This chapter explores relationships between diverse First Nations, governments and the mining industry, with recommendations on how to create more equitable and sustainable outcomes for First Nations rightsholders in Northern Ontario. It first describes Indigenous rights recognition within Canadian mineral-related laws. Then, it examines the challenges and opportunities faced by First Nations in engaging with mining operations in Northern Ontario, and the mining industry’s environmental, social, and economic impacts. Finally, it proceeds to outline Indigenous-led pathways for sustainable futures, organised into four themes: rights, planning and capacity building, access and inclusion, and partnerships.
Mining Regions and Cities in Northern Ontario, Canada
Abstract
Northern Ontario has made important strides in strengthening dialogue and partnerships between First Nations and the mining sector in recent decades including numerous initiatives by government and private sector to advance opportunities for First Nations. Yet, despite this and the wealth created by mining activities in the region there are still communities that lack access to drinkable water, reliable electricity, and affordable housing (Chapter 2). The renewed surge of mining activity in Northern Ontario combined with growing social and market pressure for responsible projects presents an opportunity to strengthen First Nations’ engagement and benefits and help close persistent socio-economic gaps.
In recent decades, Canada and the province of Ontario have promoted numerous rights-based, partnership-driven approaches in mining engagements with First Nations. Amendments to Ontario’s 2009 Mining Act introduced mandatory consultation and enhanced cultural protections. At the federal and provincial levels, targeted funding programmes, such as the Indigenous Natural Resource Partnerships Program and Ontario’s Indigenous Opportunities Financing Program, are strengthening First Nations’ business capacity and participation in mining governance. Loan guarantee schemes have expanded access to capital, enabling communities to secure equity stakes and take part more fully in large-scale resource and infrastructure projects, if they so desire.
Northern Ontario already offers notable examples of First Nations’ active participation in the region’s mining sector, including equity ownership in projects, First Nations-led environmental monitoring, and economic coalitions including First Nations. Company-led programmes on transparency, respect for Indigenous knowledge, and shared prosperity are also leading practices in the region. As Canada advances its commitment to align domestic laws with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), these federal and provincial practices position Ontario as a good example in promoting Indigenous rights in the mining sector across the OECD.
Advances in mining for development and economic competitiveness should be carried out in order to ensure that First Nations also benefit from these developments. Approaches to streamline permitting and speed up projects, such as Ontario’s Bill 5 “Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025” need to be carefully implemented to ensure meaningful Indigenous engagement in mining projects’ approvals and implementation. Furthermore, Ontario’s Mining Act has scope to be further strengthened as a mechanism to support meaningful engagement including addressing some exemptions of brownfield sites from consultation, gaps in access to environmental data, and better aligning the provincial legal framework with Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of the UNDRIP in all stages of mineral development. This means actively involving First Nations representatives in shaping permitting, regulatory, and legislative reforms.
As mining accelerates, support mechanisms for First Nations must also expand. Complex government processes and insufficient outreach continue to hinder access to capital and procurement opportunities, highlighting the need for support to combat consultation fatigue. Additionally, continued efforts are needed to mitigate risks from mining, including environmental contamination from mine tailings and abandoned sites, violence against Indigenous women and girls in mining zones, and disruption of traditional land uses.
Ontario has the potential to demonstrate further leadership in promoting responsible mining that upholds Indigenous rights and brings real and lasting benefits to communities, which would also increase investment predictability and project sustainability.
Main Recommendations
Rights to Land, environment, and safety
Ensure Indigenous rights are protected in mining related laws and contracts, by:
Building on existing Indigenous engagement protocols from the public and private sector in collaboration with First Nations across Ontario to provide a formal mechanism for guiding companies towards securing FPIC. While many companies already carry out activities to achieve FPIC (to varying degrees), a formalised mechanism can provide all companies, especially those in exploration phases and those who are not currently members of frameworks such as Towards Sustainable Mining (TSM), with a guideline and set of monitoring principles to strengthen FPIC across the region and move closer to aligning provincial activities with UNDRIP.
Developing mechanisms for Indigenous co-management of abandoned mine site reclamation (accessible for communities that wish to be involved), including participation in decision-making, oversight, and integration of traditional knowledge in risk assessments and monitoring.
