This chapter summarises the study’s main findings and policy recommendations. The next chapter outlines the key opportunities and priorities for Northern Ontario’s mining ecosystem, drawing on quantitative evidence and benchmarking with other OECD and Canadian mining regions. The following chapter examines mining’s impacts and opportunities for First Nations, proposing strategies to strengthen their engagement as rightsholders in mining developments and ensure long-term benefits. The final chapter highlights priorities to enhance the regional mining ecosystem and proposes policy actions to reinforce governance frameworks that support both project competitiveness and community well-being.
Mining Regions and Cities in Northern Ontario, Canada
Northern Ontario: a vast region with relevant First Nations heritage and key population hubs
Northern Ontario, with a population of 943 899 people (Statistics Canada, 2021[1]) is a vast and diverse region located within the province of Ontario. It makes up over 90% of the province’s land mass but only 6% of its population (Landsby, 2023[2]). About 17% of the population identify as Indigenous with the region home to 106 First Nations communities,1 making up 78% of the First Nations communities in Ontario (Ontario Government, 2018[3]). Indigenous Peoples contribute significantly to the region’s mining sector, representing 15% of the total mining workforce in Northern Ontario.
First Nations have inhabited what is now Northern Ontario since time immemorial. The region is situated on the traditional territories of the Anishinabek (Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Saulteaux), Algonquin, Cree, and Oji-Cree Nations. Section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982 recognises and affirms the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada including the inherent right of self-government.
Six primary treaties between First Nations and the Crown cover Northern Ontario and have shaped the legal and political landscape of Indigenous rights, land use and resource developments in the region. The Robinson Treaties, signed in 1850, include the Robinson-Superior Treaty and the Robinson-Huron Treaty, which cover areas around Lake Superior and Lake Huron respectively. Treaty 3, also known as the North-West Angle Treaty, was signed in 1873 and covers north-western Ontario, including areas like Kenora and Sioux Lookout. Treaty 5, signed in 1875, extends into a small portion of Ontario, although it primarily covers Manitoba. The largest treaty in the province is Treaty 9, also known as the James Bay Treaty, which was signed in 1905-06 and covers much of Northern Ontario, including the land directly south of James Bay. Treaty 9 involves Cree and Anishinaabe peoples and was created to open up Northern Ontario for settlement and resource development.
programmesIn Canada, mining policy is a shared responsibility between federal and provincial governments, with specific tasks across level of governments:
The federal government is mainly in charge of national-scale thematic geoscience, nuclear energy, explosives regulations, international trade and investments, and navigable waters management.
The provinces are mainly in charge of resource ownership and management, jurisdiction scale framework geoscience, resource exploration and development regulations, operational licensing, permitting, and monitoring, land-use decision making.
Shared responsibilities include environmental protection and conservation, Indigenous affairs, Innovation, science, technology, R&D, infrastructure, uranium mining, health and safety, and land access.
Municipal governments are also central to achieving mining policy goals and securing broader development outcomes, by establishing local development plans, delivering and managing services for local communities, tailoring federal and provincial programmes to address community needs and managing land use for community development.
The administrative region of Northern Ontario is made up of 12 census divisions (hereafter subregions) Algoma, Cochrane, Greater Sudbury (city), Kenora, Manitoulin, Muskoka, Nipissing, Parry Sound, Rainy River, Sudbury (region), Thunder Bay, and Timiskaming. Many local districts are natural resource-based, relying significantly on mining, forestry, and energy (Northern Policy Institute, 2016[4]). Following the OECD definition of mining specialisation,2 5 out of the 12 are classified as mining subregions (Cochrane, Greater Sudbury, Sudbury, Timiskaming, and Rainy River).
The governance of mineral development also involves the interplay of Indigenous rights, policies and protocols. Under Section 35 of Canada’s Constitution Act, the Government of Canada has a duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous groups when it considers conduct that might adversely impact potential or established Aboriginal or treaty rights. (Government of Canada, 2025[5]).
Northern Ontario is at the centre of rising global and national demand for minerals
Global mineral demand is set to surge in the coming years, driven by the twin forces of decarbonisation and digital transformation. Even under a conservative scenario of phasing out fossil fuels with today’s policy settings, demand for minerals used in clean energy technologies is expected to double by 2030 (IEA, 2024[6]). This surge comes amid growing supply risks. Production is increasingly concentrated in a few countries, while export restrictions are expanding and- currently affecting about half of the minerals critical for energy technologies (IEA, 2025[7]). In response, most OECD countries have adopted actions to secure reliable mineral supplies and increase the competitiveness of the mining sector, viewed as a core priority for energy, economic development, and national security.
Mining activities are a crucial economic driver for both Ontario and Canada. It contributed directly about 4% of national GDP in 2022 (Mining Association of Canada, 2024[8]) and 3% of the provincial GDP in 2023 (Ontario Mining Association, 2025[9]). Indirectly, when including associated services, the sector contributed an addition 1.3% of the provincial GDP (Ontario Mining Association, 2025[10]). In 2023, the sector directly employed about 22,000 people in the province, earning an average of CAD 150 000 annually, nearly double the provincial all-industry average (Ontario Mining Association, 2025[10]).
Northern Ontario’s mining sector is vital to Canada’s objective of securing mineral supply and driving resilient, self-reliant economic growth, making up 26% of Canda’s total mineral production value in 2023 (NRCAN and Ontairo Ministry of Mines, 2023[11]). The region is a major source of critical minerals, other metals and related knowhow for the province and indeed the country (Ontario Mining Association, 2025[10]):
Producing over half Canada’s cobalt (56%) (NRCAN and Ontairo Ministry of Mines, 2023[11]), 39% of Canada’s nickel (Government of Canada, 2023[12]), 81% of Canada’s platinum group elements (Ontario Government, 2023[13]), and 44% of Canada’s copper (Ontario Government, 2023[15]). T is Canada’s top gold producing region (43% of Canada’s gold) (NRCAN and Ontairo Ministry of Mines, 2023[11]).
Hosting 27 of the 28 producing metals mines in Ontario in 2024, including nine active mines on critical minerals (OMA, 2025[14]).
Hosting ten processing facilities and over 25 advanced critical minerals projects that include processing, recycling and exploration.
Concentrating most of the 350 000 active mining claims in Ontario as per 2024, with the value of exploration activities representing 23% of the total exploration spend across Canada in 2023 (Ontario Mining Association, 2025[10])
Large planned critical minerals projects such as those proposed in the Ring of Fire area highlight its mineral-producing potential
The province is also recognised globally for its attractive environment in which to operate. It ranked 15th out of 82 jurisdictions worldwide in the 2024 Fraser Institute’s Investment Attractiveness Index, which evaluates both mineral potential and policy factors such as environmental regulations and community engagement (Fraser Institute, 2024[15]).
