that moratorium into a permanent legislative ban.

“We’ve learned that it very much is a radioactive zombie,” McKendry said. “It’s come back. This is the third time we’ve had a big fight around uranium.”

Even without a proposal on the table last year, people put up signs expressing opposition and began organizing in the areas most promising for exploration, she said. Locals heard there was a company considering a proposal, she said, and so they posted online to make their opposition clear.

“I think it scared them off,” McKendry said. “One thing that’s somewhat real in the mining industry is what they call social licence. Do you have community buy-in for the kinds of things you’re proposing?”

Experts say opposition and low quality make NS uranium unappealing to industry

Exploration is a high-risk economic activity, Erin Adlakha, a professor in the department of earth science at Saint Mary’s University, said.

“Fewer than one per cent of exploration targets ever become mines, so companies must rigorously vet historical data to ensure they are spending capital wisely,” Adlakha said. The province’s request for proposals was only open for four weeks, she said, requiring companies “to digest historical data from the late 1970s and 1980s, evaluate land access constraints, build a technical exploration strategy and allocate capital, on very short notice.”

Mining companies also want political stability, according to Brad Redden, the president of the Society for Safe and Responsible Resource Development, a non-profit dedicated to protecting communities and the environment in Nova Scotia’s resource sectors.

“These guys plan a long way into the future,” Redden said, adding it can sometimes take decades to bring a new mine online. “The Houston government won’t be forever, and when they’re gone, the Liberals or the NDP are going to be in power.”

While some parts of Canada have what companies consider stable mining policies, companies are very careful about volatile situations such as this one, he said.

Redden, who has worked as an exploration geologist and held public office as a municipal councillor and deputy warden in Annapolis County, said he is skeptical of the province’s interest in uranium. 

“I don’t think they genuinely thought there was uranium here,” he said, adding that fracking and uranium were probably bundled together on the same bill as part of a bigger industrial drive. “It’s a political statement to say we’re open for business.”

He said he wouldn’t work on a uranium project in Nova Scotia, because he doesn’t think the deposits here are good enough. Uranium in the province tends to sit in thin, centimetre-wide fractures rather than deep deposits and grades are far lower than in Saskatchewan’s uranium heartland, Redden said.

He offers as an example Cigar Lake in the Prairie province, which at a grade of 15 per cent is “the world’s highest grade uranium mine” according to its owner. Redden said this translates to 150,000 parts of uranium per million parts of rock. By comparison, New Ross, N.S., “has some higher-grade areas …but they are still less than one per cent,” or 10,000 parts per million. 

“Most of the grades reported in Nova Scotia are much lower, in the hundreds of parts per million,” Redden said. The Mining Association of Nova Scotia says the site at Millet Brook “is known to have 1.3 million pounds of 0.2 per cent uranium.”

The more important difference, Redden said, is that in Nova Scotia, uranium deposits tend to be closer to population centres than they are in Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin.

Last year, in his response to the West Hants council’s request for a pause, the premier noted provincial investments of more than $227 million in West Hants during his time in office.

“I have no doubt that your council has many more wants and needs,” the Houston letter said. “We would love to be able to meet every ask, but to do that, we need the resources to move forward.”

However things move forward at Millet Brook, Leary-Pinch said the people of West Hants deserve to be consulted about what the province intends to do in their backyard. “Many of the residents I have spoken with want to see the moratorium on uranium exploration and mining reinstated.” She said the absence of bids this time around was never the point. For the people of West Hants, she said it’s about closing  the door on uranium for good.

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.

British Columbians are heading back to the provincial polls on Oct. 24, just two years after the 2024 election where the BC NDP barely held on to power.

David Eby justified his decision to call a snap election on Tuesday, pointing to threats posed by trade issues with U.S. President Donald Trump and chaos on B.C.’s political right.

Eby said British Columbians can choose between “the chaos, the cuts [and] the cozying up to Trump of the Conservative caucus” or his party’s pledge to “stand shoulder to shoulder across the country with Canadians.”

During his speech, Eby repeatedly used fire imagery, comparing the situation in the United States to a spreading wildfire. “We need to build a firebreak around the things that make British Columbia special, things that matter most to British Columbians,” he said. “A firebreak, yes, against Trump’s economic attack, but a firebreak against our dependence on the United States, and a firebreak against the Trump-style politics that threatens to infect our province.”

Eby’s decision will also cost the province tens of millions of dollars and disrupt the work of government, leaving legislation in limbo and throwing wrenches into all kinds of timelines. Calls for B.C.’s auditor general to investigate the billion-dollar error in the province’s gas royalty calculations will remain unanswered. Legislation to enact a treaty between B.C. and the Kitselas First Nation could be delayed by months. And the future of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act will be uncertain at least a little longer. 

The premier’s choice to call a snap election now has angered many local government representatives. Municipal elections will take place across B.C. on Oct. 17, and the final weeks of those campaigns will now be overshadowed by the looming provincial election.

“It’s two conversations at one dinner table — it’s noisy, it’s hard to understand and only the loudest voices will be heard,” Cori Ramsay, a city councillor from Prince George who served as the president at the Union of B.C. Municipalities, said at the organization’s annual conference last week. “Overlapping elections will lead to less scrutiny, less accountability, and it’s not in the public interest.”

At the conference, delegates endorsed an emergency resolution calling on the B.C. government to keep a provincial election campaign separate from the scheduled municipal elections. 

Kathryn Harrison, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia, said Eby is taking a calculated risk calling an election so soon after the last one.

“Will the NDP be able to make a credible case for voters that this economic moment justifies an election compared to the case that their opponents will make that this is premature?” she asked.

This isn’t the first time in recent memory a BC NDP premier has called a snap election during a fraught historical moment. In fall 2020, former Premier John Horgan decided to go to the polls, arguing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic required a majority government to effectively serve British Columbians.

Horgan’s gamble paid off, with the NDP winning 57 of the B.C. legislature’s 87 seats.

“I assume that experience is top of mind for Premier Eby and the NDP this time round,” Harrison said. “Can they make the wartime mandate argument, given that Donald Trump’s threats to Canada — threats to the B.C. economy, especially — were not something that was foreseen?”

Despite the risk, Eby has decided to proceed with a snap election call. Here’s why and what it means for some of the significant policies affecting B.C.’s environment.

Why call a B.C. election now?

If the justifications seem flimsy, it may be because all signs point to a major factor in Eby’s decision being the state of the BC Conservative Party, B.C.’s official opposition.

To briefly recap: John Rustad resigned as the party’s leader in December 2025 after weeks of caucus infighting. The race to replace Rustad resulted in Kerry-Lynne Findlay, a former Conservative Party of Canada MP and cabinet minister, becoming leader of the BC Conservative Party on May 30. Findlay’s victory was narrow; she won 51 per cent of party members’ votes, barely beating out second-place finisher Caroline Elliott.

Findlay’s tenure as party leader was spectacularly brief and chaotic. Multiple members of the BC Conservative caucus publicly criticized her leadership style and staffing choices. Over a six-week span this summer, 10 MLAs left the BC Conservative caucus, citing a lack of confidence in Findlay’s leadership. Three others were removed from the caucus, including Rustad (though he has since been invited to rejoin the BC Conservative caucus).

Findlay resigned as party leader on September 20, leaving the BC Conservatives to appoint Cariboo-Chilcotin MLA Lorne Doerkson as interim leader. Following the snap election call, many of the ousted MLAs rejoined the BC Conservatives and joined Doerkson for an afternoon press conference in Vancouver.

“I think David Eby is going to regret this,” Doerkson said. “Because this election actually offers an opportunity for hope and for real change.”

He rejected Eby’s claim the BC Conservatives support Trump, calling the U.S. president a bully.

B.C. politics is infamous for dramatic developments and unprecedented situations, but the unravelling of the BC Conservatives — a party that came within a handful of votes of driving the NDP out of government in 2024 — over the past two years is truly remarkable. For Eby, leader of an aging government with a tenuous grip on power, the chaos enveloping the BC Conservatives presents an irresistible opportunity to potentially trounce his political opponents.

After a week of mounting speculation about a snap election call at the Union of B.C. Municipalities conference, the B.C. government issued a flurry of announcements in the days before Eby confirmed his decision.

Over the weekend, the BC NDP announced a pair of significant investments into healthcare, and on Monday, published 16 press releases, twice the number of any other day this month. They highlighted millions in government spending, including $27 million from the Clean Industry Fund for 17 emission-reduction and efficiency projects.

Tilbury LNG Phase 2 was promoted twice. First, Environment and Parks Minister Tamara Davidson and Energy and Climate Solutions Minister Adrian Dix announced the project received its environmental assessment certificate, less than two months after the final public comment period ended.

The final government press release of the day touted the major expansion — a 10-fold increase in the facility’s liquefied natural gas production capacity — at Tilbury as “a major economic, clean-energy opportunity for B.C.”

The flood of press releases made it seem the B.C. government was working to clear the decks of government business before an election call prompted a shift into campaign mode. 