Evaluate amendments to Ontario’s Mining Act to encourage consultation and benefit-sharing for expansions of existing (brownfield) mines and patented lands, which are in some cases exempt. To reduce consultation fatigue for First Nations, each Impact-Benefit Agreement can specify the preferred thresholds of that particular First Nation for amendments to brownfield sites that will trigger consultation, ranging from all amendments to only major changes.
Improve transparency and access to environmental information related to mining projects, by:
Updating Ontario’s Abandoned Mines Information System (AMIS) to include regular, up-to-date field assessments, a functional risk-ranking tool with transparency on risk-ranking assignment, comprehensive tracking of hazards, integration of Indigenous knowledge, and public accessibility.
Promoting a common system for easy access to information about the status of implementation of standards for responsible mining (e.g. Towards Sustainable Mining) and transparency on their monitoring. The system could further show whether the standards adopted on a particular project include clear guidance on how FPIC is obtained, and how Indigenous knowledge is integrated into environmental monitoring and governance.
Enhance safety for Indigenous people in mining communities and operations, by:
Considering adopting an already established Indigenous gender-based safety framework at the provincial level (such as IGBA+). It can be used for monitoring to address safety risks for Indigenous women, girls, Two-Spirit, and gender-diverse individuals.
The framework can include creating governance and reporting frameworks (e.g., task forces), through cooperation of industry and government and First Nations, for ongoing monitoring and assessment of safety issues. It should include community-based incident reporting systems, especially in vulnerable regions to address anticipatory planning, funding for the diversity of safety issues and Indigenous-led training and data collection for safety frameworks.
Strengthen capacity building for First Nations organisations to ensure communities can fully benefit from mining project opportunities, by
Supporting capacity development in the sector by building on existing training workshops tailored to First Nations communities and organisations/businesses (e.g., support a train-the-trainer model for in-community program delivery). This includes leveraging the region’s education and training institutions to provide resources to address individual community’s capacity needs, with access to more in-depth training programmes.
Increasing capacity and knowledge/information within communities specifically on the topic of accessing equity ownership in mining projects and supply chains, if desired, through tailored training programmes.
Evaluating with First Nations their desire to expand Indigenous Guardians programs into mining regulatory frameworks to include First Nations knowledge in safeguarding the environment. Federal and provincial governments, in collaboration with the mining industry and First Nations should include Guardians’ participation in environmental assessments, permitting, and compliance monitoring, ensuring that both Traditional Knowledge and scientific data are used in decision-making. Indigenous-led environmental stewardship frameworks could help guide project assessments and ongoing monitoring, focusing on cumulative impacts over the project lifecycle and planning across environmental, health, and social risks.
Ensure opportunities for First Nations co-ownership/equity in mining projects if desired, by
Strengthening and ensuring viability of funding programs to enable communities to participate in mining project ownership if desired. Utilise programmes such as such as Ontario’s Indigenous Participation Fund and New Relationship Fund and the federal Indigenous Natural Resource Partnerships Program, particularly for communities with moderate or emerging mineral activity.
Ensuring loan guarantee programs at both federal and provincial levels (e.g., Canada’s Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program and Ontario’s Indigenous Opportunities Financing Program) support both new (greenfield) and existing (brownfield) projects.
Considering facilitating information mechanisms to support partnerships between companies and First Nations communities that prioritise offering equity stakes to First Nations in new projects at both the pre-Final Investment Decision (pre-FID) and post-FID stages of project development.
Exploring the viability of a First Nations Resource Charge to allow First Nations to opt in and agree with government and industry a pre-specified charge on resource development projects within their traditional territories. This approach can assist with providing communities with stable and predictable revenues, while also streamlining negotiations and improving predictability for companies. The First Nations Tax Commission have been exploring such an approach.
Resourcing research on innovative models of Indigenous co-ownership that can contribute to de-risking operations for First Nations communities in Northern Ontario.
Enhance access and inclusion of First Nations in decision making and business opportunities, by
Ensuring procurement policies advance Indigenous economic development and reconciliation as co-operation among governments, Indigenous and companies, as previously recommended by the 2019 OECD report Linking Indigenous Communities with Regional Development in Canada, by:
Evaluating with First Nations and companies the development of clear Indigenous procurement targets, and policies, potentially utilising the Indigenous Business Definition developed by National Indigenous organisations.
