Summary

• B.C.’s throne speech was not delivered in 2026 due to the tragic shooting in Tumbler Ridge.
• The Narwhal obtained a copy of the speech via freedom of information request.
• The unshared speech gives an insight into B.C.’s priorities which include mining and liquefied natural gas (LNG).

In a typical year, the spring sitting of the B.C. legislature starts with a throne speech.

The speech from the throne — as the document is formally known — is delivered by the lieutenant-governor on behalf of the provincial government. It is a snapshot of the political moment, a mixture of policies and milestones the government of the day considers accomplishments, as well as hints about legislative priorities for the coming months.

For journalists who cover the legislature, the throne speech is an opportunity to peer at the political tea leaves and guess at what lies ahead.

But in 2026, the government’s planned throne speech was never presented in the legislature. Two days before its scheduled delivery, a horrific event occurred in the small town of Tumbler Ridge, B.C.: a mass shooting that resulted in the deaths of nine people, many of them students and staff at Tumbler Ridge Secondary School.

In the wake of the tragedy, the date set for the throne speech was postponed and the province observed a day of mourning. A few days later, Lieutenant-Governor Wendy Cocchia delivered a short and somber speech dedicated to the community of Tumbler Ridge.

But what was in the speech the government was poised to deliver? The Narwhal filed a freedom of information request for a copy of the speech with Premier David Eby’s office. And we received a mostly un-redacted copy.

---

Over the year ahead, the B.C. government plans to continue championing liquefied natural gas (LNG) and mining development, which — along with forestry — form the province’s economic foundation, according to the speech.

“This natural inheritance remains central to our future prosperity,” the speech says.

British Columbians should look forward to “a more sustainable forestry sector,” even as tariffs imposed by the United States continue to bite, the speech says. The government will also continue to work toward “delivering B.C. energy to growing markets” — supporting companies producing LNG to ship to markets on the other side of the Pacific — and “driving momentum on critical minerals,” it says.

A section of the speech is dedicated to the North Coast transmission line, which the government says will deliver “clean, reliable electricity needed to unlock tens of billions of dollars worth of private sector projects across” northwest B.C. The transmission line may almost exclusively serve large industrial customers, such as the Ksi Lisims LNG facility and multiple proposed mines. But its cost, which was most recently estimated at $6 billion for a little more than half the line’s length, will be shared between all BC Hydro ratepayers. 

The North Coast transmission line will be built “in true partnership with First Nations,” the throne speech says before it segues into a section titled “Reconciliation and Partnerships with Indigenous Peoples.”

‘Reconciliation is the responsibility of elected governments,’ throne speech says

For its next 431 words, the throne speech highlights the importance of reconciliation with First Nations and the work the province has done since the unanimous passage of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in November 2019. It affirms the existence of Aboriginal Title, recognized by Canadian courts and in the Canadian Constitution.

“Reconciliation is the responsibility of elected governments,” according to the throne speech. 

“Repealing the Declaration Act, or walking away from negotiations with First Nations, would not change that reality,” the throne speech says. “It would create chaos, delays, lost jobs, and endless lawsuits.”

On page 13, the tone of the speech shifts as it mentions “recent court decisions [that] have raised questions about what reconciliation means in practice.” While those decisions aren’t named in the speech, the province is seeking to appeal a December 2025 decision by the B.C. Court of Appeal, which agreed with an argument from the Gitxaała and Ehattesaht First Nations that the government’s obligations under the Declaration Act — to align provincial laws with the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples — are legally enforceable.

Since December, Eby has been touting plans to amend the Declaration Act to “address some serious legal liabilities that were created … through the court decision.” This angered First Nations leaders across B.C., who told Eby in a meeting last week that his plans to amend the law were “totally unacceptable.” So, on April 2, he made an abrupt announcement saying he would suspend parts of the Declaration Act and the Interpretation Act in the coming weeks instead.

However, suspension still requires legislative amendments, which will be voted on in the legislature by May 28. 

Eby said he is willing to risk the future of his government to get it done.

“This will be a confidence vote,” Eby told reporters on April 2. That means if the majority of MLAs vote against the legislation, the NDP government will have lost the confidence of the house, likely triggering a snap election.

These plans to change the landmark Indigenous Rights law over the objections of many First Nations leaders seem contradictory to the throne speech promise that the B.C. government “will not abandon responsibility for reconciliation.”

You can read the entire 25 pages of the throne speech here, except for a few lines redacted by the premier’s office under section 12 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which covers matters discussed in cabinet. 

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

Summary

• The Government of Ontario is overhauling the mine permitting process to funnel all stages through the relatively new Ministry of Energy and Mines, under the “one project, one process” system.
• Many First Nations leaders have voiced concerns about how this will impact consultation, and the burden it places on Indigenous communities.
• Some mining companies are already seeing how this fast-tracking could play out, and say no corners will be cut.

In early March, dozens of digital billboards across Toronto’s Union Station repeatedly flashed four words that have become synonymous with economic survival for the Doug Ford government: “one project, one process.”

The phrase welcomed people travelling through the central transit hub on their way to the world’s largest annual mining conference, held by the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada. It was an overwhelming four-day affair, where more than 32,000 people talked deals, investments and pretty rocks in faraway places and how to get them out of the ground. 

This year’s conference — the largest ever — began a day after the United States and Israel attacked Iran, setting in motion a crippling squeeze on oil supply that has raised gas prices to levels not seen in decades and killing thousands of people. But that didn’t hamper the very loud buzz at the conference. In some respects, it may have upped the volume.

---

The urgency for a homemade solution to tackle global crises (mainly Donald Trump) had increased once more — and Ontario had a (four-word) plan that is still, for all the fanfare, an untested experience, unknown to many.

Though outward-facing, the plan is actually predicated on reshaping the way the government works internally, to guide and greenlight proposals for mining and development faster through the bureaucracy. The promise: one project ushered through one massive, clear and quicker process. 

“It’s a huge shakeup,” one former Ministry of Mines official told The Narwhal. “It’s a huge disruption from how we would all typically work.”

The enormity of this internal shift was evident in the sprawling halls of the Metro Convention Centre. There, government ministers, led by Energy and Mines Minister Stephen Lecce, met seemingly every global delegation with the message of “one project, one process” — colloquially called “1P1P” — and how it would turn Ontario into “the world’s reliable partner.” Ministry staff answered questions in packed rooms about how to figure out if “1P1P was right for you.” The three companies that had already been accepted into the fast-tracking process were the stars of a crowded trade show, including one that talked at length with The Narwhal.

---

While expediency might yield positive results for the mining industry, for some First Nation leaders who attended the conference, there is an obvious loss: important things, like consultation and consent, could also be fast-tracked, or missed completely. There was also frustration over the many crises that, for decades, have not been granted the same urgency: clean drinking water, basic health-care services, housing. 

“We still don’t have any clarity on what fast-track or ‘one project, one process’ really means,” Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict told The Narwhal. “We’re all still kind of unsure.” 

Four other First Nations leaders told The Narwhal the same thing: no one in government had talked to them yet about the process, let alone what it means for their communities, which are already on the frontlines of resource extraction and its aftermath. 

The next 12 to 18 months, Benedict said, will “become the real test” of the government’s four-word fast-tracking policy, both provincially and nationally.

---

‘A trailblazer or a guinea pig’

Just outside Red Lake, Ont., 100 kilometres east of the Ontario-Manitoba border, is the proposed site for the largest lithium mine in the province. The company hoping to build it, Frontier Lithium, says the mine could help supply electric-vehicle battery manufacturers. It was the first project to be designated on Ontario’s “one project, one process” list. The Sudbury-based mining company was assured a 24-month approval by the Ford government. 

“We’re either a trailblazer or a guinea pig,” Clara Lauziere, Frontier Lithium’s director of sustainability, told The Narwhal.

Three years ago, Lauziere was working in the Ministry of Mines, navigating a process she described as inefficient and uncoordinated. “Had I known 1P1P was coming, I might have stayed,” she said. 

As she explains it, the regulatory system in Ontario and Canada has some of the highest environmental standards, but it’s also one of the most complex globally. “There’s never been a real road map on how to permit a mine and how to do it effectively,” she said, because every project is different. Until last October, mining companies had to work with multiple ministries that didn’t communicate well, which she said resulted in a lot of repetition and confusion for both industry and Indigenous communities. 

“Consultation fatigue was huge,” she said. Some of the communities she spoke to as a ministry official had received six or seven letters from several different ministries about the same project. In the same vein, companies were receiving multiple directives from different ministries about which Indigenous communities to consult about different parts of the project. 