B.C. election comes amid criticism of gas royalty framework

The election call also comes amid criticism and controversies facing the BC NDP. Including that fossil fuel companies will pay B.C. hundreds of millions of dollars less than anticipated over the next few years due to an error in the province’s natural gas royalty calculations, as reported by Business in Vancouver last month. The miscalculation means the province will collect $306 million less than projected this fiscal year, according to the Ministry of Finance, though experts told Business in Vancouver B.C. could end up losing out on $500 million per year.

The B.C. government explained the error as a simple calculation mistake which has been rectified, but West Moberly First Nations Chief Roland Willson wants a more detailed explanation.

“I don’t think they know what they’re doing,” Willson said in an interview.

Treaty 8 First Nations, including West Moberly First Nations, flagged the error to the province in the midst of consultations on a new pricing structure for natural gas extracted in B.C. The incoming royalty framework is meant to collect a fair share of profits from companies extracting natural gas from land owned by the province. The new framework is scheduled to take effect in January 2027 and will replace a temporary system that has been in place since 2022, after an independent assessment found the existing system needed a complete overhaul.

In 2022, the B.C. government said the new royalty framework would collect half of company profits from natural gas, but Treaty 8 First Nations have since concluded the new framework may capture just 11 per cent.

Willson wants the new framework paused until a thorough and independent review can be done.

“The auditor general should do a complete review and it should be transparent,” he told The Narwhal. “I think they should make it public because this would affect B.C.’s revenues — the fiscal health of the province — for decades.”

On Sept. 14, Finance Minister Josie Osborne said the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions was communicating with the Office of the Auditor General about the budget error and possibility of a review. The Office of the Auditor General told The Narwhal it does not comment on potential reviews. The Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions did not respond to an email sent Sept. 17, requesting confirmation that an auditor general’s review had been requested.

The legislature was scheduled to convene on Oct. 5 for a five-week sitting. Eby’s snap election call either significantly shortens the amount of time MLAs will spend in the house this fall or eliminates it altogether.

The future of DRIPA

It may seem like a long time ago now but B.C.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, known as DRIPA, was at the centre of major political drama this spring.

Following a December 2025 court ruling, Eby kicked off the spring session vowing to amend the law to shield the provincial government from legal liability over the pace and scope of its reconciliation work. At first, he claimed changing the law was non-negotiable, and something that had to be done before the legislature’s summer break.

Eby went so far as to vow to make his DRIPA amendments a confidence vote, thereby staking the future of his government on its outcome

But First Nations leaders rejected Eby’s plan and told him his “approach was totally unacceptable.” That prompted the then premier to propose suspending DRIPA for up to three years, an approach he soon abandoned in the face of steady opposition from First Nations leaders.

By the time the legislature’s summer break arrived, Eby had settled on continuing discussions about DRIPA’s future with First Nations and tabling unspecified amendments during the fall session.

“We’re still at the table with First Nations leadership and it’s important work and we’re going to continue that work,” Eby said of the DRIPA discussion during a Sept. 8 press conference.

Without a fall session, any changes to DRIPA will wait until the spring, leaving lingering uncertainty about the future of the law.

In the meantime, the BC Conservatives have continued to call for DRIPA’s repeal. In August, Elections BC approved an initiative petition backed by BC Conservative MLA Harman Bhangu that aims to repeal DRIPA. If Bhangu collects signatures from 10 per cent of registered voters in each of B.C.’s 93 ridings by Jan. 25, the petition will be submitted to the legislature for a vote.

Kitselas treaty bill

If the fall session doesn’t happen, the legislature may not reconvene until February, shortly before the B.C. government traditionally presents its throne speech and introduces its budget.

Before the throne speech, a process called prorogation wipes the legislative slate clean, giving legislators a fresh start. Any legislation left lingering on the order paper is erased and must be reintroduced before starting the process to become law all over again.

If that happens following this election, three pieces of legislation will be sent back to the drawing board. One is Bill 21, the Kitselas Treaty Act, which received first reading on April 15. If passed, the bill would be the provincial government’s first step to implement the treaty with Kitselas First Nation. 

If the treaty is ratified by both the B.C. and Canadian governments, Kitselas First Nation would no longer be controlled by the federal Indian Act and instead governed by its own constitution. Work on the Kitselas Treaty began in 1993 and Kitselas members voted in favour of the draft treaty in April 2025. 

David Try, senior negotiator with the Kitselas treaty team, expects the election will delay the passage of the bill by up to six months, depending on when the legislature reconvenes.

While the delay is disappointing, Try is hopeful B.C.’s next government would make the Kitselas treaty bill a priority in its first legislative session.

“When you negotiate something for 30 years, there’s a certain implicit commitment to bring it home,” Try said. “We think that the treaty would be back on the legislative agenda, but how do we know? We don’t.”

The Lax Kw’alaams and Nine Allied Tribes dispute the scope of the Kitselas Treaty’s territorial claim and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs called for both treaty bills to be paused until the territorial boundary disputes with neighbouring First Nations were addressed.

Eby’s choice to call an election is predicated on his confidence that they will win back seats lost to the BC Conservatives in 2024. However, this victory is far from guaranteed. After Oct. 24, B.C. might have a new party in power — or it might be the same one, its power weakened or consolidated. None of the possible outcomes guarantees the provincial priorities will stay the same.

Updated Sept. 22, 2026, at 4:53 p.m. PT: This story was updated following a press conference with interim BC Conservative leader Lorne Doerkson

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.

Coming face to face with the pelt of a now-extinct Salish woolly dog was an emotional experience for Jordan Wilson.

The curator from xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam Indian Band) attended an unveiling at the Museum of Anthropology in Vancouver as the ancestor was welcomed back to its home territories earlier this month.

The pelt is on loan from the Smithsonian institution, where it was in storage for more than a century. It will be at Museum of Anthropology until August of 2027. 

Belonging to a dog from Stó:lō territories known as Mutton, it’s the only known Salish woolly dog pelt in existence.

As the pelt was unveiled to its Salish relatives on Sept. 4, Wilson attended along with other Salish community members from Vancouver Island and the Fraser Valley.

“For me personally, I was caught off guard at the emotional quality of it,” Wilson told the Narwhal.

“Seeing this pelt in person, seeing its little paws and seeing its little nose, realizing that this was a living being that was alive 160 years ago.”

Renowned Musqueam weaver Debra Sparrow was there with her daughter and grandson.

“You watch as they unveil it, pieces of the wood come off, and then the containers open, and there he is. There’s a sense of welcome you feel instinctively,” she said.

“It’s historical that the woolly dog arrived back home.”

Once ubiquitous among Indigenous communities in the Pacific Northwest, Salish woolly dogs went extinct during the late 1800s, as settlers arrived on the coast. Through storytelling, oral history, literature and artwork, woolly dogs have remained a sacred part of Coast and Interior Salish culture. 

The pelt came to Vancouver from Seattle, where it was on loan from the Smithsonian and temporarily exhibited for the first time.

Indigenous people travelled from up and down the Salish Sea to spend time with the woolly dog pelt at MOA before it was open to be viewed by the public on September 4th.

“They were very important to every village, all through the territory of Salish people,” Sparrow said about the dogs. Their traditional territory spans from southwestern B.C., into Washington state and Oregon.

“People will come to feel connected to it. It’s amazing how one little pelt can bring all the people back together.”

Genetic makeup confirms Salish oral history

This specific dog, with Stó:lō roots from the Chilliwack area, belonged to an American naturalist George Gibbs, who named the dog “Mutton.” 

Because of specific storage requirements, the pelt is being hosted at the Museum of Anthropology on Musqueam territory at the request of Stó:lō leaders.

It’s a caretaking responsibility that museum curator Wilson takes seriously. He began working on the Pacific Northwest and contemporary Indigenous art exhibit, where the pelt is being shown, last year.

“This is the highlight of the work that I do … being able to help facilitate things like this,” he said.

“This specific breed dates back thousands of years,” he added. “That goes to show how important this breed was to our ancestors.”

Sparrow recalled that, as settlers arrived in British Columbia, “the first thing many of the European sailors said was that the people have these little dogs with them in their canoes.” 

Combined with mountain goat wool, Salish woolly dog fur was spun into a weaving fibre, used to make clothes, blankets, regalia and other textiles. 

The woolly relatives were fed a rich salmon and elk diet to keep their coats soft and shiny, and in exchange providing Salish communities with safety, companionship and fluffy white hair. 

But the deep connection between Salish people and the woolly dog was severed as the important animal went extinct.

Kwulasultun, Eliot White-Hill, an artist from Snuneymuxw First Nation, said he never heard about the Salish woolly dog while he was growing up.

Once he became an artist and started asking Elders in his community questions, knowledge and stories about them began resurfacing.

“It’s profoundly meaningful to have that woolly dog come back to this part of the world, to be able to reconnect with the communities that it came from,” he said. 

“These blankets are almost like currency to us. They’d be given away at potlaches and they were robes of nobility and protection, and there’s a very important spiritual aspect to them.”

He curated his own exhibit about Salish woolly dogs at the Field Museum in Chicago. They have one of the largest collections of Coast Salish materials outside of the Pacific Northwest. 