When compared with other mining regions, Northern Ontario outperforms OECD mining regions and national averages in income, tertiary education, women’s workforce participation, and lower GHG emissions intensity. However, it lags in unemployment, population growth, and economic diversification. Unemployment is higher than in Canada and OECD mining regions, while population growth remains limited (Figure 1.1). As this report will outline, Indigenous Peoples in Northern Ontario register better economic outcomes than Indigenous populations nationally and across rural regions in Canada, but continue to face significant gaps in income and quality of life compared to Northern Ontario’s average.
Note: in the Y axis, 100= OECD mining regions average
Source: OECD elaboration.
Northern Ontario has many assets to capitalise on the rising mineral demand.
Northern Ontario has historically relied on natural resource industries, with different focuses across communities. During the 1970s, forestry was a main economic activity in the west of the region (Thunder-Bay and Marathon area), while mining excelled in the east (Sudbury and Timmins). In the early 2000s, mining played a key role in fostering economic resilience across Northern Ontario, helping communities absorb the economic shocks caused by the decline of the forestry sector. Between 2000 and 2018, Ontario’s forestry sector shed over 35 000 jobs and saw a 60% drop in harvest volumes (Ontario Government, 2018[16]). In response to forestry decline, communities increasingly looked to mining as a driver of economic revitalisation and long-term development. While mining has offered new opportunities for employment and investment, lessons from past industrial dependence underscore the need for economic diversification.
Subregions with mining have relatively higher incomes in Northern Ontario
The five mining subregions that make up Northern Ontario’s mining sector are all characterised by over 6% of their labour force working in the sector and an employment rate over 45% as of 2021. Most areas, except Greater Sudbury have a very low population density, highlighting the geographical expansiveness of these regions.
Northern Ontario on average reports a higher median income (after tax) compared with other Canadian benchmarks, with relatively higher figures in mining subregions. In 2020, Northern Ontario’s median income (after tax) (CAD 37 663) was approximately 3.8% higher than Canadian rural regions and 2.3% above the national average (Statistics Canada, 2021[1]).
In the mining subregions of Northern Ontario, the median income (about CAD 39 000 in 2020) is approximately 5.8% higher than in non-mining subregions (CAD 36 900). For Indigenous Peoples, this is also the case, with those living in mining subregions recording a 16.4% higher median income than those living in non-mining subregions. This is likely, in part, due to relatively higher wages associated with employment in the sector. For instance, mining across Ontario offers considerably higher wages than provincial averages at nearly CAD 150 000 per year, which is nearly double the provincial average (Ontario Mining Association, 2025[10]) (OECD, 2023[17]).
The income gap between Indigenous Peoples and the regional average has narrowed faster in mining subregions than in non-mining subregions
The presence of mining in certain areas of Northern Ontario has also provided an avenue to address the income gap between Indigenous Peoples and regional median incomes. As of 2020, the income gap between Indigenous Peoples and the regional average was almost three times smaller in mining subregions (5.8%) than in non-mining subregions (19%). This has however, improved over time, particularly in mining subregions. Between 2006 and 2020, the income gap between Indigenous populations in mining regions and the regional average narrowed by 19.2 percentage points, falling from 25% to just 5.8%. This is almost twice as fast as the 11.1 percentage points reduction in the income gap between Indigenous Peoples and the regional average in non-mining regions (from 30.1% to 19%) (Figure 1.2).
Note: 2011 data is not included due to methodological differences in the National Household Survey, which was voluntary and not comparable to the mandatory censuses in 2001, 2006, 2016, and 2021.
Source: (Statistics Canada, 2021[1])
Snapshot of assets in Northern Ontario’s mining ecosystem
Northern Ontario has assets across the mining value chain, exceling in upstream support activities. The region stands out for its mineral endowment, research and education institutions, green energy supply to produce raw materials and its leading practices in Indigenous engagement in the sector Table 1.1.
Note: These examples and key figures are further elaborated across the report with the specific sources.
Unlike other rich-resource municipalities in the OECD (OECD, 2025[18]), non-Indigenous communities and some First Nations communities in Northern Ontario have a rather constructive approach towards mining projects. In Northern Ontario’s main population centres (i.e. Sudbury, Timmins, and Thunder Bay) municipal governments, First Nations, and communities generally view mining projects as opportunities for development and are open to negotiation. This is a strength in the business environment compared to other OECD countries, where local opposition has led to delays in project developments or even project vetoes- even during the exploration phase (e.g. in some EU countries).
Sudbury: an internationally recognised cluster for mining
Three main mining municipalities in the region provide services, know-how and labour markets that support the mining value chain and have the capacity to increase local value added from mining: Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Timmins. They are also service centres for advancing education and health outcomes for other municipalities in the region and First Nation communities.
Among these hubs, the City of Greater Sudbury stands out as an internationally renowned integrated cluster for mining, with all the characteristics of a world class innovation ecosystem for mineral raw materials. It combines knowledge institutions, more than nine mines within its city limits, research centres, large mining companies with processing facilities as well as more than 350 providers. This geographical concentration of assets in the mining value chain is a market-driven force that attracts additional businesses that aim to locate close to major clients and obtain spillovers from competitors.
The city is also exemplary in terms of grassroots and local government action to help address legacy mining effects. Decades of nickel and copper mining, along with smelting operations, had left a devastated, barren landscape—often described as a “moonscape” —due to widespread sulphur dioxide emissions and metal contamination. In the 1970s, a coalition among community members, local government, mining companies, scientists, and volunteers launched a campaign to rehabilitate the barren, acidified landscape, a re-greening process with about 14 million trees, which is recognised the world over.
However, structural bottlenecks should be addressed to transform mining wealth into greater well-being across the region.
Northern Ontario, like other OECD mining regions, is facing common challenges related to increasingly difficult conditions for mining projects, including declining ore quality, long lead times, and permitting hurdles compared with large producing countries in Africa or Asia. Additional pressures include a current downward pressure in prices and volatility due to short-term supply growth from established producers such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (cobalt), Indonesia (nickel), and China (natural graphite and lithium) (IEA, 2025[7]), as well as broader geopolitical uncertainty.
Beyond market-related bottlenecks, the region faces structural challenges to simultaneously enable competitive mining projects while leveraging these projects to deliver greater community well-being. Some of these challenges are linked to the region’s rural characteristics and remoteness, including workforce shortages, the high cost of providing public services and housing, as well as barriers to attain economies of scale in the local economy given the small domestic market.
Other challenges have emerged from planning and governance gaps. Securing First Nations’ meaningful engagement and consent is a top priority to advance regional well-being and provide certainty for mining project implementation. Additional challenges include persistent skill shortages, compounded by limited community attractiveness for retaining families and workers; insufficient municipal financial and planning capacity to translate mining activity into long-term development; and weaknesses in the mining innovation ecosystem, notably limited collaboration and access to funding.
The regional challenges identified in Table 1.2 directly impact mining projects by, for example, limiting access to local skills, suppliers, and services, while also undermining First Nations’ and communities’ acceptance, which can slow permitting and affect operational sustainability. At the same time, some of these challenges constrain communities from fully realising the economic and business opportunities offered by mining.