All of this inevitably resulted in delays for permits; 15 years of delay, according to the Ford government, though it hasn’t given examples of when bureaucracy alone tangled a mining project up for that long. With the new process, that will purportedly go down to two years. “Certainty is everything,” Lauziere said, “especially when you’ve never had it.” 

That’s why she was bombarded with questions in every room she went to at the conference. “People want to know if they can really believe this is actually going to happen,” she said. The short answer appears to be yes, but it depends on a sustained commitment from industry to also be ready and committed with the right paperwork, detailed studies, accurate data and robust consultation plans. “I think the key is really just being willing to work with the government and communities,” she said. 

In other words, as a government official told a packed room at the mining conference, “this is not a one-way street” but “a tremendous effort that requires everyone to be at the table.”

---

When Frontier Lithium was accepted into the new system, the company “had everything ready,” Lauziere said. In response, they were assigned a bureaucrat to be their main point of contact throughout the process, leading a team of officials across ministries. The company was provided a detailed 24-month timeline of steps this team would be completing in partnership with them. 

In early March, the Independent Electricity System Operator, the Crown agency in charge of electricity supply and demand, proactively reached out to Frontier Lithium to discuss energy needs for their proposed mine after the company was selected for fast-tracking. “So there’s a lot of coordination and pressure there on priority projects,” Lauziere said, including from the mining minister himself. 

In mid-March, Frontier Lithium received a single directive identifying all the communities that need to be consulted for the entire project. “Now, we can have confidence that we know who we need to talk to and what the potential impact on rights are going to be, so we can have meaningful conversations,” Lauziere said. “That level of detail and consolidation is incredibly valuable for communities and companies.”

Frontier Lithium is expecting a permit by the fall of 2027, so the new process does appear to be faster. Lauziere said if any concerns crop up with their proposal over this period, the company expects to resolve them with the government and communities. 

“No corners are cut in the process,” she added. “And nothing changes on the consultation front.” What “one process, one project” does is make the consultation process clearer for every company. 

“Yes, we want to build a mine,” Lauziere said, “but we also want a relationship that lasts 50 years.” 

“As the first, we all kind of have to get it right.”

Fear of the fast track

Ontario’s push to fast-track mines, and promises it can happen without sacrificing free, prior and informed consent from First Nations, hasn’t landed with everyone. 

“The idea of fast-tracking really scares me,” Natasha Martin, Deputy Grand Chief of Mushkegowuk Council, told an overflowing room of miners and government staffers at the March conference. 

She repeated the same sentiment to The Narwhal in an interview later. “That means that it’s a very fast job — a rush job — and we’re taking something that has taken years prior down to six months. That scares me, because then there will be things that won’t be properly captured or looked at.”

Martin’s fear highlights a deep disconnect in the ways industry and First Nations understand “one project, one process.”

While companies are quickly gaining extensive knowledge of what it all means for them, many First Nations say they have been left in the dark. And they remain especially skeptical about the effectiveness of environmental and community risk assessments under the streamlined process. In no small part, because it was initially proposed in Bill 5, a controversial legislation that allows for “special economic zones” where “designated projects” can evade provincial laws.

Bill 5 was written without the government holding a single consultation with Indigenous communities, although many would be significantly impacted by an increase in mining and development activity — and have historically not reaped the financial or social rewards of such industry. Nine First Nations have challenged the law in court, arguing that it is unconstitutional.

Complicating matters further is that just as Ontario speeds up development approvals, the federal government has created its own office with a similar mandate. The Crawford Nickel project, outside Timmins, is being considered for fast-tracking at both levels. And recently, Frontier Lithium has been named to another list of projects for “federal permitting coordination.” 

On the one hand, Lauziere credits the “one project, one process” system for setting them up perfectly for federal fast-tracking. On the other hand, early signs show choppy collaboration between levels of government could be a new drag on momentum, even as First Nations around Red Lake appear ready to work with both.

Lauziere agreed that if things are going to be sped up, there will inherently be added pressure on First Nations. She called it “an unintended consequence” that will require Ontario to actively work on better informing and communicating with Indigenous communities. 

“We really haven’t seen much of a difference on the ground yet,” Jason Batise, the executive director of the Wabun Tribal Council, told The Narwhal. The regional council for five First Nations around Timmins has honed a consultation framework to manage the deluge of mine consultations over the last two decades. That includes Crawford Nickel, with whom Batise says the First Nation has a good relationship.

Batise is clear: “Consultation has never been a bottleneck to responsible development.” 

“We don’t really yet see any sort of distinct acceleration of 1P1P, but we know it’s coming,” he said. “And if I had one concern, it would be the expectation from developers to fast-track consultation.” 

“Because at that point, 1P1P is going to get challenged by the nations.” Historically, mining projects have been delayed by protests or legal challenges from nations that feel their constitutional rights were not properly met.  

Batise isn’t the only one watching the fast-tracking process carefully. Many Indigenous leaders came to the mining conference with messages of vigilance, reminding attendees that First Nations were not “carbon copies,” and neither are their territories.

---

Even as the process to approve mining projects speeds up, communities like Neskantaga First Nation, in the Ring of Fire region, are dealing with simultaneous crises. When Bill 5 passed, the nation’s only health-care centre was flooded and inoperational. There continues to be a chronic housing shortage; those that are standing are plagued by mould. There is a 31-year boil advisory in effect, the longest in the region. 

“It’s hard to understand. It’s moving so fast,” Chief Gary Quisses told The Narwhal at the mining conference. He fears that despite its moniker, the “one project, one process” system will open the doors to multiple projects in their communities that all bypass First Nations consent, and needs. 

“I don’t even have 9-1-1, I can’t even use that number. I don’t have a fire truck. I don’t have an ambulance, paramedics, anything,” he said. “And here, the government is trying to push and take our resources away.”

Batise is cautiously hopeful, noting that industry has lately had its “come-to-Jesus moment with First Nations,” developing meaningful partnerships based in equity. But he too worries the fast-tracking process may become a catalyst for companies to prioritize their bottom line. 

“The government is telling industry 1P1P will be better for them. They’re also telling nations that faster is better for them,” he said. “The difference is that industry is getting what they want, but communities are not.”

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 January, Todd Stone, the president and chief executive officer of the Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia, told the crowd assembled for the association’s conference about a lobby meeting he had with Premier David Eby. Stone joked that he opened by congratulating the premier on his “success on 30-by-30.” 

The crowd began to chuckle as he continued his story about provincial and national targets for protecting 30 per cent of land and water by 2030.

“You’ve actually accomplished 47 by 2025,” he recalled telling the premier. He then recounted asking: “Can we start having a conversation about pulling some land back?”

That figure comes from a policy paper published in December 2025 by the association, arguing “up to 46.99 per cent” of British Columbia was protected land. That’s far more than the federal government’s figure of 19.9 per cent, and would surpass the province’s 30-by-30 pledge. 

According to Stone, a former minister under the B.C. Liberals, the comments led to the premier directing “the staff at the [Water, Lands and Resource Stewardship Ministry] to go back and look at all their numbers and sit down with us.”

According to public records, the association lobbied at least a dozen members of B.C.’s NDP government in late 2025 to press their argument. Those include the speaker, the minister of forests, the minister of labour, the minister of energy and climate solutions, the minister of mining and critical minerals and Randene Neill, the minister of water, lands and resource stewardship.

On Dec. 2, 2025, Minister Neill poured cold water on the lobbying effort.

“It is inaccurate to suggest these areas are currently fully protected when they are not,” she said. A section of the statement attributed to the ministry went on to add that many of the so-called protected areas cited in the association’s policy paper “do not restrict all resource activities that can negatively affect biodiversity.”

Torrance Coste, associate director at the Wilderness Committee, remembers seeing Minister Neill’s statement shared on an email list used by the province’s conservation groups. He described it as “encouraging” at the time. But Stone’s comments, and more recent statements by the ministry, have him worried.

According to a statement emailed to The Narwhal, the Ministry of Water, Lands, and Resource Stewardship said it is “developing an updated approach” to tracking the province’s progress towards the 30-by-30 conservation goal and appreciated the association’s “feedback as we proceed through this work.”

“This work includes a review of all existing areas within B.C. that have conservation measures in place or have restrictions on resource activity,” the ministry explained. 

To complete that review, they added they are working with “other resource sector ministries, including Forests, Mining and Critical Minerals, and Energy and Climate Solutions” as well as “industry and environmental non-governmental organizations.”

