On May 28, 2025, First Nations representatives, progressive MPPs, and environmental advocates gathered in front of Queen’s Park to protest Bill 5, the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act. As a new member of the Infrastructure Beyond Extractivism (IBE) team, I was there to support our collaborators from Neskantaga First Nation.

Bill 5, now passed, weakens environmental protections and circumvents Indigenous rights and consultation in the name of fast-tracking development. Among those who came to voice their concerns were some of the leadership, youth, and elders from Neskantaga, which is a small Anishinaabe community living on a reserve 560 km north of Thunder Bay on Treaty No. 9 lands. Neskantaga opposes potential mining development in the Ring of Fire region and fears their laws and lifeways may be permanently affected by Bill 5.

What is Bill 5?

Bill 5 fast-tracks mining (and other types of development) by allowing the provincial cabinet to create lawless special economic zones and exempt “trusted proponents” or projects from any municipal or provincial laws. The bill also repeals the Endangered Species Act, replacing it with the Species Conservation Act—a hollowed-out statute that narrows the definition of “habitat,” allows cabinet to de-list species, and drastically weakens protections. Bill 5’s amendments to the Heritage Act allows cabinet to hand out exemptions to requirements for archaeological assessments, which paves the way for projects to potentially bulldoze First Nations burial grounds. Finally, it has canceled the environmental assessment for the Eagle’s Nest nickel mine proposed by Wyloo Metals (a privately-held Australian company) in the Ring of Fire. 

As we heard from Indigenous leaders during two days of committee hearings, this bill will accelerate projects that sacrifice First Nations’ rights for the sake of economic benefits touted by Ontario. For years, Neskantaga has strongly opposed Doug Ford’s plans to open the Ring of Fire for mining without their free, prior, and informed consent. The Ring of Fire is a mineral deposit situated within a vast boreal peatlands ecosystem known to First Nations in the region as the Breathing Lands. The Breathing Lands play a crucial ecological role in storing fresh water and carbon. With Bill 5, however, the Ring of Fire is set to be the first special economic zone in the province. Bill 5 and proposed mining in the Ring threaten habitats for species such as the ecologically sensitive sturgeon, which are currently listed as a species of Special Concern. It will also threaten cultural sites.

Beyond the immediate impacts on natural and cultural heritage, Bill 5 represents a power-grab that elevates the decisions of the party in power above evidence-based environmental regulation and the inherent jurisdiction of Indigenous peoples. In their written submission presented at the Bill 5 committee hearings, Neskantaga called it “a blatant attempt by Ontario to avoid its duty to consult and accommodate Neskantaga First Nation and other affected First Nations in the Ring of Fire area” and “an attempt to overwrite Ontario’s obligations flowing from Treaty No. 9” (p. 1): 

Neskantaga’s submission raised a broad range of concerns ranging from the impacts of cancelling the environmental assessment for Eagle’s Nest and the Crown’s constitutional duty to consult and accommodate, to the unconstitutionality of special economic zones, and the implications of the bill for sturgeon and cultural sites. The message was clear: “there will be no ‘constitution-free zones’ in Ontario” (p. 6). What’s more, “the only way to avoid ‘red tape’ when it comes to extracting resources on [Neskantaga’s] lands is to fully obtain [their] Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.” (p. 10).

Rally at Queen’s Park on May 28, 2025

After participating in committee hearings the previous day, Neskantaga voiced their staunch opposition outside Queen’s Park. To them, the bill is an escalation of the Ford government’s attempts to trespass on the Breathing Lands, in its persistent support for building mining roads that would cross the Attawapiskat river (which Neskantanga has stewarded for generations). We heard from women, elders, and community members such as Sharon Sakanee, who came to protect the land for her grandson and for future generations. “That’s where we get our food and medicine—from the land,” she said. “I continue to use that river system to hunt and fish with my grandson. And I tell him that this is where my family grew up—at the Attawapiskat river—where my father was born and his parents were born,” she shared before leading chants of “No to Bill 5. No Ring of Fire.”