Where First Nations rightsholders express interest, considering procurement quotas for Indigenous-owned firms in remediation contracts, with verified Indigenous-owned businesses, and a dedicated legacy remediation fund, co-managed with Indigenous partners to address high-risk sites.
Promoting opportunities for the optional inclusion of First Nations in mining project decision-making. While some agreements between First Nations and mining companies already include project decision-making roles and regular feedback mechanisms, sector-wide consistency and accountability could increase the credibility of sustainability efforts that are part of mining projects.
Expanding and fund Indigenous-led land-based learning programmes, including Indigenous Guardians and culturally grounded training initiatives, by supporting the development of region-specific curricula, Indigenous-led training hubs, and partnerships with educational institutions and mining companies, ensuring these programmes blend traditional knowledge with technical mining skills, use cohort-based models, and provide hands-on, community-based learning opportunities that foster self-determination, environmental stewardship, and workforce readiness for diverse roles in mining.
Supporting engagement of Northern Ontario First Nation communities to join international Indigenous networks and international platforms on mining policy.
Strengthen partnerships and collaboration between Nations where desired, by
Expanding the Comprehensive Community Planning initiative to support regional planning in addition to community level plans.
Enhancing the role of Indigenous Financial Institutions to include support for strategic planning activities.
Investing in optional mechanisms to increase collaboration among First Nations and municipalities through joint training, shared resources, and collaborative economic development initiatives, such as the Community Economic Development Initiative (jointly run by the Council for the Advancement of Native Development Officers and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities), to strengthen both communities and facilitate joint projects.
Having annual regional mining roundtables involving First Nation and industry leaders to build relationships and encourage dialogue amongst these parties.
Northern Ontario is situated on the traditional territory of the Anishinaabe peoples, including the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Saulteaux, Algonquin, as well as the Cree and Oji-Cree Nations. These Nations have stewarded the land since time immemorial. 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 (see Box 1.2 for overview of terminology). First Nations governments exercise this jurisdiction through their laws, policies, and practices. The Government of Ontario views the expansion of mining as a driver to bring multigenerational opportunities to Northern Ontario, including First Nations communities. It has taken early legal and policy steps to improve relations between First Nations and the mining sector, notably through the 2009 amendments to Ontario’s Mining Act, which introduced requirements for consultation and recognition of Indigenous rights in mining exploration and developments (Ma’lingan, 2012[1]). While the direct benefits of mining to First Nations are difficult to quantify due to the confidentiality of agreements1, census data shows that Indigenous Peoples living in mining-specialised subregions of Northern Ontario have higher incomes and employment growth compared to those in non-mining areas (Chapter 2). By the end of 2024, Indigenous workers made up roughly 15% of Northern Ontario’s mining workforce, thus reflecting their considerable involvement in the sector.
Despite legislative and policy advancements and the aforementioned economic gains, the wealth generated by mining has disproportionately benefited companies and non-Indigenous populations, with persisting gaps in economic and social well-being indicators between First Nations and other communities in the region (Chapter 2). Challenges include impacts on health (mental, physical, emotional, spiritual), traditional land use, environmental stewardship, and community safety.
This chapter explores relationships between diverse First Nations, governments and the mining industry in Northern Ontario, and proposes recommendations to create more equitable and sustainable outcomes for First Nations rightsholders. It does so while respecting and acknowledging inherent Indigenous sovereignty: First Nations speak for themselves and there is a diversity of perspectives. Firstly, the chapter outlines Indigenous rights recognition within Canadian mineral laws. Then, it explores the challenges and opportunities faced by First Nations in the mining context of Northern Ontario, including mining’s impact on environmental, social, and economic aspects of life the region. Finally, it outlines Indigenous-led pathways for sustainable futures with regards to rights (land, environmental, culture and safety), planning and capacity building, access and inclusion, and partnerships. These pathways encompass strategies such as aligning mining laws with FPIC principles, enhancing Indigenous regional planning, ensuring access to expertise and capital, promoting Indigenous recruitment and retention in the mining sector, and fostering Indigenous equity ownership in major projects.
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 (Government of Canada, 2022[2]). Accordingly, the term “First Nations” will be used when referring to assessments, policies or activities relating specifically to land rightsholders 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.