“Woolly dogs are so important to Coast Salish culture. They were at the centre of so many different artistic, cultural and economic systems that our ancestors had in place,” White-Hill said.

“Where I come from on Vancouver Island, we didn’t have sheep prior to contact. Mountain goats, another major source for fibre, were only on the mainland. It was expensive and hard to trade for that, so instead we had the woolly dogs.”

The dogs were often raised on small islands to avoid interbreeding with other dog breeds, and passed down through the matrilineal line in families.

These woolly dogs were genetically distinct from the European dog breeds settlers were familiar with. According to the book The Teachings of Mutton: A Coast Salish Woolly Dog, “very few dog breeds have any precolonial [ancient DNA]. An exception is the Chihuahua, which has two to three per cent precolonial DNA.” 

Mutton’s genetic ancestry has been analyzed by numerous specialists in Canada and the United States. Though he died more than a century ago, techniques exist to analyze ancient DNA, or aDNA, which is drawn from sources that lived long ago. 

“Mutton himself has 16 per cent European ancestry. This means he had one great-grandparent that was a European dog … The rest, or 84 per cent of his [ancient DNA], points to precolonial ancestors from thousands of years ago,” the book reads.

“That little being is not a canine, it’s its own entity,” Sparrow said. “It doesn’t belong to the canine world. People always want to compare European philosophies with ours, and it’s not.”

How the pelt, from a dog named Mutton, was found

The woolly relative’s journey home has been decades in the making. In 2002, historian Candace Wellman was undertaking archival research that would eventually lead her into asking a question with lasting impact for Indigenous nations situated along the Salish Sea.

“I was researching the life of Dr. Caleb Kennerly, who married an important Semiahmoo woman,” Wellman said, whose first book was about inter-marriages in the region.

She went to the Smithsonian Museum, where Kennerly had been a naturalist, and obtained photocopies of all his letters back to the museum.

“One night at 3 o’clock in the morning I woke up and realized that one of the things he had sent in was a woolly dog pelt specimen,” she said.

Aware of how important woolly dogs are to Coast Salish culture, and women in particular, Wellman wrote to the Smithsonian curator of mammals, who later confirmed the pelt was there, intact and in a drawer.

“I wrote and said, this is really important because the Coast Salish women alive today have never been able to see the hair that their great-great-grandmothers used to weave the beautiful white blankets,” she said. 

Wellman asked for a hair sample to show Coast Salish women on the West Coast. The museum took it to a committee and they agreed. 

Now, that sample is housed at the Whatcom Museum in Bellingham, Wash, where Wellman has resided for most of her life. 

Wellman explains the dog hair has never been displayed to the public, but has been used to authenticate items, such as a Coast Salish blanket woven with woolly dog fibre that is on display.

The woolly dog’s return to B.C. for the first time in more than a century is historic but bittersweet.

“I have really complicated feelings about the pelt, the name Mutton, and the whole story behind that dog,” White-Hill shared.“It’s really sad to me.”

It’s a sentiment shared by Sparrow. Reflecting on the woolly dog pelt, she said, “It makes me sad — happy that he’s here, but sad they’re non-existent now.”

While the woolly dog pelt is set to return to the Smithsonian next year, White-Hill hopes that it can eventually make its way back to its homelands permanently.

“We need to return this ancestor to its home so it can rest.”

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.

A small town on northwestern Ontario’s border with the U.S. is quietly preparing for a worst-case scenario. It’s one that could mean a dramatic change for the community’s water supply.

Fort Frances, home to about 7,500 people, sits where Rainy Lake empties into the Rainy River and flows north into Lake of the Woods. Fort Frances’ drinking water comes from Rainy Lake, which is bisected by the Canada-U.S. border — and vulnerable to the whims of either country’s leadership. So is the town’s economy, which relies on fishing and tourism, as well as the rhythms of a border community built around the water.

Now, tensions between the U.S. and Canada threaten those rhythms. This spring, U.S. President Donald Trump took aim at a moratorium on mining in Rainy River’s watershed, and its waters that flow past Fort Frances and numerous First Nations communities around it. Last month, tensions ratcheted up, as Trump signed an order renaming Lake Ontario to “Lake America” amid an escalating trade dispute.

The watershed that surrounds Fort Frances is called Rainy-Lake of the Woods, and it straddles both sides of the border west of Lake Superior. About 450,000 hectares of protected forest, rivers and interconnected lakes on the U.S. side is known as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, or colloquially, the Boundary Waters. In 2023, the Biden administration protected roughly 91,000 hectares of Superior National Forest just outside the Boundary Waters from mining for 20 years, citing the risk such development posed to the surrounding waters.

Mined copper-sulfide ore is processed to extract metals used in electrical wiring, electronics and rechargeable batteries. But when that ore is exposed to air and water, it can add sulfuric acid and heavy metals into nearby waters. When dissolved in water, that sulfuric acid breaks down into sulfate, which is toxic to wild rice, a plant central to Anishinaabe diet and culture — Minnesota has regulated sulfate in wild rice waters since 1973 for that reason. Sulfate also feeds the bacteria that convert otherwise harmless inorganic mercury into methylmercury, a neurotoxin that accumulates in fish and, through them, the people who eat them. 

But in April 2026, U.S. Congress reversed the protection for the stretch of Superior National Forest outside the Boundary Waters. The Senate voted 50 to 49 to lift the Biden administration’s moratorium that stood in the way of the Twin Metals mine, a project targeting copper, nickel and other metals, majority-owned by the Chilean mining conglomerate Antofagasta. 

President Trump signed the resolution into law in April.

In a statement to other media, Kathy Graul, director of public affairs and communications for Twin Metals Minnesota, said, “Any proposed project in this region, including Twin Metals, must undergo a yearslong, multi-agency regulatory review before earning permits to begin construction of a mine. The [Senate ruling] restores this process, and projects must prove they can meet the stringent environmental standards that have long been in place in Minnesota before moving forward.”

Back over the Canadian border, Fort Frances’ water treatment plant can handle natural fluctuations in the source water — but it wasn’t designed to handle the kind of contamination mining activity could potentially introduce, Travis Rob, the town’s manager of infrastructure and growth, told The Narwhal. Addressing that risk would mean either a costly overhaul of the plant’s treatment processes, or securing an entirely new water source, which would be “neither easy nor cheap,” Rob said. “This is what has me so concerned about the proposed mining activities.” 

He and his team have talked at length about what changes to watch for in the water that feeds the treatment plant and when the town would need to act, he said. But the stakes extend beyond Fort Frances itself. Couchiching First Nation and others also receive drinking water from the town’s treatment plant, Rob said. 

In August, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz issued a reprieve of sorts, signing an executive order directing state agencies to stop issuing leases or permits for copper, nickel and other non-iron ore mines on the U.S. side of the watershed, and to review all existing mineral leases in the area, including Twin Metals’. 

While this might hold up Twin Metals’ plans in part, the order is not immune to legal challenges from mining companies — or future actions of the Trump administration.

A smalltown mayor and First Nation’s chief seek support amid Trump’s mining push

The proposed Twin Metals mine sits at the headwaters of the Rainy-Lake of the Woods watershed.

The project has held leases in the area since the 1960s, under different owners proposing to mine copper, nickel, cobalt and platinum group metals from a deposit up to 1,300 metres below the surface, processing roughly 20,000 tons of ore a day for more than 25 years. 

According to the company, about half the waste rock, or tailings, would be stored underground; the rest would be dried out and kept above ground. Twin Metals says its processing “will remove most of the sulfide minerals,” meaning its tailings won’t result in acid drainage, and that the mine won’t discharge water used for that processing. Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, an advocacy groups opposed to the project, has argued the risk  of acid drainage from the project’s tailings remains based on other mines, and exploration work in the watershed.

That same watershed carries north past Fort Frances, through Treaty 3 territory, the traditional lands of 28 Anishinaabe First Nations in northwestern Ontario and southeastern Manitoba, and eventually to Hudson Bay.

Gakijiwanong Anishinaabe Nation — formerly Lac La Croix First Nation — condemned the reversal in an April statement, according to NWONewswatch, saying neither it nor affected U.S. tribes were given the chance to testify before Congress voted.

Chief Carrie Atatise-Norwegian of Gakijiwanong Anishinaabe Nation, whose territory borders both the Boundary Waters and Quetico Provincial Park, has framed the stakes even more starkly. “This decision threatens the lives of our people, water resources and our ancestral lands,” she told CBC in April, after the U.S. Congress lifted the moratorium. “As stewards of our lands, [we] will be asserting, exercising and protecting our rights, jurisdiction and sovereignty as a nation.”

By May, Atatise-Norwegian was in Washington, D.C. In Minnesota Senator Tina Smith’s office, she signed a memorandum of understanding with the chairs of three U.S. tribal nations: Red Lake, Grand Portage and Bois Forte. They agreed to present a unified cross-border position on protecting the Boundary Waters and treaty-protected homelands, according to Red Lake Nation News. Atatise-Norwegian did not respond to The Narwhal’s request for an interview. 