Note: These examples and key figures are further elaborated across the report with the specific sources.
Balancing competitiveness with First Nations engagement and regional well-being adds complexity to Northern Ontario’s mining ecosystem.
Amid rising global trade disruptions, advancing critical mineral projects has become strategically important to advance industrial capacity and the green transition in the country. Many OECD countries have implemented measures to increase industrial and mining competitiveness to secure critical minerals (OECD, 2025[19]). This is also the case of both the Canadian and Ontario governments, which are increasing support for domestic mining through regulatory reforms to accelerate project implementation.
In 2025, the federal level approved the Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy: An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act, and the Building Canada Act and created the new Major Projects Office (MPO), both with the aim to speed up approvals and financially support strategic projects. Similarly, Ontario approved the 2025 Bill 5. Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act aiming at minimising regulatory delays and reducing bureaucratic "red tape”. It includes the creation of "special economic zones" as a central feature, allowing the provincial cabinet to designate any area (such as the mineral-rich Ring of Fire in Northern Ontario) as exempt from many provincial and municipal laws and regulations, including those related to environmental protection, endangered species, and land use.
While speed and predictability are important to keep pace with international competition over minerals, project success and sustainability also depend on meaningful First Nations engagement and enabling local communities to translate mining into long-term development. Rights-holders acceptance and supportive local conditions are instrumental for competitive operations, facilitating access to deposits, streamlining approvals, mitigating environmental impacts, and providing the workforce, services, and infrastructure that are essential to efficient operations. For Canada and Ontario, balancing competitiveness goals with community well-being outcomes is crucial to avoid eroding trust gains with First Nations and to strengthen its position as a global leader in responsible mining practices and First Nations engagement.
Towards a stronger place-based policy to capitalise on mining and drive development in Northern Ontario: three areas of action.
This report underscores the value of adopting stronger place-based mining policies for Northern Ontario, to address structural challenges while leveraging the region’s unique assets to build a competitive minerals and metals sector that enhances long-term regional well-being. As mentioned above, key assets include world class mineral deposits, state of the art research and education institutions for mining, a mature business ecosystem, export-oriented infrastructure, green energy supply and established practices in engaging with Indigenous Peoples. Despite these strengths, Northern Ontario must continue to address persistent gaps, particularly in advancing partnerships with First Nations, tacking skills shortages, expanding affordable housing, strengthening its innovation eco-system and enhancing municipal planning and financial capacity. To this end, the report identifies recommendations across three priority areas:
1. Deepening First Nations engagement in and benefits from mining,
2. Boosting the competitiveness of Northern Ontario’s mining ecosystem through key enabling factors, and
3. Reinforcing the governance framework to leverage mining for long-term regional well-being
The following sections examine each of these areas in greater detail.
First area of action: Deepening First Nations engagement and benefits in mining
The region provides leading practices across OECD countries for Indigenous engagement in mining regions
In Canada, the governance of mineral development involves the interplay of Indigenous rights, policies and protocols, and federal and provincial governance. Treaty rights, such as the right to hunt or fish, are protected under the Constitution and based on treaties signed between Indigenous Peoples and the Crown. Treaties and their affirmation in the Constitution Act 1982 and subsequent jurisprudence provide the legal foundation for the multiple processes of self-determination.
In addition to constitutional rights, mining laws in Canada have evolved to incorporate various mechanisms to respect Indigenous rights, with practices varying between provinces and territories. In 2021, the federal government adopted the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDA), requiring the Canadian government to take steps to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDRIP), aligning federal laws with the Declaration, developing an action plan, and reporting annually to Parliament. This Act aims to advance reconciliation and address injustices against Indigenous Peoples. Provinces and territories have their own approaches in this regard, with British Columbia (2019) and the Northwest Territories (2023) being the provinces adopting similar legislation.
Additionally, the federal Impact Assessment Act (IAA) requires consultation mechanisms aligned with the UNDRIP’s free prior and informed consent when a mining project is a federally “designated project,” meaning those that meet particular size or capacity thresholds and/or are considered to potentially have adverse environmental effects in areas of federal jurisdiction (Government of Canada, 2025[20]).
In Ontario, the provincial government has advanced actions for reconciliation and creating strengthened partnerships with Indigenous Peoples. In 2009, the government of Ontario revised the Mining Act to better address First Nations rights by requiring mandatory consultation at key stages of mining exploration and development, introducing provisions to protect culturally significant sites from mining activity, and establishing mandatory training for prospectors on Indigenous rights. The amendments also established a dispute resolution process and encouraged partnerships between mining companies and First Nations. While Ontario has not adopted UNDRIP into provincial legislation, industry practice follows the federal requirement of the duty to consult with Indigenous communities on mineral exploration and mine production in Ontario (Government of Ontario, 2025[21]).
Indigenous engagement in mining in Northern Ontario has been further supported by various funding and support programmes from different levels of government. Federal support programmes generally emphasise large-scale priorities such as capacity building of Indigenous organisations and communities, infrastructure development, geoscience research, and regulatory participation. Ontario’s government support mainly focuses on Indigenous participation in regulatory processes, business and economic development, early-stage mineral exploration, and relationship building with mining companies (Table 1.3). Some municipal governments have also implemented memorandum of understanding with First Nations’ communities (see Marathon’s example further below).
Overall, these governmental actions have supported greater capacity and involvement of First Nations in mining projects in the Northern Ontario. As discussed in the report, many of these programmes have been used to support creation of Indigenous-led businesses in mining, environmental monitoring capacity, and greater participation in mining projects and forums.
Note: This is only a selection of programmes and not an exhaustive list. There are other programmes highlighted throughout the report that benefit Indigenous Peoples indirectly through training, employment, or capacity-building opportunities.
Furthermore, industry protocols and partnerships with First Nations in Ontario have also evolved to provide some communities with improved revenue streams, job opportunities, and business activities. Canada is home to an internationally recognised and adopted framework for responsible mining, Toward Sustainable Mining (TSM) from the Mining Association of Canada. This framework includes an Indigenous and Community Relationships Protocol to provide guidance and requirements for companies to work towards improved Indigenous engagement and free, prior, and informed consent.
Within this engagement process, Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) are the most common type of partnership in Canada. Over time these agreements have progressed from a focus on employment and environmental protections to encompass a wide range of activities such as education and training, business and contracting provisions, socio-cultural support and environmental monitoring frameworks. While IBAs have been an important tool for reaching meaningful engagement between companies and First Nations, some characteristics create challenges to ensure equitable outcomes for First Nations in Northern Ontario, including confidentiality clauses and transparency in terms of community knowledge on the final signature. In addition to IBAs, other mechanisms for community engagement have more recently emerged such as partnerships, ownership models, or Indigenous benefit funds.