Coste thinks this could be a sign that the ministry is considering adopting some of the Association for Mineral Exploration’s definitions for protected lands. Something he describes “a naked attempt to lobby against the expansion of protected areas committed to by the governments of B.C. and Canada through the 30-by-30 commitment.”

“The Association for Mineral Exploration’s proposal has absolutely nothing to do with conservation,” he said. “The fact [that] the BC NDP government is even looking at the association’s nonsense is a huge scandal”. 

The Narwhal reached out to the Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia regarding the meeting Stone described between himself and Eby, but did not receive a response by publication time. The premier’s office directed questions about the comments to the Ministry of Lands, Water, and Resource Stewardship, which sent the statement cited above. 

Conservation groups say the math doesn’t add up 

Despite the ministry’s statement that both “industry and environmental non-governmental organizations” are involved in the process of reviewing conservation measures and goals, Coste says the ministry has not contacted the Wilderness Committee.

The Narwhal did learn that the British Columbia office of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society had been engaged in conversations about how the province calculates protected lands. But those conversations began prior to the Association for Mineral Exploration’s recent lobbying, according to Coste and others The Narwhal interviewed for this story.

Coste says that if the province reaches out to him, his first move would be sharing “photos from this year of massive clear cuts in critical caribou habitat.”

---

These photos, he explains, are from areas designated as ungulate winter range. A land designation under the Forest and Range Practices Act, it’s meant to protect critical winter habitat for species such as mountain goats, elk, bighorn sheep, deer, moose and caribou. It also accounts for 17.7 per cent of the province’s land mass — land the Association for Mineral Exploration says is closed to mining. 

Back in December 2025, the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship disagreed with that assessment. In the same statement where Minister Neill rebuffed the Association for Mineral Exploration, the ministry argued ungulate winter range didn’t meet the 30-by-30 conservation criteria.

“There are two types of ungulate winter ranges: no harvest and conditional harvest,” the statement read. The former “are subject to restrictions on forestry activities, but do not restrict mineral development and exploration activities.” A conditional harvest zone, meanwhile, may not have stringent enough restrictions on forestry to satisfy international conservation requirements, according to the statement.

In other words, ungulate winter range isn’t fully closed to development. It’s a conclusion the Association for Mineral Exploration shared in a 2016 report, describing it as land “where new mineral claims may be acquired and access for mineral exploration and development may be permitted.”

Coste points to other land designations that the Association for Mineral Exploration calls protected that don’t fit the 30-by-30 criteria. Among them are special management zones and wildlife management areas. Both restrict some, but not all, mining and logging. Like ungulate winter range, the Association for Mineral Exploration’s 2016 report said these areas could be open to mining. 

In special management zones, the report stated that “resource development and extraction opportunities exist.” While in wildlife management zones, “resource extraction like mining may be allowed.”

To Adrienne Berchtold, the director of mining reform and habitat protection at SkeenaWild Conservation Trust, it’s more evidence that the Association for Mineral Exploration’s policy paper is using faulty figures.

“We’ve done some early fact-checking and found that around 27 per cent of operating mines, proposed mines and exploration projects in the province are located in areas [the Association for Mineral Exploration] is telling the government should count as protected areas,” she says. “These numbers show that not only is mining activity possible in these areas, it is actively occurring in significant quantities.”

The problem with ‘other effective conservation measures’

For Coste, one of the most egregious land designations included in the Association for Mineral Exploration’s policy proposal are old growth management areas. According to a 2024 report from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society B.C., less than one-third of old growth management areas are protected old-growth forests. Most of them, the report found, were young forests, and at least 27,300 hectares were active cutblocks. 

“They’re not protected areas,” Coste says. 

But the provincial government includes old growth management areas in the province’s 30-by-30 calculations.

Of the 20 per cent of land and water the province has logged in the Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database, 15.9 per cent is parks and protected areas. The other 4.1 per cent are listed under the heading of “other effective area-based conservation measures.”

A vague designation, other effective area-based conservation measures are not parks, conservation lands or other clearly defined, government-recognized protected areas. Their inclusion in 30-by-30 stems from the definition of protected areas developed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, an organization headquartered in Switzerland, which counts Canadian government and non-government entities among its members.

It defines a protected area as “a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.”

The “legal” side of this is straightforward: think provincial and federal conservation areas, ecological reserves and parks. “Other effective means” is where things get complicated. 

The province considers old growth management areas protected enough to include in their 30-by-30 calculations. The Association for Mineral Exploration agrees, adding ungulate winter range, special management zones, wildlife management areas and a few other designations they believe should also be included. 

But Coste disagrees, arguing that these designations “clearly don’t meet the International Union for the Conservation of Nature guidelines.” 

He describes the push to include them as government and extractive industries seeking “loopholes” to avoid real conservation. And yet, Coste said there are other means to meeting the 30-by-30 targets.

He points to Indigenous-led conservation areas as an example. These areas can fall into a legal grey zone, declared by nations but not recognized by the provincial or federal government. 

“If it’s Indigenous-declared, they’re probably going to need resources to do management plans and to get Guardians on the ground,” Coste says. “If it’s not a recognized protected area, that funding is not going to flow.”

He says that recognizing these areas as other effective area-based conservation measures could change that. It’s what happened, for example, in the Northwest Territories with Thaidene Nëné. 

An Indigenous protected area located on the northeastern arm of Great Slave Lake, it was designated by the Łutsël K’é Dene First Nation in 2019. Parts of the area were recognized by the territorial government as a territorial protected area and a wildlife conservation area. The rest was recognized by the federal government in 2025, forming the 26,000-square-kilometre Thaidene Nëné National Park Reserve. Earlier this year, the project received a major funding boost when the territorial government dispersed $21.6 million to support Indigenous-led conservation. 

---

Without these other pathways to establish protected areas, Matthew Mitchell, a professor and researcher at the University of British Columbia’s faculties of land and food systems and forestry and environmental stewardship, isn’t sure that B.C. or Canada can meet the 30-by-30 targets. 

“We can’t always do conservation the way we traditionally think about it,” he says.

In 2021, Mitchell served on an expert panel convened by Environment and Climate Change Canada to explore pathways to meet Canada’s conservation goals. Along with other researchers, he concluded meeting the 30-by-30 target would require innovative solutions. 

He advocates for approaches such as Indigenous protected areas, urban parks and biosphere reserves that include working landscapes.

“There are lots of good examples of working landscape conservation, agricultural areas where we’re adding in buffer strips and hedgerows,” he says. “Things that can actually have big benefits to a variety of wildlife and agricultural production.”

These are the kinds of other effective area-based conservation measures that he thinks are useful. But he also acknowledges there are pitfalls, and that opening the door to interpretations like the Association for Mineral Exploration’s isn’t helpful. 

“How you define these things and how effective they are actually really matters,” he says. “Putting them all into one bin and saying that we’ve hit our 30 per cent target is not a good way to go.”

A proposed Indigenous protected area in the crosshairs 

At roughly 40,000 square kilometres, the Dene Kʼéh Kusān Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area would be among the largest tracts of protected land in British Columbia. Located at the heart of the Kaska Dena nation’s traditional territory, it’s four times the size of Tweedsmuir Provincial Park, the largest park in the province.

“As Kaska, we’ve been stewards of our territory, so in our mind, it’s about thoughtful land use planning that will protect one of the most intact ecosystems in North America,” Michelle Miller, director of culture and land stewardship at the Dena Kayeh Institute, says.

When it’s recognized, she adds, the Kaska will be able to promote sustainable economic growth and protect land, water and critical habitat. It would also contribute to the province’s conservation goals. 

“Dene Kʼéh Kusān is four per cent of the province,” Miller explains. “Protecting it would go a long way to helping B.C. achieve its 30-by-30 goals.”

---

That has led projects like Dene Kʼéh Kusān to land in the Association for Mineral Exploration’s crosshairs. In their December 2025 policy proposal, the association called for a stop to “Northwest Land Use Plans, which are expected to add … significant new conservation areas to the province.” Conservation areas like Dene Kʼéh Kusān.

But Miller questions the association’s framing. 

“The idea of pitting conservation against economy, and against job creation, I think it’s an outdated argument,” she says. Dene Kʼéh Kusān is “not about opposing mining, it’s about where that can occur in other areas throughout the territory.” 

For Miller, that balance is at the heart of a “modern conservation economy” where “Indigenous stewardship, healthy ecosystems and economic opportunity can all move forward together.”

It’s a view she hopes won’t be lost if the government works with mining interests to change how they approach conservation and the 30-by-30 target. 