Former Chief Wayne Moonias also spoke. “Our community, our elders have said that they are willing to go down and protect… their river system—the lifeline, the Breathing Lands of our people—not just for today, but for generations. Generations before us and generations to come. That’s why we’re here today. That’s why our grassroots people are here today.” 

They were joined by environmental lawyers and advocates, progressive MPPS, Indigenous people, wildlife biologists, and youth who expressed concern for a shared future with birds, bees, and butterflies. Many viewed this bill as an attack on evidence-based environmental regulation. “We need a government that’s governed by science, not politics,” said Green Party MPP Mike Schreiner in reference to the repeal of the Endangered Species Act and the replacement of science-based biodiversity protection with increased ministerial discretion. Groups also raised alarms over the undemocratic nature of powers granted to the provincial cabinet by special economic zones provisions, which EcoJustice criticized as “dictatorial.” Adding to these concerns is the way this bill has been rammed through despite the public outcry—the conservative government passed the contentious bill after using a time allocation motion to limit debate time to one hour prior to voting.

What comes next?

 The conservative government announced that it would add provisions for Indigenous consultation to the Bill as well as for the creation of special “Indigenous-led economic zones.” They also promised to consult First Nations before designating the Ring of Fire a special economic zone. Meanwhile, First Nations leaders have questioned why they were not at the table during the initial drafting of the bill and have called for it to be withdrawn. 

Despite moves by Liberal and NDP MPPs to filibuster and delay its passing, Bill 5 passed on Wednesday, June 5, 2025. The updated bill is missing the promised amendments for Indigenous consultation. One thing we heard from speakers at the rally was that the struggle does not end with the passing of Bill 5. The provincial and federal governments will continue their attempts to assert jurisdiction over stolen Indigenous lands, and Nations including Neskantaga will continue to resist. When they do, we must support them by showing up to their rallies, pressuring our representatives in the Legislature, informing our friends about the legal challenges they are sure to put forward, and monetarily (e.g., through donating to legal funds such as the Raven Trust). First Nations leaders have indicated that the bill could elicit a response reminiscent of the 2012 Idle No More movement. When the call to action comes from First Nations on the front lines, will you be ready to show up?

Haidi Wu is a Research Assistant on the IBE project. Haidi is an incoming student in the Master in Environmental Studies (MES) program at York University, beginning September 2025.

This post is a part of our new report, Greenwashing the Ring of Fire: Indigenous Jurisdiction and Gaps in the EV Battery Supply Chain.

[READ THE FULL REPORT]

[READ THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY]

In the far north of what’s currently known as Ontario, in an area covered by Treaty No. 9,  lies the Hudson Bay Lowlands, an area roughly the size of Germany speckled with ponds, lakes, and rivers. Over thousands of years, plants growing in the waterlogged earth would die, never fully decomposing and instead becoming part of a rich, spongy layer of peat. Local First Nations call it the “breathing lands,” referring to the immense amounts of carbon that the peatlands absorb from the air. Rare and threatened plants and animals call the lowlands home: caribou, wolverine, and lake sturgeon.

Underneath the peat, there are rumoured to be vast and valuable deposits of minerals: gold, diamonds, chromite, and nickel. This area was originally marked as the “Ring of Fire” by Noront mining executive Richard Nemis in 2007. Reportedly a lifelong Johnny Cash fan, Nemis was quoting from the song where Cash sings, “bound by wild desire / I fell into a ring of fire.” 

Initially, in Treaty No. 9, it was diamonds that were the subject of mining magnates’ wild desire; then, chromite, a key component of stainless steel. Now nickel, the less-glitzy of the minerals, is driving mining interest: in 2022 it was included in a list of 31 minerals that Canada considers “critical” for the transition toward a lower-carbon economy. This is because nickel—alongside lithium, cobalt, graphite, and manganese—is a key component in electric vehicle (EV) batteries. 