Northern Ontario is home of notable examples of partnerships to enhance First Nations engagement and benefits from mining-related activities, some include:
Industry-First Nations partnerships, for example:
The Greenstone Gold Mines Partnership: a tripartite partnership between Greenstone Gold Mines Ltd., Kenogamisis Investment Corp. and Minodahmun Development LP (First Nations business entities) to leverage mining wealth for developing critical infrastructure and improving economic conditions of the communities (e.g. upgrade roads, funding Indigenous workforce development support). The Government of Ontario bolstered the deal with commitments of public funding.
Aki-eh Dibinwewziwin, an Indigenous-led mining partnership that provides mine contracting services. It was established by the First Nations of Atikameksheng Anishnawbek and Wahnapitae, together with Technica Mining, a leading Canadian mining contractor.
Canada Nickel Company’s agreement with the Mattagami, Matachewan, and Flying Post First Nations to prioritises First Nation-owned businesses for major project contracts, ensures regular engagement sessions, and includes mechanisms for land and environmental monitoring. It also established a First Nations Business Representative and specialised training programmes, emphasising transparency and local skills development.
Indigenous-led protocols to govern mining activities on their territories, for example:
Atikameksheng Anishnawbek have established clear consent protocols and require that mining proponents engage directly with the Nation before any development, emphasising equity ownership, participation, and protection of land for future generations.
Others, like the Wabun Tribal Council, have developed collective negotiation models and governance structures within Impact Benefit Agreements (IBAs) to ensure compliance and maximise benefits. Protocols often include requirements for cultural respect, traditional knowledge integration, and transparent procurement processes to prevent exploitation by non-Indigenous entities.
First Nations- Municipality partnerships:
The municipality of Marathon’s new port project, developed in partnership with Biigtigong Nishnaabeg First Nation a formal memorandum of understanding, where Biigtigong Nishnaabeg is a co-owner and co-decision-maker in the port authority. This ensures the Nation has a direct voice in the governance, management, and long-term planning of the port.
Despite this, First Nations face structural challenges that impact well-being, and bottlenecks for successful engagement in mining projects
Mining wealth produced from projects in Northern Ontario has not fully translated into greater quality of life for all First Nations across the region. Many First Nations communities, particularly those that are remote, still face socioeconomic and environmental challenges, including:
Economic: While economic performance of Indigenous Peoples across Northern Ontario has improved over time and tends to be better in mining subregions, Indigenous Peoples experience worse outcomes than average economic performance across the region. For instance, Indigenous Peoples have a median income that is 14% lower than the average in Northern Ontario (2020) and an unemployment rate that is 27% higher (2021).
Social and cultural challenges: Despite more recent socioeconomic contributions of mining to First Nations communities, some mining activities have disrupted traditional ways of life and cultural practices that are intimately connected to the land. For example, the influx of temporary workers has been associated with social issues in some communities, including increased availability of drugs, crime, and violence. These pressures compound unresolved challenges in quality of life for first Nation communities. For example, First Nations are, on average, twice as likely to live in poor housing conditions compared to the rest of the population, and the share of Indigenous communities in Ontario that rely on diesel for power generation (17.8%) is among the highest in the country.
Environmental and mining legacy challenges: Some mining activities have been linked to damages to the lands and waters that First Nations have relied on for millennia, particularly in cases were government control and monitoring has failed. Environmental impacts have included contamination of water sources from mine tailings and waste rock, affecting drinking water and aquatic ecosystems. Historic operations have also left negative perceptions on the industry, as the case of uranium mining dating back to the 1950s near Serpent River First Nation, which is linked to radioactive tailings in the watershed (Leddy, 2013[22]). Although mining practices, regulations, and monitoring have improved in recent years, continuous oversight and remediation of abandoned sites remain essential.
These challenges stem from a combination of factors, including gaps in proactive government and policy support, harmful historic industrial practices, and a lack of early and meaningful opportunities for First Nations to engage in mining-related decision-making. Based on the insights from interviews with First Nations leaders in Northern Ontario, as well as from the Indigenous Call to Action for Indigenous-led Pathways for Sustainable Futures in Mining Regions, developed during the 2024 OECD Conference of Mining Regions and Cities, this report outlines nine key considerations that are relevant to improve First Nations engagement and outcomes (Table 1.4).
Many of these key considerations imply greater involvement of First Nations. However, capacity and willingness to be involved in such engagement need to be carefully evaluated with each Nation, to ensure the appropriate support to carry out more engagement and to avoid consultation fatigue.
Priority actions to address key considerations for First Nations’ engagement and benefits from mining
Addressing the key considerations outlined above to improve First Nations engagement in, and benefits from, mining requires a set of both medium and long-term actions from the public and private sectors, in collaboration with First Nations. Northern Ontario is well placed to build further on advancements in First Nations engagement and to become an international benchmark for equitable and sustainable mining, with First Nations’ rights, knowledge, and leadership at the core of mineral resource development policies. Table 1.5 and chapter 3 in this report aim to provide a framework of action to advance these considerations. This framework is divided in five high level priorities, each with concrete recommendations:
1. Protect Indigenous land rights in mining-related laws and impact-benefit agreements.
2. Improve environmental information and safety for First Nations in mining communities.
3. Strengthen First Nations capacity to benefit from mining, including options for equity access- if desired,
4. Promote opportunities for access and inclusion of First Nations in mining project decision-making and mining-related businesses, if desired.
5. Provide support to First Nations to undertake -when desired- partnerships with levels of governments and different regional players.
Second area of action: Boosting the competitiveness of Northern Ontario’s mining ecosystem through key enabling factors
Although mining has long underpinned the region’s economy, today’s surging global demand for critical minerals presents an unparalleled opportunity to facilitate competitiveness of existing and new operations, while capitalising in this industry to boost economic resilience and growth with a responsible approach.
To this end, a strong regional mining ecosystem is instrumental to enable the local conditions for competitive and responsible mining projects, including supply of skills and support for innovation and business growth in mining as well as supportive infrastructure for projects and mining communities. Adopting an ‘ecosystem approach’ can help recognising the critical interplay between the mining sector and subnational development (OECD, 2025[19]).
Main regional enabling factors for Northern Ontario to achieve the dual goal of facilitating mining projects and ensuring long-term sustainable development locally include:
Enhancing the mining innovation ecosystem in the region.
Strengthening local labour markets for mining with a focus on the liveability of mining communities.
Leveraging mining for industrial and community infrastructure development.
Enhancing the mining innovation ecosystem in Northern Ontario
Innovation in the mining sector is a critical lever for aligning mineral development with regional growth. It can enhance supply efficiency, strengthen environmental sustainability, and unlock local business opportunities.
Northern Ontario is home to a diverse group of organisations with the capacity to drive innovation in the mining sector, supported by a long-standing tradition of mining research. These organisations collectively form a robust innovation ecosystem, drawing on years of expertise. It includes universities (Laurentian, Lakehead) hosting research centres dedicated to mining like MIRARCO, MERC, CESME, and industry-linked programmes. Colleges (Boreal, Cambrian, Confederation, Northern) provide applied research, training, and technology adoption hubs- such as Cambrian’s Centre for Smart Mining. Research bodies such as NORCAT drive tech development, commercialisation, and sustainability. Cluster organisations for the ecosystem (MineConnect) or focused on Indigenous-only (Indigenous Centre for Excellence in Mineral Development) foster networking, Indigenous-led innovation, and supply chain growth.