“The whole conversation around how you get to 30-by-30, I think we can recognize there’s some creative math going on there,” she says. “But we’re not here to debate that. We’re just here to say that Dene Kʼéh Kusān is worth protecting.”

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

Summary

• A working group of First Nations and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada released an interim report on the cumulative impacts of development in the Ring of Fire.
• Among the participants and collaborators in that report, the Government of Ontario was glaringly absent. The report says the province hasn’t shared valuable data on caribou, polar bears and other regional species that are needed to complete the assessment.
• Ontario NDP MPP Sol Mamakwa said, “By not providing any information or any data to the process, they are essentially muzzling the process itself.”

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

Ontario has not been involved in the federal government’s regional assessment of the Ring of Fire, withholding scientific data and funding needed to understand the impact of mining development, even as the province ushers it through. 

The province is absent in the regional assessment working group’s interim report, released Feb. 23. In multiple instances, the group, made up of representatives from 15 First Nations and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, makes clear Ontario has yet to sign on. 

There is still an “opportunity for collaboration with the province of Ontario in the regional assessment,” the group wrote in the report. The group said it’s preparing what “specific information” it will need to request from the province.

Ontario’s absence is notable as the Doug Ford government continues to push through development in the Ring of Fire, an environmentally sensitive area of boreal forest and peatlands in the James Bay Lowlands, known as Bakitanaamowin Aki, which means “the Breathing Lands,” and Mammamattawa, or “many rivers coming together,” by the First Nations that call it home.

“If they really, really cared about [the assessment], they would work with the federal government,” Ontario NDP MPP Sol Mamakwa, who represents the Ring of Fire region, told The Narwhal. “By not providing any information or any data to the process, they are essentially muzzling the process itself.”

A spokesperson for the federal Impact Assessment Agency confirmed to The Narwhal that the working group understands “several areas it must assess are within provincial expertise.” It will “request information from Ontario as needed” in addition to consulting publicly available data, the spokesperson added.

The Ontario government is hoping the region will be the centre of new mining activity. During a press conference with Prime Minister Mark Carney in December, Premier Ford said Ontario is on track to get “shovels in the ground this June” to build a road to the remote region.

But the regional assessment has also been in the works for at least seven years. Aroland First Nation and environmental groups asked for a federal regional assessment in 2019.

The Ontario government has signed deals with three First Nations along the proposed roads to the Ring of Fire, even as other local communities urge the government to pause and properly address environmental protections and long-standing issues on the ground, such as boil-water advisories, health care and housing.

The interim regional assessment report reiterates some of these concerns, recommending the existing conditions for First Nations in northern Ontario be “thoroughly examined” and for “immediate interventions” to be made, even as mining and development are greenlit. 

“There are a lot of things happening in these First Nations and their territories that both Canada and Ontario need to address,” Mamakwa said. 

“Before the conversation turns to mining, conditions need to be properly assessed and improved.” 

---

The working group’s plan, updated in November, shows it has already built an information sharing platform, held technical sessions, developed community-led studies and begun to evaluate cumulative impacts of development in the Ring of Fire.

It’s now seeing through evaluations and studies and continuing to engage with communities to eventually compile a final report, which the group expects to land around June 2027. 

Whether or not Ontario will come to the table for the next phase is not yet clear.

“I think [the Ford government] is not happy with the federal assessment,” Mamakwa said. “The process itself, I think, they don’t want to be part of. And they just want to do their own thing.”

Ontario’s participation was ‘TBD’ — now it’s non-existent

Last January, when the working group finalized its terms of reference, it described an “outer ring” of contributors, such as experts and industry representatives and listed Ontario as one of these — but with “TBD,” or to be determined, attached to its name. 

The latest report suggests Ontario is not participating despite having a trove of scientific information readily available about the region. 

While 22 federal departments and agencies show up on a list of respondents to the working group’s public call for information and data, no provincial ministries are listed.

Even Wyloo Metals, the company behind the Eagle’s Nest mine, currently in the exploration phase in the Ring of Fire, contributed to technical sessions of the regional assessment, according to the report.

All of this is raising questions about whether the Ford government is preventing Ontario public servants from participating in the regional assessment. 

Without Ontario at the table for the regional assessment, “staff obviously won’t be given the mandate to participate,” Kerrie Blaise, the founder of the non-profit Legal Advocates for Nature’s Defence, told The Narwhal. 

“One hundred per cent, there would be staffers who would have knowledge and things to contribute. Without the direction to do so, they’re barred from doing so.”

---

In an interview at Queen’s Park on March 23, The Narwhal asked Ontario Environment Minister Todd McCarthy about the province’s lack of involvement in the regional assessment. He said he’d look into the matter.

McCarthy also told The Narwhal the province is “co-operating” with the federal government, citing a Dec. 18 agreement between the two levels to streamline the environmental assessment process. 

In that agreement, Ontario promised to lead any assessments for projects that are subject to both federal and provincial jurisdiction. But this deal covers single projects, whereas the Ring of Fire regional assessment isn’t examining a project, instead looking at cumulative effects of development in the region.

McCarthy said Ontario’s absence from the interim regional assessment report was “an exception.” 

“I suspect that Ontario is part of that conversation, and will be part of the conversation and will continue to co-operate and lead in terms of sharing data … to get all of it done,” he said.

“If the sense is that we’re not there at the moment, as I speak to you, we’re going to be there as we are all the time in terms of co-operating and leading.” 

The Narwhal sent specific questions to Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources, as well as the premier’s office, the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks and the Ministry of Indigenous Affairs and First Nations Economic Reconciliation, about the government’s direction to public servants and financial willingness to support First Nation participation in the federal assessment. None responded to those emails by publication time.

Ontario is withholding scientific data on the Ring of Fire from the regional assessment

Within its interim report, the assessment group wrote that “several priorities for the regional assessment would benefit from provincial expertise.”

There are hints of what kind of expertise the group is hoping to get, in a submission by Environment and Climate Change Canada filed in January in response to one of the group’s requests for information.

In a question about Indigenous consent for non-Indigenous uses of land, the Environment Department pointed out that most traditional territories in Ontario are on non-federal lands, and the province is responsible for hunting and fishing regulations there.

The department also pointed out how the province has been monitoring boreal caribou and undertaking research to fill gaps in knowledge about the animal, and that the province holds valuable data such as aerial surveys on polar bears in the southern Hudson Bay subpopulation. 

Ontario also hosts the Natural Heritage Information Centre, which has historical data and continues to track biodiversity in the Ring of Fire region, the federal Environment Department noted, and directed questions about the centre to the provincial government.

“There are certain things the federal government cannot touch,” Blaise said. “So even if there’s a comment deadline, and people bring up concerns, if it’s not all within federal jurisdiction, you’re not going to have those players at the table to actually respond to those information gaps and requests.”

---

Without Ontario’s participation, the working group will be forced to go to the province to request information. That could result in more delays and extra costs, Blaise said.

When the Government of Alberta successfully challenged the constitutionality of the Impact Assessment Act at the Supreme Court of Canada, the judges emphasized in the 2023 ruling that “respect for the division of powers” between the federal and provincial governments helps put in place strong environmental protection laws and “facilitates co-operation between the two levels of government.”

Here, “we’re not getting that co-operation,” Blaise said. “So it means you’re inherently getting a narrower process, a process that doesn’t actually have all the requisite knowledge and expertise and government officials at the table.” 

Blaise also said Ontario’s lack of participation could translate to a lack of provincial support for whatever the working group ends up recommending.

First Nations need more funding to participate in the regional assessment from ‘other parties.’ Ontario did not respond to the call

The interim report highlights how many First Nations in the Ring of Fire area lack basic necessities, like clean water, health care, housing, education and electricity. First Nations can’t be “true partners in equitable decision-making processes” like the regional assessment, the group wrote, without these “necessities of life.” 

The report recommended that the existing conditions of First Nations in northern Ontario be “thoroughly examined” and that “immediate interventions” be made.

Community members also have to “constantly balance their roles,” the report stated, with responding to emergencies, dealing with other federal and provincial negotiations, staying involved in legal actions, responding to regulatory processes like permit applications and answering outside requests from industry.

All of this points to a need for more funding to help “address the participation gaps within the regional assessment process,” the group wrote.

While First Nations have worked with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada on a funding strategy, and receive “base funding” to support their participation, the group said the amounts involved are “often largely insufficient.”

The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada’s departmental plan for 2026-27 shows it’s planning for $34,206,000 in cumulative spending cuts through 2029, but it’s unclear whether or how those cuts will impact its work on the Ring of Fire regional assessment.