The findings and recommendations of the report with regards to First Nations reflect the scope and research capacities of the process, drawing mainly on insights from the Nations interviewed, the First Nations that provided feedback and research literature. The report does not capture the experiences of all 90+ Nations in the region and does not intend to represent a unified voice of all First Nations in Northern Ontario.
The original Nations and Peoples of what is now Canada include the Mi’kmaq, Mohawk, Anishnabe, Cree, Dakota, Piikani, Kainaiwa, Inuit, Dene, Haida Nations and many others. Today, for official purposes and in relations with modern state institutions, other names for them have come into use:
The collective noun ‘Indigenous Peoples’, analogous to the term ‘European’, is used to refer to the descendants of all of the original nations and peoples of northern North America.
The synonymous term ‘Aboriginal Peoples’ is still used in the Canadian Constitution, though under the influence of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and international law it is being supplanted.
Both terms ‘Indigenous’ and ‘Aboriginal’ are artefacts of the arrival of European settlement and are useful for distinguishing the societies that were here from the societies of the new arrivals who began to settle the vast region around 500 years ago but otherwise concealing important national and cultural differences.
While the most salient and accurate terms are the names used by Indigenous Nations and Peoples to identify themselves, for the purposes of statistical record keeping, programme eligibility, and some political processes, other distinctions have been created. The Constitution Act (1982) in Section 35 recognises ‘the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of Indians, Inuit and Métis.’ It is generally accepted that these three constitutional categories exhaust the possible ways of being Indigenous, although in most parts of Canada, the term ‘Indian’ has been replaced by ‘First Nation’.
An older distinction survives and still has practical effect. This is the legal distinction between people who have ‘status’ under the Indian Act, and those who do not. Someone who has status is registered on a list maintained by the Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and the Indigenous Services Canada (hence the near synonym for Status Indian, ‘Registered Indian’). A person who is so registered is usually, but not necessarily, a member of an “Indian Band,” and is subject to the federal Indian Act. The Indian Act assigns ‘province-like’ responsibilities for Status Indians’ health, education and social welfare provision to the federal executive branch, even while it makes Status Indians subject to provincial laws of general application. Importantly, people subject to the Indian Act also, for decades, did not have the rights of full Canadian citizens (e.g. no right to vote in federal elections until 1960). Status Indians are also subject to Band Council bylaws, which is another jurisdictional layer that creates uncertainties around application in specific contexts (e.g. provincial/territorial hunting regulations versus Band Council conservation bylaws).
The other two constitutional groups, Inuit and Métis, were never registered under the Indian Act, although both have been subject to now-abandoned enrolment procedures. Métis, who are members of an Indigenous society that grew up in the western Canadian plains during the 18th century, were never subject to registration or the Indian Act. Métis individuals were listed during the late 19th century during an attempt at the settlement of their land rights through the issuing of ‘scrip’, which entitled them to land or a cash settlement. Outside of the Indian Register, there can be some debate about specific individuals’ claims to Indigenous identity.
Source: (OECD, 2019[3])
The governance of mineral exploration and Indigenous rights
The governance of mineral development involves the interplay of Indigenous rights, policies and protocols, federal and provincial governance, and evolving legal frameworks. First Nations have inherent rights which exist independent of any Crown authority and include the right to self-determination. Treaty rights, like the right to hunt or fish, are protected under the Constitution and based on treaties signed between First Nations 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 currently underway.
Six primary treaties between Indigenous Peoples and the Crown cover Northern Ontario. 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. These treaties were negotiated to address concerns over mining development in the region. Treaty 3, also known as the North-West Angle Treaty, was signed in 1873 and covers northwestern 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 1905-1906 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. The Ring of Fire is on Treaty 9 territory. These treaties collectively shape the legal and political landscape of Indigenous rights and land use in Northern Ontario.
The Government of Canada has a direct relationship with Indigenous Peoples as described in Section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982 and in different pieces of legislation and agreements, which govern these relations.2 Of critical importance is the Indian Act, which has governed and controlled virtually every aspect of the lives of Status Indians. The Indian Act was an instrument of containment and control, aimed at the extinction of Indigenous Peoples as peoples and is irredeemable. It is widely recognised that the lineaments of the unjust period of colonialism are baked into every section and clause of the act (OECD, 2019[4]).
