She's fought for clean water for years and fears proposed Ontario permit changes will hurt First Nations
"A lot of people have to rely on buying water, not having any hooked-up water, piped-in water and running water in their households," she said. "This is a huge stressor on Indigenous women's mental health and Indigenous families' mental health."
For the past eight years, Henry has fought for water sovereignty in a place that's been her home her entire life, Six Nations of the Grand River, which is near Brantford and is home to people from all six Haudenosaunee nations.
Now, Henry says, a proposed regulation from the Ontario government could roll back years of advocacy and sideline voices of Indigenous communities like hers.
"It's honestly really, really disappointing and disheartening," she said.
It feels as if the proposal is designed to "keep Indigenous Peoples out of the decision-making from water extraction, and governing our own waters and governing our own lands," Henry added.
The proposed regulation
Under the province's current regulations, companies that want to extract groundwater must apply for a permit to take water, triggering environmental assessments, public consultation, a review of the purpose for taking water and a duty to consult Indigenous communities.
Businesses that might want to take groundwater include agriculture, gravel mining and water-bottling plants.
The proposed regulation would allow those permits to be transferred from one company to another without reapplying, so long as the intended use for the water and amount taken stays the same or declines. That means a business could be sold to a new owner who could inherit the water rights with minimal additional review.
In an emailed statement from a Ministry of the Environment spokesperson, the province said this streamlines the permit approval process, potentially cutting months off the current approval wait time.
The ministry said it would also continue to review all applicants in the streamlined process to ensure requirements are met.
But according to critics, such changes to the process would bypass meaningful environmental checks.
What's at stake
Arlene Slocombe, executive director of Wellington Water Watchers, shares Henry's concerns.
"The [Premier Doug] Ford government wants to make water-taking permits transferrable, meaning no input, no consent and no accountability if corporate ownership changes hands," she said in a phone interview with CBC News.
"This move to change the water-taking permit process is essentially a water-grabbing tactic that would make water-taking permits functionally and potentially eternal once approved."
Slocombe warns the regulation could lead to unchecked withdrawals from groundwater systems with unknown limits.
"It's essentially like writing checks on a bank account that you don't know the balance of, and at some point, you run out," she said. "Nobody's really tallying exactly when that 'zero' mark happens."
Slocombe said while most municipal wells supplying houses and businesses eventually return water to the watershed, facilities like bottling plants could permanently remove it by shipping it beyond the local ecosystem.
Another major concern is the removal of the 30-day public comment period that currently accompanies water-taking applications.
Slocombe said that when BlueTriton applied for its permit to run its Aberfoyle water-bottling operation, more than 32,000 people submitted feedback. Under the new rules, a permit transfer would not require any public input.
Nor would it require consultation with Indigenous groups.
"Again, something else that they're trying to push and take our voices out of the entire conversation," said Henry. "We're not going anywhere and they need to respect us as sovereign nations."
The economics of water-taking
Roy Brouwer, executive director of the University of Waterloo's Water Institute and an economics professor, said the province is undervaluing the true cost of its water.
He said that when he moved to Waterloo region a decade or so ago, the cost was under $5 for 1,000 cubic metres of water (one million litres). Since then, the cost has increased, but not in a way that reflects limited supply or environmental impact.
"They just added $500 like a round number, $500 on the permit," he said.
"It has all the appearances of an administrative fee. And it doesn't necessarily reflect the scarcity costs of the resource now and into the future, benefiting multiple users," said Brouwer.
He believes the transfer system, as proposed, ignores the fact that water is limited.
Brouwer said he's also concerned about the environmental impact.
"Over time … what you initially identified as a maybe limited or moderate ecological risk is perhaps a bigger risk because you actually do the pumping and you can actually observe what is happening to the natural environment."
The fight in Aberfoyle
Henry was a vocal critic of the former Nestlé bottling plant in Aberfoyle, later sold to BlueTriton and now owned by Ice River Springs.
Despite it being part of the application process, indigenous consultation was minimal.
"Nobody knew in my community that water extraction … was happening. And with the lack of consultation, not even the governments knew that that was happening either," she said.
"Our people had no idea."