The working group noted the effort involved in trying to apply to other federal funding programs, or nailing down private funds, is “prohibitive.” The group recommended that the federal government “and other parties” help the First Nations get enough funding so that they’re not burdened with trying to find the money themselves. 

“The provincial government cannot claim to move the Ring of Fire forward ethically or equitably while withholding information or funding for this process,” Mamakwa said.

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three mines designated under Ontario’s fast-tracking framework

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indigenous leaders from the Similkameen Valley are “deeply disappointed” by a provincial decision to approve a contentious mine expansion in their territories — emphasizing that they did not give consent for the project to move forward.

On Monday, the B.C. government announced it had issued Mines Act and Environmental Management Act permits for the New Ingerbelle expansion of the Copper Mountain mine near Princeton, B.C., in smǝlqmíx (Upper and Lower Similkameen Indian Band) territory.

The expansion project will see the century-old mining operation revive its old Ingerbelle open-pit gold and copper mine site near nməlqytkʷ (the Similkameen River). The expansion will extend the mine’s operation until 2047, the province said.

In the province’s statement, it acknowledged that the mine is in the Upper and Lower Similkameen Indian Bands’ territories.

“The permitting review process included engagement with both First Nations, along with technical review by provincial agencies to assess environmental impacts, tailings management and public safety,” it said.

However, a joint statement issued Monday by leadership of both bands says that “chiefs, councillors, natural resource departments and community members of the bands did not give consent for this project to move forward.”

“The smǝlqmíx and our neighbours that choose to be here forever will have to deal with the consequences long after the profits and monies have left the valley,” said the statement.

“The chiefs and councils of the Upper Similkameen Indian Band and the Lower Similkameen Indian Band are deeply disappointed by the Province of British Columbia’s decision … to approve the New Ingerbelle Expansion Proposal for the Copper Mountain mine.”

The First Nations noted that participation agreements they signed with the mine earlier this month “expressly state that advance consent to New Ingerbelle was not provided.”

The new participation agreements with the mine that were signed by the bands replace older ones that were signed in 2019. They include “community benefits and environmental terms related to the mine operations and protecting the Similkameen River,” “stability and certainty” for mining operations and “structured processes” between Upper and Lower Similkameen and the mine “to work together on monitoring mine operations and mitigating its environmental impacts.”

The bands said they will now review the approval conditions and reasons for the decision, and “assess all available options to ensure that the waters, all living things and the lands will be taken care of.”

Separating the Ingerbelle pit from the mine’s main site is the 197-kilometre-long Similkameen River. Part of the expansion project will see a bridge constructed over the river to connect the two sites.

The mine’s already existing 192-metre tailings dam — roughly equivalent in height to a 58-storey building — will also be increased by an additional 87 metres, according to the province’s Environmental Assessment Office (EAO).

---

Meanwhile, Robert Carter, senior vice-president for Hudbay Minerals’ operations in Canada, thanked the province and the Upper and Lower Similkameen “for their open and efficient collaboration throughout the process.” 

“Through our strong commitment to responsible resource development and the expansion of copper production from Copper Mountain, we will be continuing to provide a metal that is vital for electrification and the global energy transition and supporting B.C.’s Critical Mineral Strategy,” Carter said in a release on Monday.

The project’s approval comes less than a month after the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals told IndigiNews that the expansion proposal still required further consultation with the Upper and Lower Similkameen.

The spokesperson also said the expansion plan had to “meet or exceed B.C.’s world-class environmental standards.”

Last May, a pipe failure at the mine site resulted in 3,000 litres of mine tailings seeping into an area beside the Similkameen River. The B.C. Ministry of Environment and Parks told IndigiNews that it’s unknown if the mine water entered the river or was absorbed into the ground.

In 2024, the provincial Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy issued six fines to Copper Mountain mine totalling $105,348. 

The string of offences, which occurred between 2019 and 2022, all relate to the mine’s unauthorized seepage and discharge of mine water from its tailings pond into the surrounding waterways of the Similkameen River and Wolfe Creek, which both flow through the mine’s area of operation.

In 2021, the mine at one point exceeded the legal limit of copper waste discharged from its tailings pond into Wolfe Creek by more than 4,500 per cent.

Two years ago, one Lower Similkameen member spoke of a time where you could drink the water from Wolfe Creek, which is a tributary of the Similkameen River. Despite a series of mine contamination events into the creek, a senior representative for the Copper Mountain mine told the community that she would still drink the water.

---

In January, a province-wide council of outdoor recreationists declared the Similkameen River among the province’s most endangered rivers – citing the mine’s expansion as the main threat to the waterway.

Last November, y̓ilmixʷm (Chief) kalʔlùpaɋʹn Keith Crow of Lower Similkameen told regional officials that leaders were failing the Similkameen River, which “had been black for the last month” due to poor water quality. 

Lower Similkameen Elder Rob Edward listed the mine as one of the reasons for the river’s decline. He noted that he hasn’t been able to fish out of the Similkameen River since 1982. 

In 2022, Crow told IndigiNews that the Similkameen River is the lifeblood of the valley.

“If we lose that, we lose our identity. We lose who we are,” he said.

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.

Premier David Eby’s plan to amend B.C.’s landmark Indigenous Rights legislation is a threat to the province’s economic stability and likely to land the province back in court, First Nations leadership organizations are warning.

“It’s important to acknowledge that British Columbia is facing real economic challenges, and First Nations are essential and equal partners in addressing those challenges,” Terry Teegee, B.C. Assembly of First Nations regional chief, said in a press release last week. “We stand united in our opposition to any amendments to gut the Declaration Act, which seeks to affirm and protect our rights.”

The government began the process of consulting First Nations at the end of January on proposed changes to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) and the Interpretation Act — the legislation that instructs courts on how to interpret provincial law.

The First Nations Leadership Council — a political organization made up of elected leaders from the Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs — described the consultation process as “expedited” and noted First Nations leaders wishing to participate were required to sign non-disclosure agreements.

As those discussions continue behind closed doors, the council has launched a public campaign to defend the Declaration Act, including a website aimed at countering misinformation about the legislation and highlighting its successes.

“We are presenting the facts on the Declaration Act in order to cut through the disappointing and divisive misinformation being peddled by opportunistic politicians,” Shana Thomas, Laxele’wuts’aat Huy’wu’qw (hereditary chief) of the Lyackson First Nation, said in a statement.

A resolution endorsed by the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs “unequivocally opposes” any amendments to the Declaration Act or Interpretation Act.

---

And it’s not just First Nations leaders voicing opposition to the government’s plans. A public letter signed by dozens of prominent Canadians also calls on the province to abandon the amendments and “recommit to meaningful implementation of the [United Nations] Declaration and the Declaration Act.”

Signatories include Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May, environmental advocate David Suzuki, journalist and author John Vaillant and former B.C. chief human rights commissioner Mary-Woo Sims alongside dozens of labour and faith leaders, academics and social justice advocates.

As opposition grows, the province is pushing ahead with a hasty consultation process in its bid to change historic Indigenous Rights law at a speed rarely seen in the legislature. Critics say the consequences could be severe.

‘I guarantee there will be somebody who will litigate it’

Other laws introduced in the first few days of the spring session have been in development for several months but the Declaration Act amendments are set to go from Eby’s mouth into law in less than six months. 

The tight consultation timeline and insistence that the legislation will be passed this spring raise questions for Jessica Clogg, executive director of West Coast Environmental Law and one of the signatories to the open letter.

“This is not meaningful co-development of legislation in any way,” Clogg, who was part of the legal team representing the Gitxaała Nation in its case against the province, said. “It’s essentially holding a gun to people’s heads.”

Proposed laws often undergo multiple rounds of consultation and revision before they are introduced in the legislature. That process can take months or even years. But the B.C. government is planning to pass its changes to the Declaration Act less than six months after announcing them.

“It’s moving at warp speed,” Merle Alexander, a lawyer with Miller Titerle + Company who specializes in Indigenous law, said. “Almost never has legislation moved this quickly.”

Alexander was involved in drafting the Declaration Act and estimated it took about 18 months. At the time, the process was considered a speedy one, he recalled.

Clogg said the government’s timeline for amending the Declaration Act is “extraordinary,” especially compared to the way it has handled calls to change the Mineral Tenure Act, the law that governs mineral rights claims in B.C.

“Despite calls over decades and decades to overhaul this colonial-era law, it was only when Gitxaała filed their case that we saw it prioritized,” she said.