To support innovation projects in this ecosystem, more than six federal and provincial funding programmes exist. Some include:
Ontario’s Critical Minerals Innovation Fund (CMIF), which provides funding to innovative projects related to battery supply chain, innovative techniques for deep exploration and mining, recovery of minerals, and other innovative projects.
Ontario is also investing CAD500 million to create a new Critical Minerals Processing Fund to provide financial support for projects that accelerate the province's critical mineral processing capacity and made-in-Ontario critical minerals supply chain (Government of Ontario, 2025[23]).
Ontario’s Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation provides direct grants to innovation infrastructure and pilots.
Federal support from FedNor’s suite of business supports with at least five programmes for businesses to grow and innovation with potential links to mining, such as: Regional Economic Growth through Innovation (REGI), and Community Futures Program (CFP).
On top of this, there are relevant example if industry-led innovation support, in sharing know-how and providing funding. Examples of partnership with mining companies include:
A renewal of IAMGOLD’s partnership with Laurentian University in 2025, with a CAD 2.5 million investment into the IAMGOLD President’s Innovation Fund for Strategic Investment at Laurentian University supporting academic and research projects aligned with the university’s strategic priorities, especially in mineral resources and mining education.
Cambrian College’s collaboration with Vale to develop a Battery Electric Vehicle Industrial Program, as well as its Centre for Smart Mining’s partnerships with mining technology firms to facilitate industry entry.
Vale’s partnership with Laurentian University to explore value creation from mining waste.
Despite this innovation support, innovation outcomes in Northern Ontario remain below national and international benchmarks, with less than half the patents per inhabitant than the average of Canada’s rural regions (34.9 patents per 1 million inhabitants vs 54.9) and 80% of the OECD mining regions average (44.3). While patents are an imperfect proxy for innovation, since not all innovations are patented or registered where they are developed, the gap can be an indication of areas for improvement, especially given that many OECD mining regions face similar structural challenges.
Given the significant presence of R&D infrastructure and innovation players in the region, innovation issues may be due to a combination of other factors. These include the type and quality of collaboration among players, the lack of knowledge transfer and exchange among innovation players (given the vastness of the region), and the capacity to leverage R&D infrastructure and/or fund ideas for market-oriented innovation. The implementation of some flagship innovation projects has been slower than expected despite the funding support from federal and provincial programmes. Notable challenges include:
Lack of formal channels of interaction and common goals for innovation. Collaboration in Northern Ontario’s mining ecosystem largely depends on informal, ad-hoc networks built on personal relationships. While trust and frequent interaction in a small ecosystem at events like PDAC or the EV Batteries Conference in Sudbury are strengths, this model can entail bottlenecks, including vulnerability if people leave or relationships break down, newcomers integration, unclear common goals and tracking progress. No single body unites stakeholders around long-term regional innovation goals; with key actors like MICA, MineConnect, and MIRARCO having siloed agendas.
Unclear regional brand. Northern Ontario lacks a clear national or international brand as an integrated mining innovation hub. Each centre—Greater Sudbury, Timmins, Thunder Bay—promotes its own assets and strategies, with the Thunder Bay area further split into smaller clusters (Marathon, Terrace Bay, Greenstone). This localised approach strengthens local markets but presents the region as disconnected parts, missing opportunities to market its full potential and attract investment.
Indigenous innovation remains underutilised. Indigenous communities hold place-based knowledge that is critical for land stewardship, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection, offering solutions for mine reclamation, water monitoring, and climate adaptation. Yet systemic barriers in business language, shared work visions, funding access, digital infrastructure, and skills are all factors that limit Indigenous entrepreneurs’ participation in formal innovation platforms. Greater integration of Indigenous knowledge into mining processes and support for applied research collaborations could unlock fresh ideas for both the sector and First Nations. Examples include the Elders’ Advisory Council in Timmins for environmental restoration, social enterprises funded by resource revenues, and new frameworks for monitoring mining’s environmental impacts.
Fragmented, inconsistent public funding programmes with scope to improve feedback. Innovation funding in Northern Ontario lacks continuity, co-ordination, and feedback. Frequent programme changes with government turnover prevent existing initiatives from maturing. For large projects, public funding remains below needs, which can contrast to the stronger public support driving mining innovation in other producing countries. For instance, MIRARCO’s proposed CAD 38 million Centre for Mine Waste Biotechnology received multi-level government support from at least four sources, with public contributions covered about 20% of costs. For small firms or projects, navigating fragmented programmes (e.g., OCI, eCampus Ontario, NOHFC, Ontario Research Fund) is complex, with rejection feedback often absent, thus reducing their ability to improve applications.
Addressing these issues requires more tailored provincial and federal programmes adapted to the innovation ecosystems in Northern Ontario, which faces headwinds such as the substantial geographic distances between actors and a lack of scale in funding. To this end, some actions include:
Improving its provincial funding support to innovation by ensuring programmes are built for the long run, with medium- and long-term outcome indicators, and tailored to specific characteristics of innovation ecosystems in Northern Ontario. To do so, the region would benefit from conducting structural assessments of different municipal hubs to identify specific needs and tailor funding programmes accordingly. For example, multi-year grants for circular economy projects, such as repurposing waste rock for construction materials, can stimulate new businesses in the region.
Consolidating provincial and federal innovation funding. Streamline existing provincial and federal mineral innovation programmes into unified funds capable of delivering substantial investments for flagship projects. This would reduce fragmentation, maximise impact, and accelerate commercialisation.
Strengthening communication on funding programmes and feedback on the innovation application process. Greater outreach about programmes and application conditions might be needed for innovation players and First Nation who might need additional time to access information and sort out application processes. In turn, constructive feedback, as mentioned before, is also needed to help applicants refine their proposals and increase their chances of future success.
Expanding collaborations with mining companies to stimulate entrepreneurship through business support platforms, innovation challenges, pilot-testing opportunities, and transparent sharing of industry needs. For example, IAMGOLD’s innovation challenge, in partnership with Laurentian University and Google Developer Group (GDG) Sudbury, engaged students, AI specialists, and developers in designing AI solutions to evaluate open-pit blasts using drone footage.
Mining labour shortages in Northern Ontario: overcoming regional attractiveness, perception of mining jobs, and skills mismatches
Many institutions such as colleges, universities, research centres and companies within Northern Ontario’s innovation ecosystem also play a key role in education and training, forming a strong regional network for skills development. For example, most colleges offer mining-related courses and corporate upskilling programmes aligned with industry needs, helping maintain the pipeline of technical talent. Partnerships between colleges and companies demonstrate close collaboration in program design. Among universities, Laurentian University has established a strong balance between academic instruction and applied research in mining, aligning closely with the sector’s evolving needs.
