Proposal to Terminate the…

Proposal to Terminate the Environmental Assessment for the Eagle’s Nest Mine
— A Disguised Land Grab, Not a Regulatory Update

The proposal to eliminate the comprehensive environmental assessment requirements for the Eagle’s Nest Mine project is a calculated maneuver to gut environmental protection in one of the most ecologically sensitive and politically charged regions in Canada: the Ring of Fire. The Ford government’s claim that the terms of reference for the project are “outdated” is a smokescreen for deregulation—one that conveniently removes the most robust layer of environmental scrutiny and bypasses Indigenous jurisdiction in a region where free, prior, and informed consent is not just expected, but legally required.

POINTS TO REGISTER:

#1: The original EA process was not “voluntary” in spirit—it was demanded in substance.
The 2011 “voluntary agreement” between Noront Resources and the Ministry of the Environment was entered under duress of political and public pressure, following substantial concerns raised by First Nations communities, particularly Neskantaga, Eabametoong, and Webequie, who asserted that the Ring of Fire development posed a catastrophic threat to their lands, waters, and way of life. Noront agreed to the EA not out of generosity, but because the scope and risks of the mine demanded it.

#2: The “significant scope changes” do not eliminate the need for an EA—they increase it.
Wyloo’s current proposal—more expansive than Noront’s in its extraction ambition and infrastructure impact—includes a multi-metal underground mine, permanent roads, and regional transportation corridors across peatlands, watersheds, and intact boreal ecosystems. This includes potential impacts on the Attawapiskat, Ekwan, and Albany River basins—areas critical to carbon sequestration, migratory species, and treaty-protected traditional land use. Any expansion in scope necessitates an updated environmental assessment, not the elimination of one.

#3: Revoking the EA is in direct opposition to Ontario's provincial Crown duty to consult and accommodate.
Indigenous Nations have been vocal and consistent in asserting their opposition to Ring of Fire development without consent. Neskantaga First Nation has not only withheld consent—they pulled out of the regional assessment process led by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, citing that the province refused to recognize their jurisdiction. This move to revoke the EA confirms those fears. It is a blatant act of legal erasure that violates both Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Ontario claims to uphold.

#4: The project cannot be trusted to proceed under permitting alone.
Permits under the Environmental Protection Act or Ontario Water Resources Act are narrow, technical, and reactive—they address specific emissions or discharges but do not examine cumulative effects, regional connectivity, biodiversity loss, or climate impacts. The EA process is the only tool that allows for broad-based, multi-stakeholder scrutiny, including socio-economic impacts, alternatives to development, and the cumulative effects of multiple, simultaneous resource projects in the Ring of Fire.

This is not an administrative clean-up. By revoking the terms of reference and extinguishing the 2011 EA agreement through legislation, Ontario is bypassing not only its own environmental statutes but also the political process itself. The legislative override of a regulatory agreement that was the product of public and Indigenous negotiation is anti-democratic, anti-science, and, frankly, legally questionable. Substituting the Public Service with industry-led “expertise” whose sole vested interest is in cutting costs and boosting profits whether that provides “public good” is inherently irrelevant.

The only thing outdated here is the paternalistic, colonial institutions behind this motion.

Bill 5 cannot be allowed. Our environment, rights, and collective future cannot be permitted to become collateral damage in this government's pernicious private-interests pursuit. Bill 5 is not sound economic policy as it is being touted, it is simply another attempt to dismantle environmental protections, erode rights, and offload critical public infrastructure to serve the narrow interests of the wealthiest —often foreign—investors and speculative markets. There is no legitimate rationale for treating public goods as disposable assets for private profit. This is a deliberate transfer of value and control from the public to unaccountable private hands. It undermines long-term stability, democratic oversight, and the foundational principles of a functional and equitable society. It must be halted.