As Canada employs a federated system of government, there are separate environmental assessment (EA) processes. In Ontario, Canada, there is a streamlined, pre-approved, self-assessed process (i.e., the Minister of the Environment’s approval is not required) for “classes” of projects. These Class EA projects are routine, with known impacts, being predictable and mitigable, in a southern Ontarian environment. However, it is assumed that Class EA protocol developed in the southern Ontarian context is directly transferable to northern Ontario. A case-based approach, using the Victor Mine electricity transmission line project, was employed to critically examine whether the Class EA template developed in southern Ontario, could be effectively applied to the western James Bay region of northern Ontario. Specifically, the two assumptions (and corollaries) of Class EAs of predictability (corollaries: the environment is similar in all locations where Class EAs are applied; and the environment is well understood) and mitigability (corollary: all negative effects are mitigable) were examined. Primary (semi-directive interviews) and secondary (literature search) data were used to inform a themed analysis. Results indicate that the northern environment is unique: biophysically, the western James Bay area is Ontario’s only salt water coastal region, and contains one of the largest wetland regions in the world; and socio-economically, no southern Ontarian region can claim that one third of their total regional economy is related to subsistence pursuits. In addition, the northern environment is dynamic, disproportionately changing over time with respect to climate change and post-glacial isostatic adjustment. Moreover, not all negative effects are mitigable (i.e., the effects the existing electrical transmission line has had on waterfowl harvesting). Thus, the Class EA template is not transferable to the northern Ontarian context. Similarly, in other northern regions of the world where glacial isostatic adjustment is a reality and these regions uniqueness must be recognized and be reflected in the EA process, if a process exists.

As Canada employs a federated system of government, there are separate environmental assessment (EA) processes. In Ontario, Canada, there is a streamlined, pre-approved, self-assessed process (i.e., the Minister of the Environment’s approval is not required) for “classes” of projects. These Class EA projects are routine, with known impacts, being predictable and mitigable, in a southern Ontarian environment. However, it is assumed that Class EA protocol developed in the southern Ontarian context is directly transferable to northern Ontario. A case-based approach, using the Victor Mine electricity transmission line project, was employed to critically examine whether the Class EA template developed in southern Ontario, could be effectively applied to the western James Bay region of northern Ontario. Specifically, the two assumptions (and corollaries) of Class EAs of predictability (corollaries: the environment is similar in all locations where Class EAs are applied; and the environment is well understood) and mitigability (corollary: all negative effects are mitigable) were examined. Primary (semi-directive interviews) and secondary (literature search) data were used to inform a themed analysis. Results indicate that the northern environment is unique: biophysically, the western James Bay area is Ontario’s only salt water coastal region, and contains one of the largest wetland regions in the world; and socio-economically, no southern Ontarian region can claim that one third of their total regional economy is related to subsistence pursuits. In addition, the northern environment is dynamic, disproportionately changing over time with respect to climate change and post-glacial isostatic adjustment. Moreover, not all negative effects are mitigable (i.e., the effects the existing electrical transmission line has had on waterfowl harvesting). Thus, the Class EA template is not transferable to the northern Ontarian context. Similarly, in other northern regions of the world where glacial isostatic adjustment is a reality and these regions uniqueness must be recognized and be reflected in the EA process, if a process exists.

The practice of environmental assessment (EA) in Ontario, Canada and elsewhere has been criticized for resulting in projects that are not necessarily “good” for the environment or society, but simply “less bad.” In Ontario, the ongoing erosion over time of meaningful public involvement in the EA process is seen as a major reason for the degradation of EA practice from something closer to its idealistic purpose of creating “sustainable” development down to its current state, as many have suggested, as an administrative process to ensure legislated minimum requirements (for action or outcome) are met. Nonetheless, the EA process in Ontario continues to offer one of the best legislated processes available for addressing the potential negative impacts associated with public projects in the province. Ontario’s streamlined Class EA process allows for routine, low-impact public projects to proceed without ministerial review so long as certain minimum standards for technical review and public consultation are met. It also includes a mechanism for stakeholders to request ministerial review should a stakeholder believe a substantive or procedural error or oversight has occurred during the study. This mechanism, called a Part II Order request, has been invoked in recent years for multiple reasons in addition to correcting substantive or procedural errors or oversights. This research asks why stakeholders request Part II Orders. Through review and coding of Part II Order request letters from various projects across Ontario, and conducting detailed case studies of projects for which Part II Order requests were made in the Greater Toronto Area, it was determined that the two most commonly-found issues in the Part II Order letters were related to stakeholders feeling distrustful of the proponent or the EA process, and stakeholders feeling as though they were not adequately engaged in public consultation activities for the EA study. The case studies examined these themes in greater detail, and found that these two issues were intertwined with issues of stakeholder power and control. The research findings suggest that EA outcomes can be improved by altering public consultation activities to provide stakeholders with greater control over the decision-making process in a transparent manner so that stakeholders are aware not only of the perspectives of the proponent, but also those of other stakeholders.