One of Northern Ontario’s most renowned assets in education and training is NORCAT. Established in 1995 in Sudbury, NORCAT (Northern Centre for Advanced Technology) is a not-for-profit innovation and training hub that delivers world-class mine safety training, operates Canada’s only underground training mine, and supports advanced mining technology development and commercialisation.
Despite being a mature mining jurisdiction with a historic mining presence, the region’s industry continues to face challenges in filling technical and professional positions. Several factors contribute to labour shortages in the mining industry:
Low awareness and misconceptions about work in mining, particularly among youth. Mining is often seen as physically demanding with poor work–life balance. In polls of 3 000 Canadian youth (2020 and 2023), it ranked last among nine career sectors; in 2023, 40% said they would “definitely not” consider it (The Mining Industry Human Resources Council (MiHR), 2023[24]). Despite high pay and available jobs, concerns about safety, skills requirements, and lifestyle persist. However, campaigns such as “This is Mine Life" are working to encourage young people and newcomers to consider a career in Canada’s mining sector.
Barriers to attracting people to live in remote mining communities. Many new Northern Ontario operations are in rural, remote areas with scarce affordable housing, childcare, cultural amenities, and quality services. Marathon, for example, attracts and trains young people but struggles to retain professionals due to outdated recreational facilities (e.g. swimming pool) and high housing costs. Shortages in healthcare staff in small municipalities can also limit local addiction and support services.
Barriers to re-skilling and certification. Some certification and training programmes are seen as complex, bureaucratic, and concentrated in larger hubs. For example, in Marathon municipality, a lack of licensed transportation drivers, combined with no public transport, limits access to mining jobs, especially for youth facing social, health, or other barriers to obtaining a driver's licenses. Vocational certifications, such as truck driver licensing, lack national standardisation. Furthermore, small municipal and First Nations governments often lack the capacity to manage provincial skills fund applications and reporting.
To address these issues, collaborative policy approaches with industry and local governments can help elevate mining’s workforce attractiveness, enhance community appeal for workers and their families, and strengthen local workforce capability:
Policies to attract youth and women to mining should benefit from hands-on/experiential outreach to students and parents with plain language, along with clear training pathways for career exploration in high school.
Culturally relevant, community-partnered outreach within First Nations can demystify mining careers.
Improved liveability in mining communities, including affordable housing, quality healthcare, childcare, recreation, and cultural amenities, is essential to attract and keep workers and their families. While different levels of governments have responsibility in community well-being and dedicate specific support programmes to this end (e.g., NOHFC, FedNor), partnerships with mining companies can help gain scale in community investments and address mining impacts on communities. For example, agreements with mining companies could seek to:
Support community infrastructure, recreational and cultural activities and local initiatives to safeguard environmental amenities. Some success stories exist in the region, for example Newmont Goldcorp’s support of community well-being in Red Lake through a range of social and infrastructure initiatives. Other example was the involvement of mining companies in land rehabilitation efforts in Sudbury.
Align strategies to better integrate transient workers in local economies and community lifestyle. For example, in Coolgardie, Australia, the local government partnered with companies to renovate old buildings in town and turn them into worker accommodations, avoiding the construction of camps and encouraging those workers to further interact with the local economy.
Stronger workforce data and forecast capacity by further developing a pre-employment screening systems, leveraging new technologies (such as AI) to identify regional occupation and skills demand and map workforce characteristics
Partnerships with mining companies for career exploration opportunities in high school (e.g. forward contracts in mining), and expansion of on-the-job training and mentoring.
Infrastructure gaps: housing shortages and scope for energy and transport developments
Despite its resource wealth, parts of Northern Ontario still suffer pronounced infrastructure deficits due to its vast size and low population. Many First Nation communities remain disconnected to road infrastructure and the energy grid and lack secure access to clean water. Mining projects can be leveraged to support these investments. Moreover, housing shortages and a lack of available land can hamper capacity to attract families and new business to the region.
Shortages of affordable housing and land to attract new families and businesses
Housing accessibility has been a long-lasting issue for liveability in the region. Between 2016-24, homelessness in Northern Ontario grew four times faster than in non-northern communities (Donaldson et al., 2025[25]). Lack of affordable housing in Northern Ontario is a multifaceted issue influenced by remoteness and low population that limits economies of scale for housing investments. Key issues include:
High construction cost given short building season, distance to building providers, and vast distances between houses that increase the cost of water and electricity connections. High costs discourage developers from initiating affordable housing projects and also landlords and homeowners from investing in maintenance and repairs.
Labour shortages for construction since mining activity draws workers away from residential construction by offering higher wages
Lack of available land. Large swathes of land inside the municipal boundaries may be dedicated to mining activities, with companies reserving areas beyond the mine operation itself in case new extensions and discoveries are feasible. Municipalities are also limited by federal land and large portions of land dedicated to natural protected areas
Investment uncertainties and price impact due to cyclical nature of mining. This was the case of Greenstone municipality with the arrival of the Equinox mine in 2020, where more than 300 people were needed for the construction phase, and residents eagerly anticipated renting or selling housing to some of the workers.
The provincial government can leverage mining momentum by complementing targeted public investments with partnerships with mining companies that help to:
Release unused lands under mining tenure for community use.
Reduce construction costs through economies of scale (e.g. in material transport) and shared service providers.
Refurbish existing housing stock.
Repurpose post-mining camps for housing or planning since the outset for such intention, if feasible.
Additional policy measures include targeted public funding and homeowner repair incentives in small municipalities where financial access and incentives for housing investments are low. Collaboration with Indigenous communities on culturally relevant solutions for housing is also an important action to make housing more affordable and enhance quality.
Other OECD mining regions offer instructive examples of housing partnerships. In Western Australia's Pilbara, BHP committed AUS 158 million over 15 years to improve and expand housing stock and refurbish approximately 700 homes with modern amenities for workers and families. The company also sold some houses dedicated to transient workers to the Shire of East Pilbara and leased others to Indigenous organisations.
Transport and energy infrastructure gaps
Northern Ontario’s mining sector and communities face some critical gaps in transport, energy, and digital infrastructure. In the north of the region, many First Nations and remote settlements lack all-season roads, relying on costly, short-season winter roads (3 160 km) and air transport via 29 provincial remote airports. Limited rail access constrains mining competitiveness.
While Northern Ontario’s hydroelectric energy supply is an asset for producing minerals with low CO2 emissions, some mining sites and over a dozen fly-in First Nations remain off-grid, relying on expensive, polluting diesel generators. Large-scale renewable energy projects lag behind southern Ontario. Digital connectivity is also limited, with many communities lacking high-speed Internet; recent fibre and satellite initiatives remain incomplete.
Federal and provincial governments can prioritise partnerships with First Nations to leverage mining projects in addressing infrastructure gaps. This includes ensuring that infrastructure support for mining (e.g. provided through the Critical Minerals Infrastructure Fund) can be aligned with public initiatives to meet community needs and contribute to shared access roads, railways, and power lines. Bottom of FormFor example, workers and materials for an industrial road construction in remote communities can be co-ordinated to also deliver other essential local infrastructure.