Canada has invested hugely in EVs, requiring 100 percent of new vehicles sold to be zero emission by 2035. The U.S., too, introduced the Inflation Reduction Act, which gives tax credits to those who purchase an EV if 40 percent of its battery’s minerals were mined or processed in “friendly” countries like Canada.

The federal and—particularly—Ontario governments are pursuing mining in the Ring of Fire, driven by the pressure to appear to act on climate change, restore manufacturing jobs to Ontario, and reduce their own and their U.S. allies’ reliance on Chinese and Russian minerals. 

Today, the conversation around the Ring of Fire is dominated by the Australian-owned mining company Wyloo (formerly known as Ring of Fire Metals and Noront Resources), which has pledged to build a first-of-its-kind net-zero emissions mine on one of the biggest nickel deposits in the area, called Eagle’s Nest. The neighbouring deposits—also owned by Wyloo—include gold and chromite. 

At Eagle’s Nest, the first mine that Wyloo hopes to build, the company promises a small surface footprint, tailings stored underground, carbon capture and storage, and water recycling, all powered by renewable energy. Mining, long associated with environmental destruction and dirty labour practices, is given a green gloss: it’s crucial for decarbonization, they say.

But many of Wyloo’s promises are untested, and others are misleading. Plus, the company’s billionaire owner has a troubling track record in his dealings with Indigenous peoples in his home country of Australia.^, The reality on the ground is not as green as Wyloo would have it seem. 

This report examines greenwashing in the Ring of Fire in light of the Ontario government’s vision of a fully integrated domestic EV battery supply chain. When we talk about “greenwashing,” we include all public statements that are misleading consumers and the public about the environmental practices of a company, or the environmental benefits of a project or policy. Because humans are a part of the environment, we consider greenwashing to involve not only environmental dimensions, but social dimensions too.

Wyloo is involved in greenwashing, but they’re not the only ones. In Canada and Ontario, the push for critical mineral development and EV production is playing out within a broad greenwashing ecosystem, one that involves a network of state and corporate actors, lobbyists, NGOs, and consulting firms. These actors coordinate to secure social licence, i.e., “broad public support for resource development projects from affected communities, citizens, and stakeholders.” 

We focus on the greenwashing of Wyloo’s Eagle’s Nest mine because securing social licence to build that first mine is the key to opening up the entire region to development. As mining expert Joan Kuyek has said, Eagle’s Nest is a Trojan horse. However small its footprint, it opens the door on resource extraction in the lowlands: once a mining road is built to connect the mineral deposits to highways, a stream of mines will follow. There are currently over 31,000 mining claims registered in the Ring of Fire. Many of the mines that come after Eagle’s Nest will be bigger, dirtier, and more destructive.

Mining the Ring of Fire poses grave threats to the environment, and faces opposition from some of the First Nations whose homelands are at risk. The minerals are also buried beneath vast peat bogs, a major carbon sink which holds an estimated 35 billion tonnes of carbon. According to the Wildlands League, just 3 percent of the Ring of Fire area was developed, it would undo nearly all of the emissions reductions Canada has made from 2005 to 2021.

And the drive for critical minerals supposes a one-for-one replacement of combustion engine cars with electric vehicles, when a more important question for a truly just transition is: how do we enhance everyone’s mobility and connection, while mining less?

This post is a part of our new report, Greenwashing the Ring of Fire: Indigenous Jurisdiction and Gaps in the EV Battery Supply Chain.

[READ THE FULL REPORT]

[READ THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY]

EV Batteries 101

Most EVs currently use lithium-ion batteries for energy storage, the same kind of rechargeable battery used in a smartphone or laptop. EV batteries are essentially a bundle of thousands of smaller battery units or “cells” packaged together. Battery cells are made up of four main parts: the two electrodes (the cathode and the anode), the electrolyte, and the separator. 

The movement of charged lithium atoms (or ions) between the anode and cathode, facilitated by the separator and electrolyte, enables the battery to store and discharge electrical energy, providing power to EVs. During discharge, lithium ions move from the anode to the cathode, releasing electrons at the anode. These electrons travel through the external circuit, providing power to the car.