Clogg and Alexander believe that by rushing to get its desired changes passed by May 28, before the legislature breaks for the summer, the province could be setting itself up for further legal challenges.

“If B.C. proceeds on its current pathway, they remain vulnerable to legal challenge because there is no scenario in which the time frames and the tone of these supposed consultations meet the legal standard demanded by the [United Nations] Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” Clogg told The Narwhal.

“I guarantee there will be somebody who will litigate it,” Alexander said.

Eby says the Declaration Act is helping deliver major projects

There is one point on which Eby’s government and First Nations leaders seem to agree: the Declaration Act helped reopen the Eskay Creek mine on Tahltan Nation territory.

In 2022, the B.C. government and the Tahltan Nation signed an agreement under Section 7 of the Declaration Act. The section allows the government to undertake a joint decision-making process with First Nations regarding industrial projects on their traditional territories.

In December 2025, Tahltan Nation members voted in support of the Eskay Creek revitalization project and the province announced its approval of permits for the mine in January 2026.

Both Eby and Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation Minister Spencer Chandra Herbert have referenced the government’s collaboration with the Tahltan while defending the planned Declaration Act amendments.

“Part of this act enabled us to do the work with the Tahltan First Nation around Eskay Creek and other First Nations around expediting environmental assessment processes and working with companies,” the premier said at an event hosted by the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade on Feb. 20. Eby insisted that only government processes — not court rulings — “can deliver the predictability” the province needs.

---

The First Nations Leadership Council’s website notes the province has similar agreements with the Tahltan Central Government related to the Galore Creek mine project and the Red Chris mine project, as well as a mining-related agreement with the Tŝilhqot’in National Government. Both the Tahltan and Tŝilhqot’in governments have signed a joint statement calling on Eby to abandon the amendments.

Instead of building on these types of agreements, amending the Declaration Act would “grind projects to a halt as First Nations are once again forced to defend our rights and interests through the courts,” the joint statement reads.

Amid calls to repeal the Declaration Act, Eby’s changes will likely pass with little challenge

For some B.C. politicians, changing the Declaration Act is not enough. The BC Conservatives — the official opposition party in the legislature — have called for the law to be repealed and even for the government to cease all discussions and negotiations with First Nations in the meantime. Still, the government intends to pass legislation to amend the Declaration Act this spring.

Eby has said the changes will make it clear courts have no business interpreting how the act applies or what the provincial government must do to make sure existing laws comply. To make those changes, the bill that is eventually put forward will alter, remove or add language to either or both the Declaration Act and Interpretation Act. 

---

Once the amending bill has been introduced, it will be put to the legislature for debate. Opposition MLAs — the BC Conservatives, BC Greens, One BC and independents — can share their thoughts on the amendments in the house for the historical record and question the government on how the changes will work. They can also propose tweaks to the proposed amendments, but it’s unlikely there will be substantive changes.

The NDP currently holds 46 seats in the legislature and strictly enforces caucus discipline, meaning NDP MLAs always vote for the government’s legislation. At committee stage — the part of legislative debate where opposition MLAs can ask questions about and propose changes to legislation — NDP MLAs consistently vote down amendments proposed by the opposition.

The BC Conservatives have called for the full repeal of the Declaration Act, making them unlikely to support the government’s plan to only alter the legislation.

“I still hold the position that we need a full repeal,” Á’a:líya Warbus, the BC Conservative house leader, told reporters at the legislature on Feb. 10. As house leader, Warbus leads the 36-person BC Conservative caucus’ approach to bills and other legislature business.

“We need to go back to brass tacks.”

Meanwhile, the two BC Green MLAs — who recently ended the party’s co-operation agreement with the NDP, claiming the governing caucus failed to fulfill its promises — have been critical of the government’s plans to change the Declaration Act.

Dallas Brodie, the lone remaining MLA representing One BC, opposes reconciliation and the recognition of Indigenous Rights, making her a likely “no” vote on the amendments.

Whether the passage of the Declaration Act amendments comes down to a tie vote may hinge on where four Independent MLAs land on the legislation. If the final vote is tied, the speaker will cast the deciding vote. Traditionally — and legislatures are nothing if not traditional — the speaker votes with the government.

On the day of that vote, B.C.’s relationship with First Nations will enter a new chapter very different from the one begun in November 2019, when former premier John Horgan celebrated the unanimous passage of the Declaration Act.

“Eby is basically destroying Horgan’s legacy,” Alexander said.

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.

The B.C. government has big plans to tackle the $13.3-billion deficit racked up in recent years. The key to getting the province back in the black, according to Finance Minister Brenda Bailey, is stoking B.C.’s economic engine. The fuel? More money from the natural resource sector, especially mining and natural gas.

The new budget banks on significant increases in revenues from minerals and metals as the province courts critical minerals projects. Meanwhile, natural gas revenues are also expected to boom as liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects get off the ground.

“Six major LNG projects are complete, underway or reaching final investment decisions this year,” Bailey said in her budget speech. “We’re doing all this in partnership with First Nations, moving projects forward with confidence and clarity.”

---

The current B.C. government’s interest in fast-tracking natural resource projects kicked into high gear last year as U.S. President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on Canadian goods and threatened Canada’s sovereignty. In May 2025, Bill 15, which granted cabinet broad powers to fast-track infrastructure projects, prompted vocal opposition from many, including Don Tom, Chief of the Tsartlip First Nation and vice-president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. Bill 15 became law on May 28, though its fast-tracking powers have yet to be brought into force, pending public consultation.

As those economic development efforts continue, Premier David Eby has also made altering the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) — a landmark law meant to guide reconciliation efforts between the province and First Nations — a top priority for the spring sitting of the legislature.

The government’s goal, according to a statement issued by Eby’s office on Feb. 6, is to “avoid the uncertainty court decisions create” by barring judges from applying the Declaration Act in their rulings.

“The Declaration Act sets out work our province has committed to do together with First Nations governments, not work for First Nations to do with courts without us,” Eby said in the statement. 

But critics say blocking First Nations from appealing to the courts to hold the government to its reconciliation commitments could create less certainty and more court cases.

“They might make nice noises about negotiation or collaboration, but the sad history is that without being able to hold the Crown accountable in court, we risk denial, delay and further conflict,” Jessica Clogg, executive director of West Coast Environmental Law, told The Narwhal in an interview.

Eby’s plan to alter the Declaration Act also seems to ignore “the fact that the whole evolution of modern Crown-Indigenous relations exists because, effectively, the courts forced the Crown to come to the table kicking and screaming,” she said.

The Law Society of British Columbia has urged Eby “to reconsider making any proposed legislative changes that would limit access to independent courts.”

More than 100 First Nations leaders and chiefs have signed a statement calling on the premier to abandon the amendments, as well as his government’s appeals of two recent court rulings. B.C. is challenging the Cowichan decision, which found that Quw’utsun Nation has Aboriginal Title to their village site at the mouth of the Fraser River. It is also seeking leave to appeal the Gitxaała decision, which concerns consent for mining claims, to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“DRIPA establishes minimum standards of survival and dignity for Indigenous Peoples and has contributed to greater trust, stability and economic certainty across the province,” the statement from First Nations leaders reads. “It is landmark legislation — and one British Columbia should be proud of.”

Expect the Declaration Act amendments to loom large over this spring’s sitting of the legislature.

How did we even get here?

In 2019, B.C. unanimously passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, commonly referred to as DRIPA or the Declaration Act. At the time, the government described the act as “a path forward” for relations between First Nations and the province, and a way to avoid long and costly court battles. 

The idea was the legislation would hold the government accountable, in law, to its stated commitments on reconciliation.

“[The Declaration Act] was a tacit agreement between the B.C. government and B.C. First Nations that the status quo wasn’t working and an agreement that we were going to change things together,” Merle Alexander, a lawyer with Miller Titerle + Company who specializes in Indigenous law, told The Narwhal in December.

---

The act was also intended to help guide the province through the process of aligning its laws with the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The declaration affirms the inherent human rights of Indigenous Peoples worldwide, covering a range of basic rights that represent the “minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being” of Indigenous Peoples. It acknowledges historical and ongoing persecution, genocide, cultural erasure and marginalization, as well as disproportionate impacts from resource extraction and climate change. 

Among the rights acknowledged in both UNDRIP and B.C.’s equivalent legislation is the right to “free, prior and informed consent” about decisions that affect their lives and well-being, especially major projects.