While the federal government has direct relations and obligations to Indigenous Peoples in Canada, Indigenous Peoples’ relations with provincial governments vary.
For those living on reserves, the federal government provides funding and support for essential services, including healthcare, education, child and family services, housing and infrastructure; managing financial matters such as taxation, negotiating and implementing treaties, self-government agreements, and land claims; and maintaining the Crown duty to consult and accommodate First Nations regarding their rights and interests in land and resources. These responsibilities are primarily exercised through Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, though practical delivery often overlaps with provincial and territorial governments, leading to complex and sometimes ambiguous jurisdictional arrangements.
For those living off reserve, provinces and territories provide services such as education, health care, child welfare, policing, and skills and employment programmes, through laws and programmes of general application that apply to all residents. While provincial-territorial Indigenous relations may not be directly legislated, all provincial and territorial governments have departments or agencies devoted to maintaining a relationship with Indigenous residents. In Ontario, this is the purview of the Ministry of indigenous Affairs and First Nations Economic Reconciliation (IAFNER), but other Ministries also have units focused on Indigenous engagement. For example, Ontario’s Ministry of Energy and Mines has an Indigenous Consultation and Partnerships Branch.
Under constitutional law, Provinces have primary jurisdiction over mineral exploration, extraction, development, and management within their territories, as well as private property and land-use regulation. The Government of Ontario's mineral development is primarily regulated by the Mining Act, which establishes the process for staking claims, exploration, and mine development and closure. The federal government's role is more limited, focusing on matters indirectly impacting mining such as foreign investment and competition restrictions, as well as mining activities in the territories (where devolution of responsibilities to the territorial government is not yet in effect) and on federal lands. Environmental regulation and taxation related to mining are shared responsibilities.
However, the Impact Assessment Act (IAA), which is a federal act, applies when a mining project becomes a federally “designated project.” Project types included on the Project List are those that are determined to have the greatest potential for adverse and complex effects in areas of federal jurisdiction related to the environment and are called designated projects. Examples of designated projects on the Project List include marine terminals, nuclear facilities and major mines (Government of Canada, 2025[5]). IAAC uses a model of consultation with Indigenous Peoples that aims to achieve free prior and informed consent. This model is aligned with the Federal Government’s commitment to implement UNDRIP and advance reconciliation (Government of Canada, 2025[6]).
The duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous Peoples is a constitutional obligation for both levels of government before taking actions that may affect Aboriginal or Treaty rights. Furthermore, Canada, along with all OECD countries, is a signatory to the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which established the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) as an international norm that ought to guide relations between Indigenous Peoples, states, and extractive industries. The principles of FPIC pertain to multiple articles under UNDRIP including on the relocation of Indigenous Peoples (Article 10); on the right to practice and revitalise laws, traditions and customs (Article 11); the right to redress for lands, territories and resources that have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged (Article 28). Article 32 has particular pertinence in the context of mining activities. It asserts that:
Indigenous Peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.
States shall consult and co-operate in good faith with the Indigenous Peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilisation or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.
States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact (United Nations General Assembly, 2006[7]).
The Government of Canada adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in 2021 (Government of Canada, 2021[8]). The Act includes commitments to developing and implementing an action plan to achieve the objectives of the UN Declaration, taking measures to ensure federal laws are consistent with it, and tabling annual progress reports in Parliament. Its purpose is to create a roadmap for reconciliation, promoting mutual respect and understanding between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. While the Act's obligations apply specifically to the federal government, it recognises that provincial and territorial governments have their own approaches to implementing the Declaration. To date, only British Columbia (BC) and the Northwest Territories (NWT) have adopted provincial/territorial legislation to implement UNDRIP, in 2019 and 2023 respectively (Box 1.3).
Ontario has also incorporated various mechanisms to respect Indigenous rights:
In 2009, the Government of Ontario revised the Mining Act to better address First Nations rights by requiring mandatory consultation with Indigenous communities 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.
