Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar Project — Clearview Receiver Site

President's response

Physical activities

The Department of National Defence is proposing to construct and operate the Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar Project — Clearview Receiver Site, located approximately 20 kilometres west of Barrie in southern Ontario. This project is a component of a North American Aerospace Defense Command modernization initiative designed to provide long-range radar surveillance and early warning of threats approaching from the North. As proposed, the project would involve the installation of a network of receiver antennas, security infrastructure, storage facilities, an access road, and parking areas. The project would work in tandem with a transmitter site, located near Kawartha Lakes, Ontario, and is intended to be operational in 2029.

These physical activities are not prescribed by regulations made under subsection 109(b) of the Impact Assessment Act (IAA).

Delegation of powers to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada

Under subsection 154(1) of the IAA as amended, the Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature (the Minister) may, subject to any terms and conditions that the Minister specifies, delegate to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) any powers, duties, or functions that the Minister is authorized to exercise or perform under the IAA. The Minister has delegated the powers under section 9 of the IAA to the President of IAAC.

Decision

I, Terence Hubbard, President of IAAC, have decided not to designate the project pursuant to section 9 of the IAA.

Information considered

In forming my response, I took into account the analysis prepared by IAAC in its Analysis Report.

Reasons

In making my decision to not designate the project, I considered whether the carrying out of the project may cause adverse effects within federal jurisdiction, direct or incidental effects, and concluded that the project may cause these adverse effects. I then considered public concerns related to these effects; adverse impacts on the Aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous Peoples of Canada; and whether a means other than an impact assessment exists that would permit a jurisdiction to address the adverse effects within federal jurisdiction and the direct or incidental adverse effects.

I decided not to designate the project for the following reasons:

• The project must be carried out in compliance with applicable legislative mechanisms listed below.
• The requirements under the legislative mechanisms listed below, and related consultations with potentially impacted Indigenous groups and public engagement, provide a framework to address concerns related to the adverse effects within federal jurisdiction or the direct or incidental adverse effects that may be caused by the carrying out of the project and adverse impacts that the project may have on the rights of Indigenous Peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
• There are means other than an impact assessment that provide the framework to address the potential adverse effects within federal jurisdiction and direct or incidental adverse effects, as described within subsection 9(1) of the IAA, including:
  • the environmental effects determination pursuant to section 82 of the IAA and the application of standard mitigation measures; and
  • other federal legislation, including the Fisheries Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, the Migratory Birds Convention Regulations, 2022, and the Species at Risk Act.