While the anode is mostly made from graphite, the cathode comprises a range of minerals such as lithium, nickel, manganese, and cobalt. The cathode contains the greatest variety of minerals, is the most valuable part of the battery, and is a major determinant in the performance of the battery—including the energy storage capacity, duration of charge, and battery lifespan. There are many different battery cathode chemistries, which involve combinations of different minerals in varying proportions, each of which has pros and cons in terms of cost, availability of materials, mineral intensity, and battery performance. 

Battery technology innovation, the development of new battery chemistries, and the uptake of reuse and recycling processes are all factors that will determine how demand for EVs will translate into demand for specific minerals. While battery technology is rapidly evolving—with multiple automakers announcing plans to use a new sodium-ion battery, for example—for the time being, battery chemistries containing lithium remain the most common. 

The Use of Nickel

Nickel is one of 31 “critical minerals” identified by Canada, insofar as it has “few or no substitutes,” is a “strategic and somewhat limited” commodity, and is “increasingly concentrated in terms of extraction and, even more, in terms of processing location.” Nickel is also one of the six minerals prioritized in Canada’s Critical Minerals Strategy (along with lithium, graphite, cobalt, copper, and rare earth elements) since it is seen as having “distinct potential to spur Canadian economic growth” and as a necessary input for “priority supply chains.” Canada sees “stainless steel, solar panels, batteries, aerospace, and defence” as the “major applications” for nickel. 

In the context of EVs, nickel is a key part of the cathode of the battery cell; demand for nickel is projected to double by 2050.^, In two of the most common cathode chemistries—NMC (nickel manganese cobalt) and NCA (nickel cobalt aluminum oxide)—nickel is a primary material. NMC is the most used type of cathode chemistry; Trillium Network assumes an NMC cathode chemistry market share of 45 percent by 2030. NMC batteries can be further differentiated by the ratio of minerals in the cathode; e.g., NMC 111 has an equal weight of nickel, manganese, and cobalt. 

The market is trending toward chemistries with higher concentrations of nickel, such as NMC 622 and NMC 811, to reduce demand for cobalt and lithium. A cathode using NMC 811, for example, contains 80 percent nickel by weight; in general, most lithium-ion batteries rely on some amount of nickel. Nickel has many material properties that make it a useful part of a cathode, including its high energy density, voltage flexibility, and relative abundance and availability. Cathodes with higher nickel concentrations lead to higher energy density batteries, which allows EVs to travel for longer ranges per charge.

Supplying the New Gigafactories

“O’ Canada, we’re fully charged for thee,” announced Volkswagen in April 2023, following its decision to site its first North American gigafactory in St. Thomas, Ontario, with production set to start in 2027. This was the second major announcement in Ontario, following Stellantis-LGES’ plans to expand its facilities in Windsor. Both firms negotiated massive subsidies (a combined $28 billion) from the provincial and federal governments, the largest ever granted to automakers in Canadian history, after pressuring Canada to align its industrial policy with the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act. 

Finally, in September 2023, Swedish company Northvolt announced its plan to site a new gigafactory and recycling facility just outside Montreal, Quebec. Some First Nations and environmental groups oppose the plant, arguing that it is located in an ecologically valuable wetlands environment (which will be damaged by clearcutting the forests), that the government inadequately consulted both the public and Indigenous groups, and that a full environmental assessment is required.

The Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) has released a series of reports on the recent government subsidies,^, including an analysis of the “break-even” timeline for when government revenues generated from the new Ontario gigafactories can be expected to equal the subsidies. The PBO concludes that government revenues from the Volkswagen and Stellantis-LGES plants will break even after approximately 20 years, in contrast to Ontario and Canada’s claim that the “full economic impact of the [Volkswagen] project will be equal to the value of government investment in less than five years.”^,

This discrepancy hinges upon assumptions about the degree to which other sections of the supply chain (such as mining and EV assembly) will “fill in” domestically and generate economic multiplier effects. In an interview, Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux highlighted how “the North American automobile sector is highly integrated with activity taking place in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico,” and that the government break-even timeline involves a “leap of faith that there will be all these suppliers appearing in a short period of time” in Ontario and Canada. Despite optimistic government assumptions, there is no guarantee that Canadian batteries will end up in cars manufactured in Canada and contain minerals mined in Canada. 