The concerns of Gakijiwanong Anishinaabe Nation are shared by many Treaty 3 nations in Ontario. “This is not just a local issue, it is a transboundary concern that directly affects our waters, our environment and our way of life,” Ogichidaa (Grand Chief) Francis Kavanaugh of Grand Council Treaty 3, which represents 28 First Nations across northwestern Ontario and southeastern Manitoba, said in an April statement.

The day after the U.S. Senate voted to lift the moratorium, Fort Frances Mayor Hallikas emailed the office of Marcus Powlowski, the Liberal MP for Thunder Bay-Rainy River, urging him to speak out, and to reach out to Minnesota politicians directly. Hallikas said he also raised the issue with provincial politicians a few weeks later at the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association’s conference in Thunder Bay, but was told it was a federal issue.

In May, the Rainy River District Municipal Association, of which Fort Frances is a member, wrote to Ontario Premier Doug Ford, aligning itself with Grand Council Treaty 3’s opposition to the mine. The letter states that sulfide-ore copper mining could cause “irreversible harm to water quality, wildlife, public health and a sustainable outdoor recreation-based economy.” It calls on “all levels of Canadian government” to engage with the U.S. and Minnesota on the issue.

“Any decision that could put [these waters] at risk is not solely a Minnesota matter,” Hallikas wrote in an email to The Narwhal. “It is an international and downstream concern that directly affects peoples in northwestern Ontario.”

He drew parallels to Grassy Narrows First Nation, where industrial mercury contamination, which can cause issues like tremors, cognitive effects and neuromuscular disorders, is one of the most consequential environmental health crises in Canadian history. 

“Northwestern Ontario understands the devastating consequences of mercury contamination,” he wrote. “That history demands vigilance, transparency and precaution.”

A binational board with no enforcement power, watching and waiting

In 1909, Canada and the U.S. signed the Boundary Waters Treaty, governing cross-border water disputes and creating the International Joint Commission to oversee exactly this kind of issue.

Merrell-Ann Phare, one of three Canadian commissioners, said the commission has no enforcement authority and no regulatory authority over water quality. Its role is to resolve disputes between nations, not enforce laws.

“We take great care to stay out of the domestic issues that are happening,” Phare said, so the commissions can preserve its neutrality for the moment a request to mediate comes in.

Only governments in Ottawa and Washington can jointly trigger that kind of review, known as a reference, under the treaty. Provinces, states and municipalities have no standing to request one directly, though Indigenous nations can be named partners.

The Ktunaxa Nation is a partner to a case in B.C.’s Elk Valley, where coal-mining pollution flows downstream into Montana and Idaho, causing unnaturally high selenium levels that have led to deformities in fish. It’s a problem the nation had raised for more than a decade before Ottawa and Washington formally asked the commission to step in, in March 2024.

That in itself is a point of concern for Johann Strube, an environmental sociologist who has studied water governance in northwestern Ontario, speaking in a personal capacity rather than as a spokesperson for Grand Council Treaty 3, where he is a natural resources policy analyst. The joint commission, he said, “was founded to advance the settler-colonial interests of Canada and the United States and explicitly excluded Indigenous nations from decision-making.”

The structure of the commission, Strube said, “still doesn’t involve Indigenous nations as nation-to-nation partners.”

Megan Garner is the Canadian co-chair of the International Rainy-Lake of the Woods Watershed Board, the regional organization that operates under the International Joint Commission.

She said the board is “aware of the termination of the mineral leasing moratorium … and is watching this issue closely.” The board is determining next steps, she said, and is committed to “balanced and representative input.” 

Garner later confirmed that, as of Aug. 19, the board “has not been in touch” with the Rainy River District Municipal Association or Gakijiwanong Anishinaabe Nation, and “has not requested input or information from any outside parties” on the mining issue, despite being aware, through its advisory groups, of a range of local perspectives.

A spokesperson for Global Affairs Canada, John Babcock, said, “Canada continues to work closely with the United States through existing bilateral mechanisms, including those established under the Boundary Waters Treaty, in support of our shared stewardship of transboundary waters.” He said they would continue to do this “as we take up the environmental challenges of the 21st century.”

Asked whether Canada had raised any new concerns with the U.S. administration specifically about the 2026 reversal, Babcock said in an emailed statement that the department continues “to monitor the ongoing developments in the region and to advocate that any increased mining activity be properly assessed and managed,” and that “the joint stewardship of the environment is a cornerstone of Canada-U.S. relations.”

Babcock did not respond to a follow-up question on whether or not Canada has requested the International Joint Commission review the issue of mine pollution leaching into the Rainy-Lake of the Woods watershed.

Canada’s caution here, Strube said, may have less to do with the technical question of jurisdiction than with the state of U.S.-Canada relations more broadly. Whether the Trump administration would feel bound by a 116-year-old water treaty, Strube said, is an open 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.

A northern Manitoba First Nation is calling for a voluntary closure of moose hunting in its traditional territory to protect the declining population and respond to what it sees as a lack of provincial intervention.

On Friday morning, Misipawistik Cree Nation issued a plea urging hunters to abstain from harvesting moose in provincial Game Hunting Area 10 — a 10,000-square-kilometre region of boreal forest north of Grand Rapids, Man. The request applies to this year’s moose-hunting seasons, which open Monday.

According to the province’s 2025 aerial big game survey, an estimated 281 moose reside in the area, roughly 60 of which are bull moose. That’s down from an estimated 346 moose in 2013, which the survey describes as a “relatively stable population” over the past decade.

This year, 124 licences and 62 bull moose tags were made available in the region during Manitoba’s annual hunting draw. 

“That is putting the entire population at risk of a collapse,” Misipawistik Chief Heidi Cook said in an interview with The Narwhal and Winnipeg Free Press ahead of the announcement. “There may be no moose next year. This is an emergency. We have to do something now to make sure that the population can recover.” 

According to an emailed statement from a provincial spokesperson, fewer hunters applied to the moose draw resulting in 37 licences allocated for the area with a projected harvest of nine bull moose this year.

The nation’s voluntary hunting closure begins immediately and runs through the fall and winter moose seasons, which close in December. There will be no enforcement of the closure, but members of Misipawistik’s Kanawenihcikewak Land Guardians program will be monitoring the game area and liaising with hunters, Cook said. 

The guardian program has been monitoring the local moose population and working to reduce poaching and roadkill incidents since 2018 after community hunters observed a decline in the number of animals in the area. Misipawistik hunters reportedly harvested no moose in the region during the 2025-26 season.

“Moose is an important cultural species for us. It’s not only a source of food, but the relationship surrounding a moose harvest — having that time as family groups to be on the land and maintaining those connections, and then passing on the intergenerational knowledge surrounding the moose harvest — all of that is lost,” Cook said.

In recent years, she said, local hunters have had to travel to Saskatchewan to find moose.

Misipawistik First Nation awaits court’s decision over case against Manitoba government’s moose hunting licences

Misipawistik has raised the concerns about moose hunting and food security with the province multiple times, including during a meeting with Natural Resources and Indigenous Futures Minister Ian Bushie earlier this year, Cook said.  

Minister Bushie did not respond to a request for comment by publication time. 

The First Nation filed a lawsuit against the provincial government last September, arguing licensed moose hunting infringes on the community’s Treaty Rights to harvest the animals for food on its traditional lands. The judge has yet to deliver a decision on the case.

“We need to take action as responsible hunters, people who care for the land and people who care for the moose, to self-regulate because there’s a failure on the part of the provincial government to do that right now,” Cook said.

Chris Heald, senior policy advisor with the Manitoba Wildlife Federation, a conservation organization representing hunters, commended Misipawistik’s intent, but said the number of tags issued by the province does not equate to the number of moose bagged during the season.

“Hunter success in that area traditionally has only been less than five per cent. So we’re talking about three or four moose, that’s likely all that gets harvested by licensed hunters,” Heald said. 

“The province thought this was a fair thing and if hunters are legally purchasing their licence and the season begins next week, then they should go,” he added.

Concerns around licensed moose hunting affecting Treaty Rights are shared with other First Nations in Manitoba

First Nations elsewhere in the province have also raised concerns about the impact of licensed hunting on moose populations and Treaty Rights.

Last fall, Bloodvein First Nation, located on the eastern shore of Lake Winnipeg, used a checkstop previously set up to prevent contraband goods from entering the nation to bar non-Indigenous hunters from entering its territory to harvest moose. The Manitoba Wildlife Federation asked the court for an interim injunction, but it was dismissed. 

Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, a political advocacy organization representing several northern First Nations, has repeatedly called on the province to cancel the draw for moose licences in the north, including in Game Hunting Area 10. The organization issued a statement Friday in support of Misipawistik’s voluntary hunting closure. 

In 2024, the provincial government reduced the number of licences available by 75 per cent in four northern hunting areas. The move sparked a legal challenge by Pimicikamak Cree Nation, which argued the decision affected its members and ran counter to Manitoba’s obligation to consult and prioritize Indigenous hunters under Treaty 5 and the 1977 Northern Flood Agreement. The case was dismissed. 