Since 2018, the province established a consolidated and expedite process to involve early First Nation in exploration activities on their territories. A 'One Window' Coordination Process allows prospectors and mining companies in Ontario to stake claims facilitated by a digital claim-staking process.3 When a proponent submits an exploration plan for a 30-day exploration permit, the Ministry of Energy and Mines identifies and notifies potentially affected First Nations within five days (by email), providing them with details of the proposed activities. These communities then have three weeks to raise concerns about possible impacts on their Aboriginal or Treaty rights. If concerns are raised, the Ministry of Energy and Mines works with both the community and the proponent to address them. If more time is needed, the Director of Exploration can require the proponent to apply for a permit instead, allowing for further consultation. Additionally, the Director can place a temporary hold on the process to allow more time for consideration of community concerns. Before making a final permitting decision, the Director may also impose additional terms and conditions to mitigate any identified adverse effects on Indigenous rights.
While this process aims to ensure that Indigenous consultation is integrated into early exploration activities and that concerns can be addressed before work begins, for many First Nations the volume of claims makes it challenging to respond to them adequately within the prescribed process.
In 2023, Ontario’s introduced the Building More Mines Act in 2023 (Bill 71), which introduced new “recovery permits” for legacy mine sites, often in areas with unresolved land claims, and enhanced decision-making power to the Minister of Energy and Mines. The act streamlined permitting but raised concerns among Indigenous communities, with Indigenous leaders asserting that the Act prioritises mining industry efficiency over their rights and environmental protections and calling for stronger consent and consultation requirements (Northern Ontaio Business, 2023[9])
Ongoing legal challenges from First Nations who see the Act as undermining their sovereignty and treaty rights, include:
In August 2025, Marten Falls First Nation filed a statement of claim in Ontario Superior Court against both Ontario and Canada, challenging the constitutionality of Bill 5 (Ontario) and Bill C-5 (Canada). The Nation is seeking interim and permanent injunctions preventing both levels of government from funding or otherwise advancing mining projects in the Ring of Fire, and CAD 300 million in compensation for cumulative damages. The Nation is concerned that the proposed Little Jackfish River hydroelectric project – which would supply power to the mining projects in the Ring of Fire – would be accelerated under the BCA and Bill 5 processes at the expense of environmental impacts and bypass the Indigenous-led process they had been championing. The Nation argues that any development on the Ring of Fire would have major impacts, including making large areas of traditional territory no longer usable for hunting and fishing. This is a departure from the Nation’s earlier position on development; as recently as July 2025 they participated in a joint ceremony with Webequie First Nation to symbolise their “shared commitment to an Indigenous-led development process” for the Ring of Fire, with Wyloo company representatives in attendance (Jones, 2025[10]).
This follows the July 2025 statement of claim, also filed in Ontario Superior Court, by a group of nine Ontario First Nations similarly challenging the constitutionality of Bill 5 and Bill C-5. The group of Nations are seeking an interim injunction preventing both levels of government from allowing the implementation of the statutes, pending a ruling on their constitutionality. It also calls for the repeal of Bill 5 in its entirety, the repeal of the Building Canada Act portions of Bill C-5, as well as CAD 100 million in compensation for breach of the Honour of the Crown (Gray, 2025[11]).
In January 2024, the Chiefs of Ontario, representing 133 First Nations communities, called for a one-year moratorium on mining claims, asserting that the current consultation process is insufficient (Chiefs of Ontario, 2023[12]).
In July 2024, Grassy Narrows First Nation, also known as Asubpeeschoseewagong Anishinabek, launched a legal challenge against Ontario's Mining Act arguing that the province's mining claims regime is unconstitutional and violates Indigenous rights. The lawsuit seeks to halt the issuance of further mining claims in or near their territory and requests the rescission of existing claims, which currently cover approximately 42 per cent of their interim core area of interest for mining (Cavaluzzo, 2024[13]).
One month later, six Northern Ontario First Nations (Apitipi Anicinapek Nation, Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, Ginoogaming, Attawapiskat, Aroland, and Fort Albany) filed a lawsuit against the province, arguing that the current regime undermines their treaty rights and violates their equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The legal challenge focuses on three primary issues: i) the automatic recording of mining claims without prior engagement with First Nations under the “free entry” system ('One Window' Coordination Process), ii) the inadequate consultation process regarding exploration on those claims, and iii) the inability of First Nations to protect their lands from these intrusions (ICLG, 2024[14]).
