Blog

Photo by Linda HeronPhoto Credit

Category Archives: Impact Assessment Act

IAAC: Crawford Nickel Project, Draft Impact Assessment Report, IAAC Registry No. 83857

Photo by Dennis Jarvis.

The Crawford Nickel Project is one of the largest proposed mines in Canadian history. Its receiving waters, the North Driftwood, the West Buskegau, and the Jocko Rivers, are not industrial corridors. They are living rivers in Treaty 9 territory, supporting fish, birds, boreal caribou, and the harvesting rights, food security, and cultural continuity of nations that have depended on them since time before memory. The federal government’s own analysis values Canada’s ecosystem services at $3.6 trillion. A “low to moderate” economic contribution from a project with admitted significant adverse effects on fish, birds, and Indigenous rights, whose climate contribution is undemonstrated and whose consultation record is incomplete, does not clear that bar.

ORA calls on the Minister to withhold approval until the consultation record is complete, FPIC from AAN has been obtained or the legal consequences of its absence fully adjudicated, the fish habitat offsetting plan is finalized and publicly reviewed, the mercury methylation risk and the predicted seepage-face exceedances are resolved by precautionary conditions and best available treatment to background rather than post-hoc monitoring, tailings dam safety is brought to the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management, climate change is incorporated into the cumulative effects analysis, and the ecosystem services value of what will be destroyed is honestly weighed against the economic value of what will be gained.

Continue reading


Federal: Getting Major Projects Built in Canada: Discussion Paper on Regulatory Reform

Abitibi River – Twin Falls GS

The Discussion Paper frames delays as a process problem caused by excessive oversight and public consultation considerations that delay projects by more than five years before federal decisions are made and construction begins. The evidence from ORA’s direct experience tells a different story: current delays are driven primarily by proponents who extend their own timelines while development activity proceeds on the ground, and by assessments that defer rather than decide on the most difficult questions. Reducing or eliminating public consultation will not fix these structural failures. It will make them worse, and the costs will be borne by communities, by First Nations, and ultimately by the federal government in litigation.

ORA supports a well-resourced, efficient, and credible impact assessment system, and supports reforms that fix the real bottlenecks: underfunded review staff, incomplete Crown consultation, and weak post-approval enforcement. ORA opposes the proposals that would cut public and Indigenous participation, exempt whole categories of projects from independent review, or allow construction to begin before a decision is made.

The Prime Minister promised, in the 2025 Speech from the Throne, that decisions on major projects would be made within two years. The Discussion Paper now proposes one. ORA asks the Government to hold the Prime Minister to that two-year commitment, and to withdraw the following proposals outright: early construction before a decision (Proposal 6.5); the Cabinet power to exempt projects from the species-at-risk jeopardy test (Proposal 6.8); Federal Economic Zones (Proposal 5); the removal of independent impact assessment for pipelines and transmission lines (Proposal 4); the transfer of nuclear and uranium assessments to the industry’s own regulator (Proposal 4); and the new ministerial powers to weaken environmental conditions after approval (Proposals 6.6 and 6.7).

Continue reading


IAAC: Great Bear Gold Project – Impact Statement Summary, Registry No. 85832

Great Bear Gold Project proposed site development.

ORA wishes to express its strong support and alignment with the submissions and recommendations of CELA on behalf of ANA/Grassy Narrows First Nation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal’s (OLT) engagement with this project reinforces these concerns and bears directly on the adequacy of the Crown consultation record. In 2025, the OLT granted ANA leave to appeal water-taking permits issued by the Province of Ontario to Kinross, finding that “no reasonable person” would have issued those permits in light of ANA’s documented mercury concerns. Kinross subsequently withdrew the permit application before the appeal could be heard. A new permit application was filed; on May 7, 2026, ANA filed a new application for leave to appeal the new permits, again on the grounds that sulphate discharge will drive mercury methylation in the Chukuni-English River system and produce elevated methylmercury concentrations in fish consumed by community members downstream.

Continue reading


IAAC: Interim Regional Assessment for the Ring of Fire (Kawana ‘Bi’ Kag) – Reference No. 80468

The Ring of Fire sits within one of the largest intact peatland systems on Earth—a globally significant carbon store. Disturbance in this region is not local—it is permanent and globally consequential. Without enforceable thresholds, full infrastructure assessment, climate integration, and legally binding outcomes, this Regional Assessment risks documenting impacts while allowing irreversible damage to proceed.

Continue reading


Request for Designation under Section 9 of the Impact Assessment Act Enhancing Transmission Capacity North of Dryden, Red Lake Transmission Project

Hydropower reservoirs and headponds—particularly those subject to fluctuating water levels—are well-documented sources of methane emissions. When peatlands or peat-rich wetlands are flooded or hydrologically altered, even in boreal peatlands, long-term carbon sinks can convert long-term carbon sinks into persistent sources of greenhouse gases and, specifically, higher fluxes of methane.