The province has recognized that moose in Manitoba face significant threats from hunting, predation, disease, habitat loss and climate change. It has issued hunting bans in the Duck Mountain, Porcupine Provincial Forest and Turtle Mountain areas. 

Eva Wasney is a reporter covering environmental issues in Manitoba. Her position is part of a partnership between The Narwhal and the Winnipeg Free Press.

Updated on Sept. 18, 2026, at 4 p.m. CT: This story has been updated with information on the number of moose licences allocated this year, provided by the Government of Manitoba after publication.

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.

Twilight hangs over the Inlet Raider’s empty deck as it charges up the river. Its voyage has a single, cargo-free purpose: its crew was hired to find out whether the journey up the Taku River from Southeast Alaska past the B.C. border is possible.

If they succeed, this could be one of dozens of trips carrying construction supplies and infrastructure to the proposed New Polaris gold mine along the river, currently under review by the B.C. government and among its list of priority projects for expedited review.

The boat picks up speed, blasting up a passage nicknamed “the narrows” in honour of its thin, flute-shaped banks, which can host fierce, swirling currents. Its other concern lies underneath in braided river channels that can move at least annually to a new configuration, a common trait of glacial-fed rivers like this one. 

As the motor churns, the crew’s stream of banter is replaced by a tense silence punctuated by calls of encouragement as their barge follows a sonar-equipped motorboat guiding its journey up ahead.

“Three hours of boredom punctuated by 30 seconds of sheer terror,” says a joking voice off-screen, in a video posted to the captain’s Facebook page.

A few minutes later, the Inlet Raider makes it through.

New Polaris’s owner, Canagold Resources Ltd., acknowledges the transport challenges ahead. “We never said it’s easy,” Canagold’s chief executive officer, Catalin Kilofliski, tells The Narwhal in an interview. 

“But it’s doable.”

To avoid these precarious barge trips during operations, Canagold plans to transport its gold concentrate on cargo planes. It anticipates up to 15 flights a day, carrying a total of around 27,000 tonnes per year.

The goal is to capitalize on record-breaking gold prices by reopening New Polaris, a long-shuttered mine site on the Tulsequah River.

The project is among a select group featured in a federal prospectus document delivered to attendees of Canada’s recent investment summit in Toronto. This year, New Polaris was included in the federal government’s map of critical minerals projects, thanks to its potential to produce antimony — a heavy metal deemed “critical” by Canada for its use in a variety of applications from bullets to batteries. But Canagold’s feasibility study did not establish New Polaris’s antimony reserves and it does not include antimony in its projected revenues.

Meanwhile, B.C. has included New Polaris among its 35 priority major projects slated for expedited review.

In an emailed statement, the Environmental Assessment Office said New Polaris is on the list because of its “potential to make meaningful contributions to B.C.’s long-term economic growth” along with the other projects chosen.

“No project will be expedited at the expense of protecting the environment and communities or meeting our consultation obligations, which remain at the core of the [Environmental Assessment Office]’s mandate,” it added.

The company intends to create hundreds of direct jobs annually and provide around $500 million in federal and provincial tax revenue during its operations.

But some observers remain concerned that the mine’s potential risks, from water contamination to habitat loss, aren’t worth the financial benefits.

Environmental concerns with New Polaris

The Taku River watershed is one of the largest intact river systems on the Pacific Coast of North America, and one of the few remaining places where Pacific salmon populations are booming, meaning New Polaris’s riverside mine and tailings ponds naturally come with high stakes.

The mine sits around the riverbend from the also-dormant Tulsequah Chief mine site, which was owned by another company, where contamination has been seeping into the watershed for over 50 years.

Canagold has worked to distinguish New Polaris from the tarnished legacy of its next-door neighbour. The company has signed a collaborative engagement consent agreement with the Taku River Tlingit First Nation, whose territory extends across the mine site and surrounding regions on the Canadian side of the border. According to the nation, the agreement means it will have the final say on whether the project goes ahead. The nation did not respond to The Narwhal’s request for comment.

The company has altered its plans in response to concerns raised in its engagement with the public and with the Taku River Tlinigit. It no longer plans to process gold on site using cyanide, which, if spilled, can poison fish and watersheds. It’s also planning to dry out its tailings to reduce the risk of impacts and limit barge trips mostly to the construction phase. The barge trips will only happen in the high-water months, spring and summer, to reduce the risks of running aground — a change that means more flights and higher costs.

With gold prices above US$2,500 per ounce — a price reached for the first time in 2024 — the “projected cash flow and economics are outstanding,” according to a quote from Kilofliski on Canagold’s website.

But the company’s application hints at potential challenges ahead: the historic underground mine is leaching some levels of arsenic and antimony into the surrounding watershed, and rocks in the company’s largest targeted gold deposit appear capable of leaching more of the same. According to a report prepared for the company and included in its application, the mine’s proposed tailings facilities appear to be located within the flood zone of the Tulsequah glacier, which sends a massive deluge of water and sediment into the river below at least yearly. However, Kilofliski said in an email to The Narwhal that its facilities are “in a location that is naturally protected from the floods.”

According to a map in Canagold’s application, it appears New Polaris plans to put an airstrip atop part of a wetland and salmon spawning ground known as Flannigan Slough, although Kilofliski says it is located beside it.

These and many other issues worry Jill Weitz, intergovernmental affairs manager for the Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska.

“It’s this incredible, critical habitat for spawning and rearing of salmon,” she says, adding that the council questions if the mine is feasible given its transport challenges, and worries that, if it goes ahead, the project could “create irreparable damage to the watershed.” 

“We’re just not willing to risk it,” she says. 

Located just 13 kilometres upstream from the U.S. border, New Polaris’s barges will spend most of their travel time in U.S. waters. And any water contamination from the mine could also make its way south, including across the traditional territory of the Douglas Indian Association, which extends across the reaches of the Taku River. In a submission to the environmental assessment process, the association said it “strongly opposes” the mine “due to fears that a mining accident and subsequent mining pollution could devastate our salmon stocks.”

This year, B.C. made a legal amendment functionally removing its requirements to consult U.S. tribes on transboundary projects by stripping their previous status in environmental assessment processes. 

In an email, the Environmental Assessment Office noted that it will still “fulfill its constitutional obligations to consult with U.S. Tribes when there is a credible assertion of Indigenous Rights in Canada, and the potential for these rights to be impacted by a proposed project undergoing assessment.”

It added that the ministry has “considered and incorporated” feedback submitted by some U.S. Tribes to New Polaris’s application process.

Still, for many southeast Alaskans who have submitted letters of opposition to the company’s environmental assessment process, New Polaris presents an untenable threat.

Kilofliski says New Polaris’s environmental assessment application proves otherwise. 

 “The conclusion is that there are no material negative effects on the environment,” he says, adding the company has proven it will not require water treatment post-closure.

These comments seem to be contradicted by some parts of New Polaris’s environmental assessment application, including one section that notes: “The primary negative residual effect of groundwater quality will occur during post-closure.” 

“This is experts talking about scientific stuff,” he says when asked why the application appeared to have included a different analysis than his own. When asked again about incongruities between his comments and the application in a follow-up email, Kilofliski wrote that the application does identify a risk of metal leaching. “If anything I said informally differs from the application, please treat the application as correct.”

The Taku River watershed

From space, the Taku and its tributary, the Tulsequah, look like winding ribbons coloured steely grey and cotton-candy-blue — a product of the steady stream of silt and minerals delivered by the churn of glaciers over the mountaintops above. 

Their combined watershed forms a mecca for Pacific salmon that return to its waters each year. “I don’t know if there’s any place like it in western North America in terms of being a salmon stronghold and being so intact,” Jonathan Moore, an aquatic ecologist and lead at Simon Fraser University’s Salmon Watersheds Lab, says. Though the majority of B.C.’s salmon stocks are declining, the fate of salmon in the Taku watershed is looking up. Moore and his colleagues have mapped out salmon’s likely escape route as watersheds warm down south, and they predict they’ll seek refuge in the Taku’s glacial waters. 

But despite its remoteness, the region is no stranger to industry. First staked in the early 1900s, what’s now the New Polaris site was mined for gold between 1937 and 1951. It shut down after a departing barge sank in the midst of a storm. That year, the Tulsequah Chief mine opened up across the river, building a temporary bridge to carry its ore to New Polaris’s mills. After Tulsequah shut down just six years later, the New Polaris site sat dormant for decades.

Canagold’s predecessor, Canarc Resources Corp., acquired the property in 1988, and the company slowly dabbled in exploration work until 2022. That’s when its former founder and chair was ousted in a a vote led by a Swiss-based investment company, Sun Valley Investments, which is now the company’s largest shareholder. Kilofliski, Canagold’s CEO between 2014 and 2018, was reappointed and soon announced the company’s intentions in a press release.

“The time has come to take New Polaris across the finish line,” he said, adding that with the company’s “refocused ownership,” its board would expedite the project “to reward our company’s shareholders.”