There are also grassroots and Indigenous-led models that can be boosted to support such community needs. For example, the Wataynikaneyap Power project, delivering grid power to 24 remote communities, is just one such example of an effective approach.
Third area of action: Reinforcing the governance framework to leverage mining for long-term regional well-being
Northern Ontario benefits from a strong set of provincial and federal policies aimed at supporting mining competitiveness and increasing Indigenous and local communities’ capacity and opportunities to benefit from mining.
However, the region’s ability to fully realise these benefits is constrained by limited access and implementation capacity for existing programmes, and insufficient co-ordination across governments, industries, and communities. This report identifies that three priorities that can help local governments harness benefits from mining:
Enhancing planning capacity at the local level to secure lasting benefits from mining.
Improving municipal access to funding for mining community development.
Strengthen horizontal co-ordination at local level to improve mining governance.
Enhancing local planning capacity to secure lasting benefits from mining
Maximising local benefits from mining in Northern Ontario requires municipal capacity to help align federal and provincial policies with local needs and prepare community readiness to benefit from mining. Some municipalities in the region have mining strategies to ensure projects are aligned with their development community goals. For example, Thunder Bay’s first Mining Readiness Strategy was issued in 2020 with the aim to maximise and expand benefits from the sector.
However, long-term municipal planning to connect mining with development needs and prepare communities for project changes has scope for improvement or is non-existent in some small municipalities. Municipal governments in the region face significant challenges in accessing mining project’s information, planning strategically, and anticipating operational timelines. Specific challenges identified in this report include:
Late or limited involvement in project planning, which is typically handled at the provincial level. Without early information, they cannot plan infrastructure, housing, or services in time for operational changes.
Projects outside municipal boundaries can still place demands on municipal services-such as road maintenance, security, and amenities-without generating tax revenue.
Capacity to leverage fly-in/fly-out (FIFO) or drive-in/drive-out (DIDO) workforces for community development. FIFO models can be efficient for companies and serve as a resilience strategy to reduce the need for long-term infrastructure investment for temporary operations. However, permanent FIFO/DIDO arrangements, such as mine camps located outside municipal towns, can increase some costs for local communities, exacerbate inequality, and generate social tensions. Many small municipalities require further support to increase readiness in using existing infrastructure and community services to accommodate transient workers or implement models that integrate them culturally and economically. The Greenstone Municipality case highlights a recent missed opportunity to maximise the benefits of transient worker integration due to inadequate housing options.
Long-term planning at the municipal level. Some Northern Ontario municipalities lack long-term development plans, limiting their ability to attract investment, diversify economies, and align funding with local priorities. Capacity constraints, small labour markets, and vast territories hinder planning. Without consistent timelines, monitoring, or forward-looking strategies, support remains top-down.
Based on experiences from other OECD mining regions and existing multilevel co-ordination forums in Canada – e.g. the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Mineral Industry- Ontario could adopt a more systematic approach to strengthen collaboration across levels of government and among provincial departments to support municipalities facing new or expanding mining projects. Some action could include:
Establishing a multi-stakeholder committee to prepare communities before new mining projects come online or existing mines undergo significant changes. Such a committee could bring together rights holders and local actors from a specific project or municipality to identify community and First Nations priorities ahead of projects. The Saskatchewan’s Sylvite Four-Six Regional Development Partnership for BHP’s Jansen project offers a model for this, building capacity in local governments and First Nations to jointly plan to make the most of mining projects.
Developing a communities’ group at the provincial or municipal level to support development of mineral related-strategies, align local and industrial plan for the future and help with policy implementation. Other OECD regions have established this type of governance groups. For example, Antofagasta in Chile established a multi-stakeholder group to help define the priority actions of the regional mining strategy and monitor their implementation.
Improving municipal access to funding for mining community development
While the provincial government holds primary responsibility for development and service delivery in Northern Ontario (e.g. health, education, welfare or highways), municipalities play a critical role in maintaining community liveability and attractiveness. They manage local transport, emergency services, utilities, recreation, land-use planning, social housing, and share responsibility for social protection. In this context, mining municipalities also bear costs linked to the presence of resource industry in the area, notably:
Environmental: Funding land rehabilitation, pollution monitoring, and ecosystem restoration.
Social: Supporting services to address potential violence, mental health issues, and substance misuse, particularly in towns with high fly-in/fly-out (FIFO) populations.
Infrastructure: Maintaining municipal roads affected by heavy industrial traffic and ensuring adequate housing options for workers.
Economic: Offering competitive salaries for municipal staff and fostering growth in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
Ontario derives mining revenue from taxes on corporate profits (10% on taxable profits over CAD 500 000; 5% for remote operations) and fees for Crown land use. These revenues, however, do not automatically benefit municipalities that host the mines. To redistribute the income from resource industries and partly mitigate the local externalities form mining, the Ontario government relies on the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation (NOHFC), which provides financial support focused on economic development, investments and business expansion across a range of industries. The NOHFC has delivered substantial benefits to Northern Ontario, particularly in supporting economic growth, innovation, and job creation.
In 2021, the Ontario government launched the Northern Ontario Resource Development Support (NORDS) as a five-year pilot program to help municipalities fund infrastructure linked to resource activity. NORDS has been positively received for its straightforward application process and its flexibility, allowing use for any capital project, multi-year stacking, and combination with other grants.
However, mining municipalities face challenges and uncertainties in ensuring that funds and fiscal revenues cover mining externalities over time. According to OGRA, municipalities are disproportionately responsible for the upkeep of local infrastructure, yet face significant structural funding shortfalls. This contributes to Ontario’s infrastructure deficit related to roads and bridges (Miller Thomson, 2023[26]). Some challenges include:
Baseline calculation of property taxes in some municipalities is outdated, still based on 2016 assessments (Miller Thomson, 2023[26]). This calculation mainly relies on provincial decision. Property taxes represent the highest share of fiscal income for municipalities (≈40% of total revenue). Therefore, outdated property values imply that some industrial and mining properties might be taxed at much lower rates than their market value.
Uncertainty regarding access to provincial and federal grants create fiscal imbalances. The transfers from NOHFC are project-based grants or loans, allocated based on a competitive application process for the municipalities. While it is good to ensure relevant and efficient economic projects, the process requires municipalities to navigate a bureaucratic application for project-based support, but with no guarantee of funding. Similarly, NORDS’ permanence is uncertain beyond 2026 or with future government changes.
Few municipalities have established formal partnerships or memorandums of understanding with mining companies to evaluate ways to translate mining wealth into local revenues. This is particularly important for operations located just outside municipal boundaries but dependent on community services, local roads, and infrastructure. These arrangements should also be developed in consultation with First Nations to increase legitimacy and alignment on shared benefits. Marathon’s legislative agreement with Barrick Gold mine to tax mine buildings that are outside the municipal boundaries provides a model for other municipalities in the region. This agreement has generated fiscal revenue to strengthen planning, infrastructure, and services, while also preparing communities for future developments.