The foreseeable environmental effects engage multiple areas of federal jurisdiction. Transmission-enabled hydropower development in northern watersheds poses risks to fish and fish habitat protected under the Fisheries Act, to species listed under the Species at Risk Act, and to migratory birds protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act. These risks are compounded in northern Ontario, where peatlands, bogs, wetlands, and fens are widespread, and where mining development under the Critical Minerals Strategy is anticipated to extend into the Hudson Bay Lowlands peatland complex, one of the world’s largest intact carbon sinks. The disturbance of peatlands through transmission corridors, access roads, mining infrastructure, or hydropower reservoir flooding represents a foreseeable and irreversible long-term climate impact with direct implications for Canada’s greenhouse gas commitments.

Continue reading


ERO-025-1212 – Enhancing Transmission Capacity North of Dryden – The Red Lake Transmission Project

Lake Sturgeon trapped in hydroelectric overflow channel.

The Energy for Generations report also mischaracterizes hydropower as “clean” and “non-emitting,” despite decades of global research confirming that reservoirs are significant methane sources, often on par with gas plants. Emissions intensify as reservoirs warm, water levels fluctuate, and organic sediments accumulate behind the dam—conditions prevalent across northern Ontario.

No cumulative-effects assessment has been conducted. The Province has not evaluated the combined impacts of hydropower expansion, mining, new transmission corridors, wastewater and agricultural inputs, industrial discharges, or climate-driven hydrologic shifts—contrary to federal science guidance from DFO and Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Ratepayers also face growing financial increases and risks. The government is proposing to shift early-stage hydropower planning, incentives, and consultation costs—including Indigenous consultation costs—onto electricity bills, an unprecedented transfer of speculative project risk from proponents to the public. Transmission capital costs are likewise recovered from consumers, meaning premature expansion will financially burden households and businesses for decades.

Continue reading


ERO 025-0501 – Reg. amendments to support financing for Ontario Power Generation’s major nuclear projects

The proposal uses vague and non-binding language, asserting “no environmental impacts” to position this posting as a purely financial regulatory amendment. Additionally, it states that the SMRs and Pickering refurbishment are subject to “additional provincial and federal nuclear regulatory approvals”. However, this lacks any explicit commitment to an environmental assessment (EA) under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) or Canada’s Impact Assessment Act (IAA). This strategy avoids substantive public scrutiny and responsibility for environmental, climate, or health and safety assessments. This type of language circumvents the requirements under Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR), which mandates consideration of proposals, decisions, and events that could affect the environment, including consideration of any social or economic effects, as well as any private, public, or governmental interest factors.

Continue reading


How to Truly “Build Canada Strong”

While constitutional change is never easy, the right to a healthy environment is a moral imperative that Canada can no longer afford to ignore—our laws must finally reflect what science and justice demand.

Over 150 countries recognize these environmental rights in law. As the United Nations notes, Canada’s delay is ‘inconsistent with its human rights obligations’[i]—a constitutional gap that perpetuates harm.”

As the UN and Supreme Court affirm environmental rights globally, Canada’s Constitution remains an outlier—a failure we must rectify. From wildfires to poisoned waterways, Canadians are paying the price for this omission. Constitutional change is not optional—it’s survival.

[i] UNEP, Environmental Rule of Law: Global Assessment (Nairobi, 2019), 23. Continue reading


Agnico Eagle Upper Beaver Gold Project – Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines & Public Participation Plan

The Agency has deemed the Project to be within federal jurisdiction and required it to undergo a federal Impact Assessment, and yet Agnico Eagle (AE) is planning to move forward with their advanced exploration as soon as weather permits. ORA objects to the Project moving forward with any advanced exploration activities that would result in any damage to the environment.

AE boasts about setting the “gold standard”, “for over 60 years Agnico Eagle has been attracting investment to Canada, from those who seek a mining company committed to make mining work better for communities, shareholders and the planet”.[1]  ORA submits that Stakeholders expect AE to set the “gold standard” on this Project by undertaking the most environmentally and socially rigorous, advanced and responsible project “for communities, shareholders and the planet”. [1] Agnico Eagle Twitter Posting, 22 November 2021
ORA comments requesting a federal review under the Impact Assessment Act, 2 October 2021.
Upper Beaver Gold Project – IAAC Portal.

Continue reading


ERO 019-4219 – Moving to a project list approach under the EAA

West Credit River Brook Trout – Photo by Steve Nokams

When these unregulated projects come home to roost, and the environmental impacts begin to damage or destroy highly valued public interests, such as our lakes and rivers, endangered species, our drinking water, and the economy, the government will pay a very high price.  Unfortunately, the damage that will result from these irresponsible and negligent actions will not easily be undone, and in many cases will not be resolved in our lifetimes.

If the government wants to incorporate “one-project, one review”, then it must be a robust EA process with fulsome public and Indigenous consultation, or it may find the process much longer than it might have intended.

Continue reading