Contextualizing Mine-Community Relations in Treaty No. 9 Territory

• Published in: Rural Review: Ontario Rural Planning, Development, and Policy
• Main Author: Reid, Brady
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, University of Guelph 2020
• Subjects: First Nations
• Online Access: https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/ruralReview/article/view/6112

This research involves a rigorous literature review identifying and critically examining the characteristics of decision-making processes in the mining sector that empower or disempower Indigenous communities in north-eastern Ontario, specifically Treaty no. 9 territory. The conclusions drawn from this review aim to inform future research throughout my doctoral program and other researchers and practitioners within the mining sector. The Ring of Fire is a controversial but lucrative mineral cache in north-eastern Ontario worth an estimated $60 billion that may position nearby rural and remote communities for economic growth. However, critics caution that proposed mineral exploration and extraction in the region may threaten the sustainability of First Nations communities. Fifty secondary sources, academic and grey literature produced by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous authors, were reviewed and I propose three “myths” surrounding relations between the mining sector and Indigenous communities in Ontario. I position the synthesis of literature in response to these myths to provide insight into false assumptions that may form the basis of community-mine relations. First, critical examination of the signing of Treaty 9 in the early twentieth century shows that Indigenous communities in northern Ontario did not unilaterally cede and surrender title rights to their traditional territories. Second, the literature falsifies the notion that Indigenous communities are inherently anti-development and show that Indigenous communities do not always unilaterally refute opportunities for resource development. Third, the literature debunks the idea that the duty to consult and accommodate is always triggered before proponents infringe on Indigenous and treaty rights on traditional territory. The duty to consult and accommodate, triggered by the fiduciary duty of the Crown to protect aboriginal and treaty rights outlined in the Constitution Act of 1982, attempts to address the exclusion of Indigenous perspectives in ...