Labour economist Jim Stanford has emphasised the importance of these government investments in safeguarding the jobs of auto workers: “the government is supporting these plants because that is what’s required to maintain the auto industry, and all of the economic and social benefits that it generates, as it transitions to EVs.” According to Stanford, Canada’s auto industry would disappear in 15 years if not for such government subsidies to encourage foreign investment. Commenting on this, Giroux argued that as auto workers transition from producing combustion-engine vehicles to EVs, there will be a “substitution effect” and therefore we cannot assume that all new EV jobs would generate “additional government revenues.”

It has been estimated that the two new Ontario Volkswagen and Stellantis-LGES gigafactories will produce a combined 135 gigawatt hours (or enough batteries for 1.4 million EVs) per year in Ontario for several decades.^, Quebec’s Northvolt gigafactory will add another 60 gigawatt hours or enough batteries for another million EVs per year. There are many uncertainties about how the new gigafactories will be supplied, the volume of materials required, the origins of the raw materials, the location of their processing and refining, and the distribution of social and environmental inequities along the supply chains in Ontario and Quebec. 

Recent reports of excessive levels of air-borne nickel in a Quebec City neighbourhood adjacent to a shipping port, resulting from relaxed environmental standards, has generated criticism over the government’s choice to prioritise the profits of the battery industry over the health of residents. Nickel is carcinogenic in high enough concentrations and examples like this demonstrate the potential environmental hazards and health risks tied to the extraction, refining, and transportation of nickel.

In developing projections of the mineral intensity of EV battery production, it is necessary to make assumptions about factors such as battery size and lifespan, cathode chemistry, and recycling rates while remaining aware that technological innovation and market conditions are changing rapidly (e.g., see Trillium Network’s Battery Content Assumptions table). 

Wyloo claims that they can produce 150 thousand tonnes of nickel concentrate per year or “enough nickel to supply about half a million battery electric vehicles on an annual basis.” Wyloo Canada CEO Kristan Straub has further claimed that “it’s going to take… close to 25 to 30 new Eagle’s Nests” in order to supply Ontario’s new battery electric vehicle market. With such massive scales of extraction deemed necessary, it is important to evaluate the environmental promises used to justify these activities and highlight some alternative transportation options. 

This post is a part of our new report, Greenwashing the Ring of Fire: Indigenous Jurisdiction and Gaps in the EV Battery Supply Chain.

[READ THE FULL REPORT]

[READ THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY]

In 2023, the federal and Ontario governments pledged historic subsidies to automakers—up to $13.2 billion to Volkswagen, $15 billion to Stellantis—to build EV battery plants in Canada. While the subsidies show a commitment to secure a fully domestic supply chain for EV batteries, there remain significant gaps. These include a lack of mineral refining capacity in Canada, a lack of infrastructure in mineral-rich regions (such as the Ring of Fire), and, in particular, a lack of recognition of the jurisdiction of Indigenous peoples and their capacity to provide or withhold consent. 

Ontario defines supply chains as “the integrated systems of organizations, people, activities, information and resources involved in supplying a product or service to a consumer.” What this definition glosses over is the question of political-legal authority and the regulatory context within which resource development is carried out—who decides what happens and on whose terms? In other words: who has jurisdiction? 