Over the years, she's held groundwater awareness rallies — sometimes by herself — and delivered cease-and-desist letters on behalf of her band council.
She said she secured those by "going to meetings at our long house and letting our clan mothers, faith keepers and chiefs know what was happening. And so they said deliver the cease-and-desist to them. And so that's what I did."
Ice River Springs, an Ontario-based bottling company and the newest owner of the Aberfoyle water-bottling facility, has yet to apply for its water-taking permit.
In an emailed statement to CBC News, executive vice-president and co-owner Sandy Gott said the company "supports initiatives that maintain environmental protection" and it would do its work "with respect for the communities in which [they] operate."
Concerns about being cut out
The public comment period for Ontario's proposed water permit regulation runs until Aug. 1. After that, it moves to a review and decision stage.
There is no fixed timeline for when a final decision will be made.
Henry said she's concerned about being cut out of the process entirely.
"Right now, they're trying to take every single thing that they can and they're trying to take more water," she said.
"And so we're just trying to fight with everything we have to protect our waters and our lands. They go hand in hand."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
8 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump ordered purge of ‘unpatriotic' signage from national parks. How one California spot complied
Four years ago, National Park Service employees seeking to provide a more robust look at the history of Muir Woods National Monument in Marin County began the 'History Under Construction' exhibit. The concept of the work was to expand an existing sign featuring a timeline detailing the preservation of Muir Woods. Employees placed caution tape on the sign within Founder's Grove and used yellow sticky notes to add facts and dates that were missing from the original timeline. Among the information added were the efforts of Indigenous people who originally maintained the land, as well as the role of women in creating the national monument. A letter on the plaque assured passersby that 'everything on this sign is accurate, but incomplete. The facts are not under construction, but the way we tell history is.' But, as of this month, the yellow notes are no more. The expanded exhibit became the first in the nation to be altered following an executive order by President Trump in March to rid park signage of any language he would deem unpatriotic. The president's aim was to restore federal sites that he said had been changed since 2020 to perpetuate a 'false reconstruction of American history' including 'improper partisan ideology.' The Muir Woods change was first reported by SF Gate. Elizabeth Villano, a former park ranger who helped create the new version of the sign, criticized the move, writing in a post on Medium that the Trump administration 'is actively censoring American history from the public.' She said the goal of the project was to make sure nothing on the original sign was erased, but to add details so people could see the difference in how history was told and how it could be expanded to include more voices. 'We wanted to tell the true story of the woods in a way that helped people learn from the past, and apply those lessons towards a brighter future,' she wrote. 'Despite this care not to erase history, here I am, watching history be erased.' A spokesperson for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, which includes Muir Woods, could not immediately be reached for comment on Wednesday. Before the notes were added in 2021, the first date included in the sign's timeline, called 'Path to Preservation,' was the establishment of the first national park in the United States, Yellowstone, in 1872. The next was 1892 when the Sierra Club was founded in San Francisco with John Muir as the first president. But staff at the time found that some key information was missing from the timeline, namely the work of the Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo people who tended to the land before Europeans arrived in North America. They also included the first campaign to save the region launched by a women's club in 1904. Of course, not all the information added to the timeline was positive. Staff detailed Spanish missionaries exploiting the work of Indigenous people in the Bay Area to build California missions and congressional actions stripping Coast Miwok people of title to their ancestral lands, including Muir Woods. The revised timeline didn't shy away from pointing out the complex legacies of key figures who helped spearhead the creation of the national monument. It noted that John Muir referred to Indigenous people using racist language in his diary, which was published years before his death, and pointed out William Kent's vote in Congress to prevent non-citizens from owning or leasing land. The rangers didn't cast blame for the omissions, saying that the expanded narratives were reflective of increasing diversity among park service employees in the years since the timeline was first unveiled. 'From redwood conservation to the legacy of the country's founders, American stories are enriched by complexity, dimension, and challenge. It's not our job to judge these stories or promote a singular narrative. As national park rangers, it is our mandate to tell complete stories that reflect who we are as a society. And as Americans, it's important that we hear them,' according to a National Park Service post about the changes. Trump's executive order directed the Department of the Interior to identify any public monuments, memorials, statues or markers that had been removed or changed since 2020 to 'perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history,' minimize the value of historical events or figures or include 'improper partisan ideology' and to reinstate prior monuments. The order also directed officials to ensure that monuments do not contain content that disparages Americans. Instead, the monuments should focus on 'the greatness of the achievements and progress of the American people or, with respect to natural features, the beauty, abundance, and grandeur of the American landscape,' the order states. Critics have said Trump's directive demands a rose-colored view of more complex events that make up American history. Villano, the former park ranger, wrote in the Medium essay that it's disparaging to Americans to take away people's ability to think critically and have a better understanding of history. 'Why doesn't the White House want you to see a more complete version of history? Maybe it's because, when we see ourselves in history, we realize that we can reshape it,' she wrote. 'For a government like this, that must feel like a threat. It doesn't benefit people in power to understand that anyone can be a part of history.'