Policy options for Ontario to strengthen municipal capacity and local benefits include modernising industrial and mining property assessments, expanding municipal authority to set property tax rates for mining operations, making NORDS infrastructure funding permanent, and streamlining grant processes while increasing multi-year provincial and federal support. In other countries (e.g., Finland), the renewed demand for minerals has also led to revisions of the royalty system to allocate a fixed portion to municipalities that host mines, as well as to some neighbouring municipalities that bear indirect impacts.
Strengthen horizontal co-ordination at local level to improve mining governance
The municipal governments in the region have scope to improve their collaboration in terms of joint projects as well as sharing practices in their interaction with mining companies. Currently, municipal plans are mostly done separately, with little mention of joint opportunities with neighbouring municipalities. In some cases, this results in missed opportunities for common policies that could better connect regional actors and Indigenous Peoples within the innovation ecosystem.
The region already has mechanisms that promote inter-municipal co-ordination on specific aspects that could be expanded to other areas. For example, the Ontario’s Local Employment Planning Councils (LEPCs) co-ordinates labour-market analysis across regions.
Beyond ad hoc councils, Northern Ontario can strengthen their regional governance by leveraging intermunicipal forums for capacity-building and knowledge sharing on mining. This could include creating municipal partnerships to collectively handle planning and foresight tasks. For example, Alberta’s Municipal Government Act requires neighbouring municipalities to establish Intermunicipal Collaboration Frameworks (ICFs), facilitating joint service delivery, co-ordinated funding, and strategic planning. Other OECD mining regions, such as North Karelia (Finland) have established an inter-municipal development agency from which municipalities acquire planning and foresight capacity or other market or analytical services.
References
[25] Donaldson, J. et al. (2025), Municipalities under pressure: The human and financial cost of Ontario’s homelessness crisis., HelpSeeker., https://www.amo.on.ca/sites/default/files/assets/DOCUMENTS/Reports/2025/2025-01-08-EndingChronicHomelessnessinOntario.pdf.
[15] Fraser Institute (2024), Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2024, https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/2025-07/annual-survey-of-mining-companies-2024_0.pdf.
[20] Government of Canada (2025), Designating a Project under the Impact Assessment Act, https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment-agency/services/policy-guidance/designating-project-impact-assessment-act.html#toc001.
[5] Government of Canada (2025), Government of Canada and the duty to consult, https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1331832510888/1609421255810#sec1.
[12] Government of Canada (2023), Nickel facts, https://natural-resources.canada.ca/minerals-mining/mining-data-statistics-analysis/minerals-metals-facts/nickel-facts.
[23] Government of Ontario (2025), Ontario Investing $500 Million in Critical Minerals Processing, https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1005969/ontario-investing-500-million-in-critical-minerals-processing (accessed on May 2025).
[21] Government of Ontario (2025), Ontario’s Ring of Fire, https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontarios-ring-fire (Accessed on August 2025).
[7] IEA (2025), Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2025, , IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/global-critical-minerals-outlook-2025, Licence: CC BY 4.0.
[6] IEA (2024), Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2024, , IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/global-critical-minerals-outlook-2024, Licence: CC BY 4.0.
[2] Landsby (2023), A Short Guide to Northern Ontario.
[22] Leddy, L. (2013), Poisoning the Serpent: Uranium Exploitation and the Serpent River First Nation, 1953-1988, The Natures of Empire and the Empires of Nature, edited by Karl Hele, 125-147. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
[26] Miller Thomson (2023), Reassessment of Ontario properties officially delayed and taxpayers’ rights to challenge thier assessment, https://www.millerthomson.com/en/insights/real-estate/reassessment-ontario-properties-delayed-taxpayers-rights-challenge-assessments/.
[8] Mining Association of Canada (2024), The Mining Story 2024.
[4] Northern Policy Institute (2016), Les Francophones du Nord de l’Ontario.
[11] NRCAN and Ontairo Ministry of Mines (2023), Mineral Production Ontario 2024, https://www.ontario.ca/files/2024-10/mines-poduction-factsheet-en-2024-10-11.pdf.
[18] OECD (2025), Enhancing Regional Mining Ecosystems in the European Union: Securing the Green Transition and Supply of Mineral Raw Materials, OECD Rural Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/97ba1224-en.
[19] OECD (2025), Enhancing Regional Mining Ecosystems in the European Union: Securing the Green Transition and Supply of Mineral Raw Materials, OECD Rural Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/97ba1224-en.
[17] OECD (2023), Average annual wages.
[27] OECD (2022), OECD Toolkit for Mining Regions Wellbeing, https://oecd-main.shinyapps.io/mining-regions-wellbeing/.
[14] OMA (2025), Ontario Mining Operations 2025, https://oma.on.ca/Mining_Operations_2025-03-18.pdf.
[13] Ontario Government (2023), Nickel, Copper, Platinum Group Elements, https://www.ontario.ca/files/2024-10/mines-nickel-copper-platinum-group-elements-en-2024-10-11.pdf.
[3] Ontario Government (2018), Indigenous peoples in Ontario.
[16] Ontario Government (2018), Sustainable Growth: Ontario’s Forest Sector Strategy.
[9] Ontario Mining Association (2025), Economic Contribution.
[10] Ontario Mining Association (2025), OMA Releases State of the Ontario Mining Sector Report.
[1] Statistics Canada (2021), Census Profile, 2021 Census of Population.
[24] The Mining Industry Human Resources Council (MiHR) (2023), PERCEPTIONS AND INTEREST IN A MINING SECTOR CAREER, https://mihr.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/MiHR-Youth-Perceptions-Survey-Presentation-2023.pdf.
← 1. Canada’s Constitution recognises three distinct Indigenous groups: First Nations (formerly referred to in law as “Indians”), Inuit, and Métis. In Northern Ontario, land and resource rights are primarily held by First Nations through historic treaties, while Métis communities also hold recognised rights related to harvesting. Accordingly, the term “First Nations” will be used when referring to assessments, policies or activities relating specifically to land rights holders in Northern Ontario, including engagement with mining projects. The broader term “Indigenous Peoples” will be reserved for general usage, such as statistics (which include all Indigenous Peoples residing in Northern Ontario), official federal and provincial programmes, or references to international best practices Different government roles on mineral-related policies for the region.
← 2. Regional mining specialisation at the OECD is based on employment location quotients (LQ): comparing the share of mining employment in the region, with the share of mining employment in the country. A value of LQ above one implies that the region is more specialised than its respective country (OECD, 2022[27]). In this case, applying a threshold of LQ above 1.5 (meaning there are 1.5 times more people employed in the sector relative to the national average) to the Northern Ontario census divisions delivers 5 mining subregions (Cochrane, Greater Sudbury, Sudbury, Timiskaming, and Rainy River) and 7 non-mining subregions (Muskoka, Nipissing, Parry Sound, Manitoulin, Algoma, Thunder Bay, and Kenora.