A history of water concerns

Next door to New Polaris, the Tulsequah Chief mine continues to leach orange-crush-tinged effluent into the river downstream. Its decades-long pollution has galvanized a bipartisan uprising of Southeast Alaskans concerned B.C.’s government could allow another Tulsequah Chief to occur. 

In a January interview with the Alaska Beacon, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski said B.C.’s efforts to clean up pollution at Tulsequah Chief had been “a complete failure.”

“They know that for projects going forward, they’re kind of stained by the operation there,” she added. 

Kilofliski says such conflations are misguided. “They associate our project with the other project, the Tulsequah Chief,” he says. “In our rocks, we do not have the potential for acid drainage like you see on the other side.”

Despite their close proximity, New Polaris and the Tulsequah Chief come from distinct types of ore deposits — Tulsequah Chief’s ocean-formed sulphide rocks are more readily associated with acid mine drainage, whereas New Polaris’s rocks are generally not.

That may have exceptions: a recent report commissioned by the company has noted some rocks contain potentially acid-generating properties, potentially including some of the historic waste carried over from the Tulsequah Chief mine, though some tests are still ongoing.

And even without the ingredients to leach acid, some rocks contain metals that can escape into waterbodies anyway. Heavy metals arsenic and antimony are frequent culprits of this kind of non-acidic leaching, and New Polaris’s targeted rocks have lots of both.

According to a previous report commissioned by the company and cited in its environmental assessment application, 15 samples from the mineral vein New Polaris plans to target had “high potential” to leach metals, particularly arsenic and antimony, due to the types of rocks present.

Non-acidic leaching has caused damage in B.C. before: New Polaris’s deposits are similar to those of the Bralorne gold mine near Lillooet, where seepage from the flooded mine includes levels of arsenic that far exceed Canadian effluent regulations.

In an email to The Narwhal, Kilofliski said: “I do not know the particulars of the Bralorne gold mine seepage issues but it is probable, based on the nature of these kinds of geological deposits, that the concerns would be analogous.” He elaborated, adding New Polaris is “a modern mine” which will leverage new science and technology for water management and ecological health.

“At Canagold we are focused on learning from the lessons of the past and building a modern mining project that provides demonstrable benefits to the Taku River Tlingit First Nation, the region and Canada’s economy,” he added. 

To help avoid the risk of metal leaching, the company plans to export a partially processed product called gold concentrate, which can include impurities like arsenic and antimony that would get smelted out elsewhere. 

“We take the antimony, we take the sulphur, we take the arsenic,” he told The Narwhal. “We recover 90-plus per cent of those metals into the concentrate.”

The remaining ten-or-so per cent of the metals and other materials leftover would be thickened and deposited into a tailings pond with an impermeable covering on top, Kilofliski says, helping to keep it isolated from the environment. During the operational phase, the mine plans to run a water treatment system, but Kilofliski tells The Narwhal he is confident the mine’s concentrate-extraction approach will avoid the need for long-term water treatment.

“We have demonstrated in the environmental assessment that no water treatment is required post-closure,” he says.

In a follow-up email, Kilofliski added the application “assesses a range of scenarios, including conservative cases where water treatment after closure could be needed.” If it is, “Canagold would be responsible for providing it until we are able to demonstrate that passive treatment (that is without active/chemical water treatment technologies) is able to manage the long-term water quality requirements,” he added.

New Polaris’s environmental assessment application suggests metal leaching may not be easily contained: historic contamination has already travelled below the site in a large plume of metals that is projected to grow if New Polaris proceeds. Leaching can also escape from the mine shaft, as it has from the historic mine portal at New Polaris. Groundwater seeping from the existing mine site contains arsenic and antimony above B.C.’s water quality guidelines, and is flowing directly into the salmon-bearing Whitewater Creek, according to the application, which added seepage may grow post-closure. Recent samples from the mine’s targeted deposits and waste rock reflected an extremely high concentration of arsenic and antimony — achieving the highest possible level on a 6-point scale for mineral concentration. 

This leaching risk is cited in parts of New Polaris’s environmental assessment application as a reason that water treatment may be required post-closure. 

In his email to The Narwhal, Kilofliski said “water was tested as part of mine dewatering programs for effects to fish, and the water was not determined to be acutely toxic, despite high levels of arsenic.”

What’s next for New Polaris?

September marks a major milestone in Canagold’s decades-long pursuit to mine New Polaris. By the end of the month, the company will receive its final guidance from the province’s environmental assessment office on how it could strengthen a revised application, which, once submitted, will be final. In meeting notes discussing the company’s application, B.C.’s environmental assessment office noted “significant gaps” in the company’s application, including “a notable lack of groundwater information,” a lack of analysis about the potential impacts of glacial floods and missing information about the site’s potential to leach metals. The Ministry of Environment noted the company’s hydrological information appeared to reflect “draft documents rather than final product.”

The office has informed Canagold that submitting another application “where significant issues remain unresolved” would “lead to a high level of uncertainty on the potential effects of the project.” 

Kilofliski suggests these kinds of issues are standard for projects like this. “They are very normal,” he says, adding that Canagold plans to fill any remaining gaps before it submits its final application, adding in a later email that the company has “continued to collect samples since the submission of the application, and we are updating our water modelling.”

But some uncertainties could remain during the assessment process by design: under B.C.’s mining laws, key aspects of New Polaris’s plans, including how it plans to manage leaching on site, how it will treat water and how it plans to deal with contaminants post-closure, would be determined in the permitting stage after the company receives its environmental assessment. 

Through the assessment and later permitting stages, Kilofliski remains confident that Canagold will establish its case. “We have to demonstrate,” he says, “because our word doesn’t mean anything.” 

“We have to prove, we have to show, and we have to test. … This is how it’s done.”

Updated on Sept. 18, 2026, at 8:52 a.m. PT: This story has been updated with Jill Weitz’s current professional title of intergovernmental affairs manager for the Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, as it has changed since the story was written.

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.

Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, which produces ten per cent of Ontario’s energy supply, will go fully offline next week.

Nicolle Butcher, president and CEO of Ontario Power Generation, told the gathering of investors, CEOs and politicians at Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Canada Investment Summit on Monday that the plant, which has operated for 50 years, “will come out of service next week and we’ll start its refurbishment.” Butcher said it would be off-grid for five to seven years. 

The shutdown was expected this fall, with plans to begin repairs early next year, pending regulatory approval. The refurbishment is expected to last until the mid-2030s, enabling the plant to provide enough energy to power more than two million homes for an additional 30 years. Ontario has had two other nuclear facilities undergoing similar repairs: the update at Darlington just wrapped up, while the one at Bruce Power is ongoing. 

In the interim, the province will maintain its electricity supply largely by relying on natural gas — a fossil fuel composed mainly of the greenhouse gas methane. This is not a surprise. In 2021, the Independent Electricity System Operator cited aging nuclear facilities coupled with increasing demand as driving an increase in gas generation in the province.

Not everyone thinks the Pickering project is worth it. “The real question that Ontarians should be asking is: does the refurbishment of this plant make any sense?” Keith Brooks, a program director with a focus on energy at the advocacy group Environmental Defence, told The Narwhal. “It’s going to be more expensive than the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments” — themselves years-long, multibillion-dollar projects already pushing rates higher — “and meanwhile, wind and solar and batteries have come of age and come so far down in cost that a cheap, clean energy future is within our grasp, if only we’d reach for it.”

The Narwhal sent questions to Ontario Power Generation, a Crown corporation of the province, and Energy Minister Stephen Lecce’s office. Neither provided answer by publication time. Lecce’s office has not answered emailed questions from The Narwhal or granted requests for interviews since he took on the role in June 2024.

Here’s what you need to know.

Why is Pickering Nuclear Generating Station shutting down?

Simply, because it’s very old. 

Located just east of Toronto, Pickering Nuclear Generating Station has already been operating for an extended lifetime. It was originally slated to close in the early 2020s. Instead, since taking office, the Doug Ford government has extended its life. The plant became increasingly vital in closing a tightening energy supply gap fuelled by a growing population, and more recently data centres and electric vehicles. 

In 2022, the Ford government announced it would push Pickering’s youngest four reactors — Units 5 through 8, known as Pickering B — to run through September 2026, while Units 1 through 4, known as Pickering A, were permanently shut down. 

In October 2024, following public hearings that drew submissions from Ontario Power Generation, experts from the the federal Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and 54 intervenors, the plant was granted a further extension until Dec. 31, 2026. Around the same time, the province instructed Ontario Power Generation to begin planning a full refurbishment of Pickering B, rather than let those four reactors retire.

How does the Pickering refurbishment fit into Ontario’s broader energy plans?

Pickering’s refurbishment isn’t happening in isolation — it’s one piece of a much larger provincial rebuild that touches all three of Ontario’s major nuclear sites. Darlington, outside Bowmanville, Ont., just wrapped up its own years-long refurbishment — “on time and under budget,” according to the government and Ontario Power Generation. At the investment conference panel, Butcher said such efficiency “is not usual for a nuclear project.”

Bruce Power, in Kincardine, Ont., is mid-refurbishment right now, with a timeline that overlaps Pickering.