Hamilton Spectator
9 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Report raises questions about First Nations ownership in major projects
OTTAWA - A new think tank report is questioning how the federal and provincial governments' sprint to build major infrastructure projects might affect Indigenous Peoples' rights — and warns that it could end up pitting Indigenous communities against each other. The report by the Yellowhead Institute, 'Buried Burdens,' takes a look at major projects through a case study of the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project and the Ksi Lisims facility in B.C., which are expected to transport millions of tonnes of gas per year. Owned in part by the Nisga'a Nation, the project has seen staunch opposition from other First Nations communities that did not approve or consent to it. The Yellowhead report, released this week, comes amid a countrywide push to rapidly launch major projects, including pipelines, to shore up the economy against U.S. President Donald Trump's trade war. The recently passed One Canadian Economy Act gives Ottawa the power to fast-track projects it deems to be in the national interest by sidestepping environmental protections and other legislation. Governments have been encouraging First Nations leaders to support such projects through loan guarantees and promises of financial incentives. But many First Nations leaders fear their ways of life could be irreparably harmed if governments evade environmental standards. 'Right now, the narrative is full speed ahead on resource development,' said Hayden King, a member of Beausoliel First Nation who serves as Yellowhead's executive director. 'Increasingly, that includes Indigenous partners, but there's not a lot of discussion on the dynamics of investing in projects like these, and there's a risk that has to be considered … 'First Nations are not necessarily the ones merely impacted by these developments, but they're being encouraged to invest in these projects, to be partners in these projects and grant social licence to enable these projects.' Some provinces have enacted laws similar to the One Canadian Economy Act, including Bill 5 in Ontario, now the subject of a court challenge by nine First Nations. And in B.C., Premier David Eby's government passed Bills 14 and 15 — pieces of legislation meant to ramp up energy and infrastructure development that have come under fire from First Nations. Prime Minister Mark Carney has frequently pointed to Indigenous participation in major projects as a means to ensure their success and prevent delays. He has pointed to the $10 billion Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program as proof of Ottawa's commitment to ensuring Indigenous communities have a meaningful stake. The report challenges that argument altogether, calling it an 'industry-driven narrative.' 'While there are potential benefits from participating in equity ownership when compared to shorter-term impact benefit agreements and service contracts, there are also greater risks,' the report says. 'This particular philosophy of 'economic reconciliation' imagines Indigenous communities regaining control of their economies, aiming for self-sufficiency, sustainability, and self-determination. This is an industry-driven narrative that presents resource extraction as the singular pathway to achieve these ends.' That narrative, the report says, could also cause rifts between Indigenous communities that support specific projects and those that do not. 'While uncomfortable, conflict and disagreement are part of Nation-to-Nation relationships — and always have been. However, it is equally important to recognize that in true Nation-to-Nation relationships, the self-determining rights of one Nation cannot supersede the inherent rights of another,' the report says. King said potential conflicts between pro-development communities and those more hesitant lends itself to conversations about the kinds of development that align with their values. But that conversation is also about rights, King said, and how courts will strike a balance among First Nations who don't see eye-to-eye on project proposals. 'Let's not have the courts decide the answers to those questions, but let's actually work through diplomacy and figure those out on our own terms, using our own Indigenous law,' he said. King said that discussion should 'feed back into the conversation about what kind of economy … we want,' pointing to the pre-contact economies that once sustained Indigenous Peoples. 'We had these economies, and still do to a degree. So what would it look like to reimagine those, and rearticulate them in the face of the narrative that we only have one option, which is resource development?' he said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 23, 2025.