When he was attorney general in 2021, Eby introduced changes to B.C.’s Interpretation Act — a law that helps courts understand how provincial laws should be read and applied. At the time, Eby said the update would make it clear that the province wants its laws and regulations interpreted in line with the United Nations declaration.

That same year, the Canadian government passed its own law to use the United Nations declaration “as an international human rights instrument that can help interpret and apply Canadian law.” Northwest Territories followed suit in 2023.

For a few years, the work of aligning B.C.’s laws with the United Nations declaration continued mostly behind the scenes. The Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation documented progress in annual reports quietly released each summer. 

But after the B.C. Supreme Court ruled in December that the Declaration Act is legally enforceable, Eby vowed to change the law.

“They’re just sort of unilaterally attempting to amend the most co-developed statute in the history of British Columbia,” Alexander, who helped draft the legislation, said. “They’re going to do it by not just unilateral amendment, but in opposition to their supposed Indigenous partners.”

The lawsuit over mining claims that started it all

In 2023, as part of a legal challenge to the province’s mineral claim staking system, B.C.’s Supreme Court was asked to interpret the Declaration Act for the first time.

The suit brought by the Gitxaała Nation and Ehattesaht First Nation argued that, by granting anyone the right to stake mineral claims on public land without notice, the province failed to uphold their rights under the Canadian Constitution as well as DRIPA.

The nations essentially argued that the Declaration Act required the province to harmonize its existing laws, including the Mineral Tenure Act, with the principles of the United Nations declaration.

---

In September 2023, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled the province had failed to uphold the nations’ rights under the Constitution, but disagreed that the Declaration Act required the province to change existing laws.

The Gitxaała and Ehattesaht appealed the court’s ruling on the application of the Declaration Act and, in December 2025, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled in their favour. DRIPA does have legal implications, the majority of judges ruled, and the province is required to fulfill them. 

Days after the ruling, Eby said at a luncheon hosted by the B.C. Chamber of Commerce that his government would make changes to the Declaration Act in the spring. The premier castigated B.C. judges for issuing “dramatic, overreaching and unhelpful” decisions, naming both the Cowichan and Gitxaała cases. 

On Feb. 3, lawyers for B.C. filed an application to appeal the Gitxaała and Ehattesaht case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“The act’s purpose is to be a roadmap to stay out of court and try to find constructive resolution of shared concerns,” Eby said in a statement on Feb. 6. “It reflects that reconciliation is a two-way street.”

The premier’s plans to alter the Declaration Act seem to contradict that statement, noted Alexander.

“They’re sort of saying, ‘We’re going to make it illegal for you to access the courts on this’ — on the most relevant international obligation to Indigenous Peoples,” he said. 

“So they’re denying access to justice specifically for First Nations.”

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 the first few weeks of 2026, B.C. approved two mines and signed a significant critical minerals agreement with other provinces and territories. At the same time, Premier David Eby is doubling down on his desire to change the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), after a court ruling in December agreed with two First Nations’ claim that B.C.’s mineral claim staking regime did not fulfill the government’s obligations to consult with First Nations.  

The premier is not being shy about what he wants. 

“We will be the economic engine of the new economy that we are building here as Canadians,” Eby said in Prince George, B.C., on Jan. 21.

The push to fast-track critical mineral mines in the province has some residents of the northwest asking questions. B.C. is unable to process critical minerals, apart from aluminum, so anything mined will need to be sent to China or Japan or elsewhere to be processed, Nikki Skuce told The Narwhal in an interview.

Skuce directs Northern Confluence, based out of Smithers, B.C., which focuses on protecting watersheds for salmon and reforming mining practices to be more sustainable and aligned with Indigenous Rights.

“The term critical mineral itself holds really well because it creates a sense of urgency,” she said, adding B.C. does not track where mined resources from the province go, or what they are used for when they reach their final destinations — though they are sometimes used to make military weapons.

“I think if people understood that the mined materials in their territory and backyard were going to make bombs dropped on Gaza, or F35s for military defence that are sourced from the United States, they might give pause and go another direction,” she said.

Other questions remain about the possible effects of amending the Declaration Act on the mining industry in B.C. — and the economic benefits promised.

B.C.’s mining push and the critical minerals agenda

The Western Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy was signed on Jan. 25 by B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut stating that signatories are looking to strengthen Western and Northern Canada by becoming “a preferred global supplier of responsibly sourced critical minerals.” 

These seven provinces and territories are rich in critical minerals, with B.C. housing 16 of the 34 minerals and metals identified by the Canadian government. 

On the Government of Canada website, it says critical minerals “are used in a wide range of essential products ranging from mobile phones and solar panels to electric vehicle batteries, medical devices and defence applications.”

The push to mine these critical minerals has been heightened by tariffs threats from the United States, with Prime Minister Mark Carney using “shovels in the ground” language since being elected to office in April. The B.C. mine on Carney’s list of projects to fast-track is the expansion of the Red Chris mine in the province’s northwest. 

Meanwhile, Eby has a list of his own which includes Red Chris and 17 other projects, two of which were approved in January. 

---

Mount Milligan, a gold-copper mine in northeastern B.C., is extending operations until 2035, Eby announced in Prince George on Jan. 21. The fast-tracked permits received the go-ahead from B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Office — a process that some Indigenous people are warning others about. 

Surrounding Mount Milligan are 18 reserves that make up the Nak’azdli Whut’en First Nation led by Chief Colleen Erickson. In a news release on the nation’s website, it says the environmental assessment process in B.C. has been undermined because the province “retroactively approved unpermitted water discharges” by releasing sulphur into neighbouring lakes. 

The release states discharge permits were not part of the original certificate and members of the nation are concerned about local fish populations and health because high levels of sulphur are toxic to aquatic organisms. 

Meanwhile, in Tahltan territory in northwestern B.C., the former Eskay Creek mine is in the process of reopening to produce gold and silver. The B.C. government released the news on Jan. 25 — four days after the Mount Milligan announcement.

Eskay Creek became the first consent-based agreement for a mining project, under Section 7 of the Declaration Act, after the nation voted in favour of the project last December.

Merle Alexander, a First Nations lawyer in B.C. who helped develop DRIPA, told The Narwhal in an interview that even when Indigenous people “co-develop the rules, if [the government] doesn’t like it, they just change it,” regarding recent conversations about revising the act this spring.

He congratulated the Tahltan on their Section 7 agreement with B.C., noting that DRIPA works for the government when it comes to obtaining critical minerals.

“They lean into DRIPA when it works in their favour and then reject it when they have judicial losses,” he said, noting that most mines in B.C. are approved without consent-based agreements with First Nations, and that most B.C. mines face First Nation opposition despite getting approved, using the Highland Valley Copper mine expansion near Kamloops as an example.

How fast can we go here?

When it comes to speeding up industry and legislation timelines in B.C., Skuce said the way the province approaches rare earth elements, through the Mineral Tenure Act, needed reform long before the Declaration Act came into effect.

“The Mineral Tenure Act is a colonial hangover. Since 1859 it has allowed prospectors priority use of the land and free entry into everywhere,” she said.

Skuce finds it “really disappointing” that B.C. seems to be focused on amending DRIPA instead of updating the Mineral Tenure Act.

---

Though economic prosperity is the most cited reason for fast-tracking major infrastructure projects in B.C. and Canada, studies are still looking into the validity of those claims. 

According to an October 2025 report out of the University of British Columbia, mines in B.C. overpromise and under-deliver on economic benefits and project timelines — with little means to hold the industry accountable to their forecasted targets.

Although gaps in the data limited a comprehensive audit, the report found mines in B.C. underperformed compared to expectations, based on the available information. Forty per cent of mines in the dataset closed temporarily at least once.

Regulatory issues are often cited in delayed or failing mining projects, but the report found the most commonly cited reason for mines closing or being delayed in B.C. is economic constraints — not regulations. 

As the Eby government prepares to release its budget Tuesday, the premier’s recent comments about appealing the Gitxaała decision and amending DRIPA are top of mind for many.

Updated on Feb. 17, 2025, at 12:33 p.m. PT: This story has been updated to clarify that critical minerals mined in B.C. are sent to China, Japan and elsewhere to be processed. It has also been updated to state that critical minerals are sometimes used to create military weapons, not often as previously reported.

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.

Researchers at the University of Manitoba will soon have a new, non-invasive tool to study the province’s vast groundwater resources after inking a partnership with Alberta-based mining company Sio Silica.

“If the technology works … it’s going to provide a mechanism to do real-time monitoring of changes in groundwater,” Ricardo Mantilla, an associate professor in the university’s civil engineering department and lead researcher for the project, said in an interview. 