Ontario is also pursuing new nuclear construction. The province is advancing Canada’s first small modular reactor project at Darlington, and is separately looking at building an entirely new nuclear site at Wesleyville. But the timelines on those projects fan out over the next two decades, with the first of four small modular reactors expected to come online in 2030.

Bruce Power has also proposed four large new reactors at its site, which would be Canada’s first large-scale nuclear build in more than 30 years. And the Ontario government has already agreed to share the costs of the impact assessment with the company.

How much will the Pickering refurbishment cost Ontario taxpayers?

The government has approved a $26.8-billion budget for the Pickering refurbishment — more than double the $12.8 billion spent rebuilding Darlington. The government and Ontario Power Generation attribute the higher cost to Pickering’s age, which demands a heavier rebuild, plus inflation.

For Ontarians, the cost will show up most directly on power bills. Last year, Ontario Power Generation filed an application with the provincial energy regulator, the Ontario Energy Board, to roughly double the cost of nuclear-generated electricity. If approved, the increase would add an average of $3.50 to monthly household bills each year for the next five years, according to the Crown corporation. 

These rising costs come with a tradeoff: nuclear’s size and dependability versus its cost. Brooks is right about renewables — the International Energy Agency says solar, especially, is growing faster than any other energy source globally, becoming cheaper and more effective. 

Yet while Ontario does have some renewable projects in the works, overall, the Independent Electricity System Operator projects renewables will make up roughly the same share of Ontario’s electricity mix 25 years from now as they do today. This reflects the province’s bet on nuclear, rather than renewables, as the backbone of its energy plan.

What will replace the power provided by the Pickering nuclear plant?

A combination of natural gas, battery storage and electricity imports.

There is no nuclear facility that can make up the shortfall from Pickering’s shutdown. Darlington already provides 20 per cent of Ontario’s energy supply and, according to figures from the Independent Electricity System Operator, it doesn’t have any additional capacity to make up for the loss of Pickering. Neither does Bruce during its refurbishment. 

So the province’s electricity operator has been putting callouts for more natural gas generation to maintain a reliable power grid.

Battery storage is also playing a growing role. The Oneida Energy Storage Project, a 250-megawatt facility near Six Nations of the Grand River that opened in 2025, doubled Ontario’s battery storage capacity to 475 megawatts on its own, and the province has procured close to 1,800 megawatts more storage across other projects, expected online by 2028. Battery projects are able to store excess power when demand is low and deploy it when demand is high, helping to balance out the grid and its power sources.

The operator has projected the Pickering retirement and refurbishment outages will make Ontario a net importer of power for the first time since 2005 — with imports largely coming from the United States, a complicated prospect amid a tariff war. The system operator expects that balance of trade to return to exports once the nuclear refurbishments wrap up in the 2030s.

What happens next?

Canada’s nuclear regulator told The Narwhal it will be holding the second half of a public hearing starting Oct. 6 to decide whether to renew Pickering’s operating licences — for both the power plant and its waste storage facility — for another 10 years, and whether to approve the planned refurbishment. The hearing will be in Ajax, Ont., and last a week. 

Once the hearing wraps up and the regulator has all the input it needs, it’ll issue a decision, typically within four months.

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.

A leaked document, labelled a cabinet report and outlining possible plans to overhaul Alberta’s natural gas pipeline system to spur AI data centre construction, caused an uproar last week. 

It was top of mind for Alberta Premier Danielle Smith on her weekly radio show, it was the subject of an Alberta NDP news conference and it was in media outlets of every stripe. But what exactly is the leaked document at the heart of the controversy and what does it actually mean?

The document, first obtained by The Narwhal, has spread far and wide, at least according to Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi. Multiple media outlets say they’ve received a copy, but the full details have not been made public. Until now. 

The document was leaked to The Narwhal by a government official whose identity is being kept confidential. The Narwhal verified they are in a position that would likely have access to such a document, and the provincial government did not deny its authenticity when it issued a statement in response to the leak.

The Narwhal is publishing a copy of the document it obtained, alongside an explanation of what it all means — and whether it is, as Smith’s government now suggests, merely one of many considerations it reviews on a regular basis. 

A copy of the document can be found here. The document will contain some typos, introduced by efforts to ensure the document’s source remains confidential.

Let’s dive in.

What’s the deal with that leaked document?

The document outlines plans for the province to overhaul how natural gas pipelines operate and are regulated within the province. 

According to the document, the recommended proposals for consideration include changing the regulations in Alberta to ensure all natural gas pipelines fall under provincial jurisdiction, and then also passing legislation that would allow the government to create two Crown corporations. One corporation could oversee the pipeline system and compel companies to make investments deemed a priority by the government, and the other could build and operate, or bankroll, new pipelines — and directly compete with existing private companies.

If the government doesn’t go for the recommendations, the document says there could be some combination of those interlocking options. For example, creating the Crown corporation that would oversee the system, but not the corporation that could build or bankroll new pipelines. There is also the option to continue with the status quo. 

The document includes timelines for cabinet decisions, as well as implementation. It also breaks down the estimated costs of implementing the changes, including the multimillion-dollar costs of possible legal battles with companies including TC Energy.TC Energy owns and operates the largest natural gas pipeline system in the province, called the Nova Gas Transmission pipeline, or NGTL. 

TC Energy and ATCO, another energy company mentioned in the document, did not respond to a detailed list of questions about the contents of the document by publication time.

In a statement released after the document was leaked, TC Energy said it is prepared to keep investing in its pipeline system to meet demand.“This will require all of us — industry, customers, regulators, governments, stakeholders and rightsholders — to come to the table and improve the conditions to get infrastructure built,” it reads.

“The key is working together to bring forward credible solutions, capital and capacity quickly enough to support Alberta’s growth and enable Canada to unlock the opportunity to meet the moment.”

Wait, why is Alberta considering this? Do we need pipelines for AI data centres?

The plans for natural gas expansion are not just about data centres, there is also reference to expanding oil and gas production, including access to natural gas for oilsands operations. 

But the expansion of AI data centres are front and centre throughout the document, which notes “the Government of Alberta is actively courting hyperscale data centre capital and other investors.”So why do we need gas for that?

The Alberta government is eager to host data centres in the province, with a line-up of potential projects that dwarf any other region in the country. The province, realizing there was no way to power all those projects, capped access to the electricity grid and told producers to build their own power if they want to get up and running. 

The draft rules for data centres require that electricity to be generated by natural gas, at least for now, part of a wider plan to increase production and demand for the resources.

In a recent interview with The Hub, the government argued bottlenecks in the natural gas pipeline network are an impediment to attracting and building more data centres, one of the key reasons it wants to incentivize, or force, expansions to natural gas pipelines.

TC Energy said in its statement that it has invested approximately $15 billion into expanding its Alberta network over the past ten years and plans to spend billions more. 

The document says it’s not moving fast enough.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says this is just spitballing, is that true?

The first thing Smith addressed on her weekly radio show on Sept. 12 was whether or not the province is considering spending billions to build new pipelines for data centres.“Short answer, no,” Smith said, in response to the question from host Wayne Nelson.

She then went on to add nuance to that hard “no.”

TC Energy has a “monopoly” on the gas pipeline system, she said, and the government wants other companies to build more access. 

“We would very unlikely have to create a Crown corporation to do it,” she said.

But the premier did not rule out compelling private companies to build more natural gas pipelines the government deems to be in the province’s best interests. 

One day earlier, after The Narwhal broke the news of the leaked document, the office of Alberta Energy Minister Brian Jean issued a statement.“Governments routinely examine a wide range of policy, regulatory and legislative options when considering complex issues, and internal materials do not represent government decisions,” it read.

Is this just a passing idea?

The Narwhal shared excerpts from the document with Shannon Phillips, a former environment minister in the NDP government between 2015 and 2019. Though she is not involved in the current deliberations, speaking from past experience with such documents she said she believes the document outlines a “serious plan.”

“This isn’t just the government blueskying,” she said. “They’re going to move.”

Lori Williams, a political science professor at Mount Royal University, agrees with Phillips. The Narwhal also shared excerpts of the leaked document with Williams.

 “This is a fairly well-developed plan with very short timelines, and this isn’t just a discussion about something that might happen someday,” she said based on her review. (Williams is not privy to any internal details about the government’s deliberations.) “This is something that’s got timelines for this month.”

According to the document, the plan went before a high-level cabinet committee on Sept. 10 and is scheduled to be presented to the full cabinet on Sept. 22. The document says it would then move to the government’s legislative review committee to draft new laws on Oct. 15 and then new regulations on Dec. 4. 

“The idea that it’s just a speculative exercise is harder to maintain when you’ve got timelines that begin this month,” Williams said. 

An internal government source, whose identity is being kept confidential due to professional risk, said the cabinet report is moving forward regardless of the statements made by Smith over the weekend.

A note on trust, integrity and unnamed sources+

This story uses information from sources The Narwhal has agreed not to name. The Narwhal only agrees to keep names confidential when we believe two things. First, that the person we’re speaking with is putting themselves at genuine risk, either personal or professional, by sharing this information with us. Second, that the information they’re sharing is in the public interest. Our decision to do so is never made lightly. 