If we assume the “supply chain” is a system that depends on integration and coordination between jurisdictions, it is clear that a failure to recognize Indigenous jurisdiction over lands is a tremendous source of uncertainty, creating a “broken link” in the fully integrated supply chain that the government of Ontario envisions.^,  

Indigenous peoples in Canada wield a unique strategic power to disrupt business as usual, due to their specific legal rights, their capacity and willingness to exercise jurisdiction over their territories, and their proximity to key logistical “choke points.” As Pasternak and Dafnos argue, “no other political group in Canada shares with Indigenous peoples the legal and material power to consistently intervene in the flow of capital from coast to coast and over international borders.” 

Ontario treats the Ring of Fire as a key for unlocking the raw resources deemed necessary for the emergent EV battery supply chain, but the region is politically fraught, ecologically sensitive, and lacking in terms of infrastructure and community buy-in. The provincial government is assessing three all-season road proposals in the region to facilitate extraction, working with two proponent First Nations (Marten Falls and Webequie), who cite a dire need for community infrastructure and connection. Despite years of systematically neglecting Indigenous communities in the region, failing to provide the basic infrastructure and services necessary to meet their needs—resulting in a 30-year boil water advisory in the nearby Neskantaga First Nation—state authorities are now intent on paving the way for extraction. 

The prospect of development in the Ring of Fire raises long-standing issues of Indigenous jurisdiction, the right of “free, prior and informed consent” (FPIC), and the question of who has decision-making power over specific lands and waters. The Ring of Fire is covered by Treaty No. 9, an agreement signed in 1905-1906 that purports to define the relationship between Indigenous peoples in the area and the Crown. Neskantaga First Nation is one of the many remote First Nations in Treaty No. 9 territory who oppose mining the Ring of Fire. The community’s leadership argues that the notion of strict territorial borders that provide resource certainty for industry and governments is a colonial construction that contradicts their concept of jurisdiction and relations to the land.

Throughout the 2010s, the federal government invested millions in programs aimed at improving “community readiness” for mining activity in the Ring of Fire.^, From 2013 to 2018, the nine First Nations most proximate to the Ring of Fire claimed their inherent jurisdiction over the region as they engaged in negotiations with Ontario as a united block towards a Regional Framework Agreement. Before this agreement even expired, Ontario began a strategy of bilateral agreement-making with First Nations they deemed “mining-ready,” described by some critics as a “divide and conquer approach.” Since then, two First Nations (Marten Falls and Webequie) have agreed to act as proponents for three road projects, which the company says will make everything go smoother. This political strategy, when combined with Ontario’s free entry mining regime and its narrow interpretation of what the duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous peoples requires, generates uncertainty on the question of how consent can be legally and meaningfully obtained for mining in the Ring of Fire. 

In 2023, 10 Treaty No. 9 First Nations launched legal action against the provincial and federal governments, as they attempt to resist future mining activity across their homelands. Attawapiskat, Apitipi Anicinapek, Aroland, Constance Lake, Eabametoong, Fort Albany, Ginoogaming, Kashechewan, Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, and Neskantaga are bringing a treaty infringement claim against Ontario and Canada for a failure to recognize that their governing authority in the region was never ceded and remains intact. 

The 10 First Nations argue that they hold jurisdiction over the lands and resources in Treaty No. 9 territory; that Treaty No. 9 “did not include the ceding, releasing, surrendering or yielding up of Jurisdiction” but rather results in co-jurisdiction with Canada and Ontario; and that Canada and Ontario have breached Treaty No. 9 by issuing permits and authorizing activities without the consent of the First Nations. The First Nations are seeking $95 billion in damages and demanding that no further resource development be undertaken on their territories without their free, prior, and informed consent. 
The failure of the Crown  to recognize Indigenous jurisdiction is the biggest gap in the emergent EV dream. The vision of an integrated domestic supply chain cannot be realized simply through subsidizing industry and speeding up mining permits. It will require substantively distributing the benefits of industrial activity to directly affected communities and establishing meaningful consent processes. These processes must provide communities with the power to say “no” to development that they deem to be against their best interest and/or counter to their own legal obligations to protect lands and waters. As it currently stands, multiple Treaty No. 9 First Nations have made themselves clear: “no Ring of Fire mining without consent.”