The emerging technology — called absolute quantum gravimetry — can measure changes in gravity caused by changes in groundwater levels, allowing researchers to better understand the flow and storage of underground water resources without the need for “expensive and disruptive” drilling, he said.

“That obviously has applications for [Sio Silica], but it can have very important implications for how we understand groundwater in aquifers in our province.”

Sio Silica president Carla Devlin said the partnership demonstrates the company’s support for “independent research and transparent monitoring … [that] strengthens accountability and builds trust” as it continues to seek a licence for a controversial sand mine.

Sio Silica is in the process of seeking an environmental licence for a mine that proposes airlifting silica sand from a drinking water aquifer in southeastern Manitoba. It’s the company’s second attempt to secure a licence; Manitoba’s environment minister rejected an initial proposal in early 2024 following a hearing by the province’s Clean Environment Commission.

The company believes the aquifer, located 60 metres below the communities of Vivian, Anola, Springfield and others, contains high-purity silica sand that can be transformed into silicon metal — a critical mineral used for high-tech applications such as computer chips and lithium-ion batteries. Silica sand is also used in manufacturing, solar panel production and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

Residents have pushed back against the mining operation, concerned it could damage a drinking water source that serves more than 120,000 households.

The environment commission described the company’s initial proposal to drill more than 7,000 wells over 25 years and extract more than one million tonnes of sand annually with a technique that has never been used for a large-scale mine as “experimental,” urging caution and additional testing.

In October, Sio Silica submitted a revised application to the environmental assessment branch that proposes fewer wells, smaller sand quantities and a more gradual approach.

Devlin said supporting groundwater monitoring research at Manitoba’s largest university shows the company is “really focused on water safety.”

“The work is designed to safeguard groundwater, and it will confirm that our operations will not put Manitoba’s water at risk. By monitoring and sharing data, we are helping ensure clean, safe water for communities now and into the future,” she added. 

While the technology to monitor changes in the gravitational field caused by water movement is already used in satellites, Mantilla said this new machinery — effectively a “very sophisticated refrigerator” that cools atoms to a temperature where changes in gravity become measurable — can be loaded into a truck and carted around the province, allowing for a much more localized understanding of water systems.

Mantilla said the company’s mine site could become “a good experimental test” of the new technology, but his team has a much broader focus. 

“Groundwater is everything in Manitoba,” he said.

---

The province, famed for its 100,000 lakes, its web of rivers and its connection to the Arctic, is a “perfect laboratory” for water research, Mantilla said, adding the research will also have implications for one of the province’s largest industries — agriculture.

“A lot of people in the province rely on groundwater, and we want to make sure that resource is being used in a sustainable way,” Mantilla said. “This technology is well beyond any particular industrial application.” 

Mantilla said his team has been researching this method of groundwater monitoring for over a year, and was seeking out funders to help purchase the specialized machinery, which “runs in the million-dollar type of investment.” 

He connected with Sio Silica when the company visited several research groups in the university’s engineering department and took an interest in his project, later agreeing to sponsor the research.

Hans-Joachim Wieden, the university’s associate vice-president for partnership, knowledge mobilization and innovation, said these kinds of industry partnerships are critical to maximize the impact of the institution’s research. Support from the private sector helps fill gaps in federal research funding, gives students valuable job experience and provides a pathway for research to make a tangible impact in communities.

“We, as the university, are interested in doing industry collaboration … for the benefits it holds for the students, for the researchers and for the communities we are in,” Wieden said.

On top of its financial contribution, Sio Silica plans to share groundwater monitoring data from its mine site with the university to help model and understand the aquifer as a complete system. Devlin noted the company envisions a long-term partnership that could include helping build out the university’s hydrology department.

“The work is not a localized mitigation exercise, it’s a foundational reset in how aquifers are understood,” she said of Mantilla’s research.

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

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

Mushkegowuk Council is hoping new recommendations to “immediately” enact environmental monitoring in the Ring of Fire will see the light of day — even though construction on access roads is planned to begin in four months.

Lawrence Martin, the council’s director of lands and resources and a former Grand Chief, spoke to The Narwhal about a federal document released in January, part of a regional assessment of the consequences of industrial activity in the Ring of Fire. Mushkegowuk Council supported the creation of the document, which was co-written by 15 First Nations and a federal agency, and also included recommendations to help communities “urgently” access health care.

The Ontario government is hoping the environmentally sensitive Ring of Fire region that overlaps Indigenous ancestral homeland can be the centre of a burst of new mining activity. Ontario Premier Doug Ford has already said the province is on track to get “shovels in the ground this June.”

“Hopefully these regional assessment recommendations will actually happen,” Martin said. “I think it’s one of those situations where the train has already left the platform. … The project’s already started and these regional assessments, whatever they may be at this point, may not carry much weight.”

The portion of the assessment released was an executive summary, recommending that community-driven environmental monitoring should begin “before any development occurs.” It also highlights serious funding and capacity gaps in health care in the Far North, particularly mental health, and said this should be addressed “urgently, before any additional development can be considered.”

Ford has claimed that developing the region would create jobs and boost the economy, which he’s portrayed as a necessary counterweight to United States tariffs. According to the province, construction is set to begin on what will eventually be three new access roads to the Ring of Fire. 

The roads were proposed by two Indigenous communities, Marten Falls First Nation and Webequie First Nation, which are also members of the group behind the report. The remote communities want to secure all-season access to Ontario’s highway network to drive down their cost of living. The roads will serve a dual purpose, as they will also provide a pathway for Ring of Fire mining development. 

---

Martin told The Narwhal that Mushkegowuk communities want to see the all-season roads too, and he understands their potential to be environmentally disruptive, but he said the First Nations involved have assured the council they’re also concerned about the environment and are taking the issue seriously.

“We have to trust that our own people are very concerned, and they’ll do their best to protect these waters that flow down to our James Bay communities, and will protect the animals that live in those areas that migrate through there,” he said. “So, it’s a game of trust.”

Ford has already signed agreements with both First Nations to speed up the road building and provide them money to build community infrastructure, Martin noted. 

The provincial government has also passed laws meant to speed up development, and signed a deal with Ottawa handing the province more control over the environmental assessment process. Prime Minister Mark Carney has said mining critical minerals is also a federal priority to grow Canada’s clean technology and defence industries.

It’s unclear what kind of efforts are being made to get environmental monitoring in place before June. Greg Rickford, the provincial minister responsible for Ring of Fire partnerships, did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

Federal Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin’s press secretary Keean Nembhard said Ottawa recognizes the need for meaningful participation with Indigenous Peoples throughout the full Impact Assessment Act process “to promote responsible and inclusive resource development.”

The report, he wrote in emailed comments, represents “strong progress toward developing final recommendations that will ultimately promote responsible resource development in the region, which has First Nations consent and active participation.”

‘Too little’ known about Ring of Fire’s environmental conditions: report

The regional assessment will examine what kind of big-picture, long-term impacts might occur if several mines, roads and other projects in the Ring of Fire are built. These cumulative effects could be related to the environment, health, culture, social or economic conditions or Indigenous Rights. 

Ford has claimed the Ring of Fire area contains a “vast” reserve of critical minerals such as chromite and nickel that are needed for solar panels, batteries and weapons among other things.

But January’s report said too little was known about past and present environmental conditions in the Ring of Fire. It said “previous and ongoing” programs were “sparse, short-term and underfunded” and based on Western science, not Indigenous Knowledge, and that scientific data must be paired with expertise from Elders and others.

Access to health care and social services are also “profoundly inadequate,” the working group found. It wrote that “travel to obtain health care is a major barrier to well-being,” and First Nations need Elder-guided ceremonies and cultural practices to heal.

“We’re all suffering from the same symptoms of colonization and the same symptoms of being an isolated community with all of those conditions within,” Martin said.

The group itself has faced difficulty being able to move forward on its study, it noted, due to emergency conditions faced by several First Nations in northern Ontario including evacuations due to wildfire and a lack of clean drinking water.

---

The document warned “the bulk of the work lies ahead.” It said while discussions over the last year involved all First Nations at “key times,” not all of them were able to contribute equally because some were facing serious conditions.

The regional assessment working group’s terms of reference were finalized last year following criticism that the previous approach had tokenized Indigenous participation. Their study is supposed to continue until mid-2027. 

An “important next step,” the group added, was coming together “in unity” to map out community values, like a “shared understanding of First Nations’ relationship with the land and what must be preserved and protected.” That will help target possible impacts on Treaty Rights, it said.

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.