There are two types of unnamed sources. A confidential source is someone whose name we know, but aren’t sharing. We make multiple attempts to verify their identity and information with other sources. If we aren’t able to get a second source, we say so. 

An anonymous source is someone whose name we don’t know. It is incredibly rare for The Narwhal to publish a story with a completely anonymous source. In these instances, we don’t publish until we have verified the information shared with us with at least one other source. 

And again, these stories must be in the public interest. 

As Canadian governments become increasingly secretive, the courage of whistleblowers is to be admired. We value them greatly. At the same time, our promise to readers is The Narwhal will always make sure the facts are airtight. 

Have something to share? Send us a story tip.

The Alberta government did not respond to questions about whether it was pursuing the plans outlined in the document by publication time.

What else is the Alberta government saying?

One item in the document raised particular concern for some, and was the focus of a news conference Nenshi hosted the same day The Narwhal published its story: cost for consumers.

The document warns the moves will likely increase costs for Albertans. One estimate in the document suggests the government’s aim is to almost double natural gas prices to support and expand production, which could see the cost to generate electricity rise by 25 per cent. That cost would then be passed down to consumers on their power bills, but the document does not predict those impacts. 

On her call-in show, Smith argued the opposite was true. 

“If you have constrained gas, and there’s more demand than there is supply, that’s what causes prices to go up,” she said. “And so what you need to do is you need to increase supply so prices stay low.”

That runs counter to estimates laid out in the document, the government’s own ambitions. It also runs counter to outside analysis.

How could the plan in this document affect your power bills?

Data centres consume vast quantities of power. One hyperscale data centre can consume as much power as the entire city of Edmonton, or more. That also means they consume vast quantities of natural gas in their power plants. 

It’s one reason why the government has explicitly linked increased natural gas demand with the data centre buildout, and argued the increased demand will help natural gas producers and the government’s own bottom line through increased royalties. 

Analysis from the Pembina Institute estimates the recently announced Meta data centre near Edmonton alone could add $270 to $460 to electricity bills each year.

Beyond the cost of gas, there is also concern with the potential costs passed down to taxpayers from lawsuits, the construction and operation of pipelines or the creation of a new corporation to oversee the pipeline network.

Sonya Savage, an energy minister under premier Jason Kenney, told the Calgary Herald this week that government interventions in the market can be a big gamble. 

“It makes me very nervous, because there is not a great track record,” Savage said in the wake of the document leak.

“But [if] the private sector is not prepared to invest in projects that are in the public interest — and have public merit and benefits — then I’m not opposed to the government looking and researching.”

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.

On a grassy slope in Kanaka Bar, a herd of goats frolic and play. But this isn’t a farm or a petting zoo — it’s an innovative wildfire mitigation effort from the First Nation.

Some of the goats loudly bleat as they chow down on invasive species and overgrown brush. 

“In the last five years, Kanaka community has been experiencing devastation with fire,” Pauline Michell told The Narwhal.

That includes two evacuations due to wildfires, as well as floods and mudslides that have closed roads and cut off her community from the world. And in Kanaka Bar, there is no fire truck or fire hall. “Kanaka has solely been on its own in regards to fire,” said Michell.

Located in Nlaka’pamux territory, 20 kilometres south of Lytton, Kanaka Bar Indian Band also goes by T’eqt’ aqtn’mux, “the crossing place people.” 

In 2021, the Lytton Creek wildfire devastated the area, evacuating numerous First Nations for years, while burning structures and homes to the ground. 

Later that year, an atmospheric river raged through the Fraser and Thompson Rivers, washing out roads and cutting people off from leaving Kanaka Bar.

According to a new report from the office of the B.C. human rights commissioner, between 2000 and 2024, First Nation reserves accounted for 36 of 37 communities where at least half of the total land area was burned by wildfire, with the only non-reserve community being Lytton.

Further, First Nation reserves in B.C. are four times more likely to be impacted by wildfire than non-reserve communities. 

This prompted Michell, an elected councillor in her community, to take a proactive approach to the wildfire season. 

Since late July, a herd of goats have been eating their way through the Kanaka Bar Indian Band, targeting areas with built up fuel and brush that would burn up in a fire. 

About 80 goats have been clocking in this summer, while a few goats like Dandelion and Cuddley are part of a rebel club in their own separate enclosure.

“This is a trial for Kanaka, to look at fuel management in this way,” said Michell. 

“Hearing about these goats being able to do this sounded really intriguing and interesting,” she added.

The idea came by accident, after an area grazed by sheep acted as a fire stop during a wildfire three years prior.

“Back in 2023, the Kookipi Creek fire came through … We had been grazing the sheep that we had out in this back area, and when that fire came through, it actually came pretty much all the way down to community, and then it stopped where the sheep had been grazing,” Emma Bryce told The Narwhal.

She recalled thinking, “This is really cool, we just kind of made our own fire break without really intending to.”

Bryce has been the nation’s food self-sufficiency lead since 2022, and after the sheep experience, started researching different animals to graze in the community.

“In conversations with chief and council, I brought it up and was like, ‘What if we used goats to do wildfire risk reduction?’ They were like, ‘okay, let’s do it.’” 

“This goat grazing project has been a passion project of mine for the last couple of years,” Bryce said, after she took the green light from Kanaka and ran with it. That’s when she met Bruce Bradley, who does contract work across B.C. with his herd of goats. 

Based on Vancouver Island, it took three trips by ferry to bring his herd to the mainland and then to Kanaka Bar this summer. But the Ainslie Creek and Brunswick Creek wildfires impacted initial operations back in July. 

As of Sept. 11, those wildfires remained burning 31 kilometres down the road from Kanaka Bar, though they  are now contained. Once it was safe, the goats got to work. 

Goat grazing benefits for biodiversity and wildfire

The goats have grazed about 12 hectares of ground since arriving in the community earlier this summer.

“We’re trying to get in all the nooks and crannies, especially around the houses and around the roads, the important spaces to make them more defensible and resilient to fire,” Bradley told the Narwhal.

On top of reducing wildfire risk, “the ecological benefits are huge because the goats are trampling, they’re fertilizing … and they’re especially effective for invasive weeds.”

“We’ve tackled this year quite a bit of Canadian thistle, Himalayan blackberry and Scotch broom.” 

Bradley’s been deploying his fire-mitigating goats since 2018, through his company BC Timber Goats.

“It’s a very unique tool, and I think a powerful tool to get wildfire risk reduction benefits and silviculture benefits on the same site, at the same time,” he said. 

According to the B.C. government, silviculture is “the thoughtful, deliberate and balanced management of forests and surrounding local ecosystems” that encourages tree diversity to increase resilience against threats like pests, climate change and disturbances.

The idea to start a goat grazing business came from Bradley’s experience in farming.

“I grew up on a farm that had lots of weed control issues. I’d always spray and mow, and we’d break the mowers. I’d get sick with the spray and so I thought, there’s got to be a better way,” he said.

Bradley said that in areas of the farm sprayed with pesticides, “everything would just turn brown, and half the time it would burn in wildfire in the summer.” 

Goat grazing achieves similar outcomes as pesticide use but is much healthier for the environment.

According to the University of Calgary, which piloted a goat-grazing project at their main campus last year, “targeted grazing is a proven land-management technique that uses livestock to naturally control vegetation growth. Unlike herbicides, which can have a lasting environmental impact, goats provide a natural way to reduce unwanted plant growth while encouraging native vegetation to thrive.”

Animals grazing through southern Interior communities has become less common with wildlife populations declining.

“Using goats actually mimics what you would have typically seen if you had large herds of elk moving through. … Goats mimic a natural system that this landscape would have evolved with already,” Bryce said.

An addition to the FireSmart toolbox 

Over the summer, the goats have been working alongside Kanaka Bar’s fuel management crew.

As the FireSmart team gathers fuel and brush into a pile, the goats eat until it’s gone. It’s a win-win situation: feeding the goats and disposing of the community’s built-up fuel.

“I don’t think there’s ever going to be a scenario where we don’t need people out on the ground, going out and doing the bigger fuel management,” Bryce said, adding goat grazing complements other fuel management strategies. 

“They can go in and defoliate, which is great to have more visibility when you’re out there working in really dense brush,” she said. 

Bryce and Bradley estimate the goats haven eaten 0.25 hectares of ground each day. They’re scheduled to wrap up their work on Sept. 21.

“The goats are going in and doing a really efficient job at something that is really challenging to do with just human crews alone,” she said. 

When the project was first brought forward to the community, residents were interested in learning more about it, but not exactly excited about goats – that quickly changed.

“Now it’s to the point where members want a couple of goats to tackle the brushes in their yard as well, so that’s really good,” said Michell.    

“When wildfire comes to Kanaka, we’ll be more prepared.”

Updated on Sept. 16, 2026, at 11:11 a.m. PT: This story has been updated to correct the dates that the goats are in Kanaka Bar.

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.