Hamilton Spectator
11 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Coastal First Nations call on Carney to uphold oil tanker ban
Indigenous leaders on British Columbia's north coast are calling on the federal government to hold out against pressure from Alberta and industry to reverse the west coast oil export ban. On Tuesday, the Coastal First Nations, a group of nine First Nations along the north and central coast of BC and Haida Gwaii, wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney. The group urged the government to uphold Bill C-48, known as the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. Since 2019, this law has prohibited tankers carrying over 12,500 metric tons of crude oil and other oil products from stopping or transferring cargo at any port between the northern tip of Vancouver Island and the Alaska border, which includes Haida Gwaii, the Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. The act formalizes protections that Indigenous communities and environmentalists have been seeking since the 1970s. It effectively bans crude oil supertankers from one of the world's most pristine cold-water marine ecosystems, home to whale habitats, wild salmon, seabirds and ancient rainforests. Exports through the Juan de Fuca Strait are allowed, meaning the ban has not interfered with the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. The controversy comes as Carney said in a recent statement that a new bitumen pipeline to BC's north coast is 'highly, highly likely.' His remark aligns with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and federal Conservative MPs push to lift the tanker ban. Smith has specifically called for faster federal approvals for pipeline projects and an exemption at the Port of Prince Rupert to allow oil exports to Asia. But Marilyn Slett, president of the Coastal First Nations and chief councillor of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council, said oil tankers are a 'non-starter' for her community. 'An oil tanker project is not something we can ever provide consent to,' she said. 'Our communities rely on healthy oceans and ecosystems for our livelihood and culture. Reversing or weakening this legislation would put everything our communities depend on at risk.' The tanker ban was instituted after more than a decade marked by energetic opposition to pipelines to the West Coast. The Northern Gateway pipeline, first proposed by Enbridge in 2002, was ultimately halted in 2016 after more than 130 First Nations publicly opposed the project and courts ruled that consultations had been inadequate. Slett called the decision a major win for Indigenous rights and protection of coastal areas, and said any new talks should not repeat old mistakes. Indigenous leaders have come out against crude oil tankers but have been more accepting of other types of ships, especially those carrying liquefied natural gas (LNG). By 2030, as many as 600 LNG vessels are expected to pass through their waters — activities accommodated through lengthy engagement and approval processes with communities, said Danielle Shaw, chief councillor of the Wuikinuxv Nation and a board member of the Central Coast Indigenous Resource Alliance. 'We're open to discussing projects that will be sustainable and responsible and can strengthen the economy of Canada and British Columbia,' Shaw said. 'But there's strong opposition to oil tankers on this coast because of the impacts it would have for our communities directly.' Slett noted that with 175 LNG tankers already passing through coastal channels this year and more expected, the impact on the ecosystem is significant. 'This is substantial, and those have cumulative effects on the ecosystem. They are in place and serving as projects for British Columbia and other communities. This [oil tankers] is something we cannot add … it's not something we would support.' The risks from oil spills are considered too great. 'When it comes to allowing oil tankers on our coast, it wouldn't be if something were to happen, it would be when something happens,' Shaw said. Slett criticized the lack of formal consultation regarding renewed pipeline proposals. Bill C-5 was rushed through Parliament in just two weeks, and a meeting between Carney and First Nations leaders from across Canada last week was allotted just a few hours. 'There's been a lot of talk about us without talking to us,' she said. She said she learned about energy proposals through the news rather than direct government engagement. The open letter invites Carney to visit the north coast to see why the tanker moratorium remains vital and to consider how a path forward without an oil pipeline can benefit the region. Slett said her communities prefer discussion and collaboration but remain firm in their opposition. 'Court challenges and direct action would always be a last resort,' she said. 'We've built relationships with provincial and federal partners that we want to maintain, but we won't support new pipelines. The tanker ban must stand.' Sonal Gupta / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada's National Observer Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