To date, only British Columbia (BC) and the Northwest Territories (NWT) have adopted provincial/territorial legislation to implement UNDRIP, in 2019 and 2023 respectively. In BC, the government is revising the Mineral Tenure Act (MTA), which involves co-operation and consultation with First Nations, engagement with industry stakeholders, and developing a shared vision for mining reform with the First Nations Leadership Council. It is also implementing a distinctions-based consultation and co-operation process with First Nations to develop and implement these reforms, adhering to UNDRIP principles. This process includes preparing and implementing an action plan and issuing annual progress reports.4
However, challenges remain, as evidenced by a 2023 BC Supreme Court ruling (Gitxaala v. British Columbia) that the automatic registration of mineral claims under the Mineral Tenure Act (MTA) violated the Crown’s duty to consult under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In response, the Government of BC replaced the automatic claim registration with an application-based system that includes consultation with First Nations over a 30-day period, similar to Ontario’s system. The adequacy of this application-based system remains contested by some First Nations as well as the BC exploration industry.5
In the Northwest Territories, the government has revised the Mineral Resources Act and Protected Areas Act to enable consensus-based modes of collaborative governance where Indigenous and public governments operate co-operatively to address shared challenges. Beyond this, the Government of Canada's Northern Regulatory Initiative, led by Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, is working to align mining practices with UNDRIP principles as part of the Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy in Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. This approach focuses on increasing Indigenous participation in resource management processes, supporting collaborative multi-party dialogues to address common regulatory priorities, and advancing regional, baseline, and cumulative effects studies in priority areas. The initiative provides financial support to Indigenous governments and organisations to enable their full and informed participation in land use planning activities and impact assessments for proposed projects.
Other jurisdictions across Canada (Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and New Brunswick) have expressed concerns about implementing UNDRIP, and its potential impact on resource development projects. While the province of Ontario has not adopted legislation to implement UNDRIP, it has developed a consultation framework implementing the duty to consult with Aboriginal communities on mineral exploration and mine production in Ontario. As the legal landscape evolves, federal and provincial/territorial governments are refining their approaches to respect Indigenous rights while managing Canada's significant mineral resources. This could potentially reshape how mining rights are governed in Ontario, ensuring that Indigenous communities have a more substantial say in what happens on their traditional lands.
First Nation governance: Agreements, protocols, and moratoriums
First Nations in Northern Ontario assert their sovereignty by developing their own agreements, protocols, and moratoriums to govern mining activities on their territories. This is rooted in the desire to—as rightsholders—ensure that mining aligns with community values, rights, and long-term well-being. 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.
In other provinces, Nations have developed detailed frameworks to guide mineral exploration and mining activities within their traditional territory, such as the Cree Mining Policy’s Eeyou Istchee in Quebec (Box 1.4).
These Indigenous-led frameworks are designed to foster informed decision-making, uphold the principle of FPIC and ensure that mining supports both economic development and the preservation of cultural and environmental values. While these initiatives demonstrate a commitment to self-governance and land protection, they often face implementation challenges due to conflicts with provincial laws and ongoing tensions between Indigenous rights and resource development interests. Settler government laws and regulations define legal obligations for the mining industry that are related to fiscal terms (taxes and royalties), environmental protection, operational standards, health and safety, and social commitments. In parallel, First Nations assert their sovereignty by developing their own laws and protocols to govern mining activities on their territories. The intersection of the two may be spaces of partnership or contestation.6 Some First Nations, like Grassy Narrows, have implemented land declarations and moratoriums prohibiting mining and exploration without consent.
The Cree Nation Mining Policy in Quebec is a comprehensive framework that governs how mineral exploration and mining activities are conducted within Eeyou Istchee, the traditional territory of the James Bay Cree. Developed through decades of advocacy, the policy is rooted in three pillars: support for mining as a tool for economic and social development, a commitment to sustainable practices, and a focus on transparency and collaboration. The policy affirms that the Cree are not opposed to development, but insist that any mining must respect Cree rights, protect the environment, and deliver tangible benefits to their communities. No mining development can proceed without agreements that address social, economic, and environmental concerns, ensuring that projects align with Cree values and traditional approaches to land stewardship.
The policy also establishes a standardised approach for Cree involvement at every stage of mining, from exploration to closure, and leverages unique governance tools such as the Environmental and Social Protection Regime under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. This ensures Cree participation in decision-making, environmental assessments, and the negotiation of Impact Benefit Agreements, which secure employment, business opportunities, and long-term community benefits. Recent reforms to Quebec’s mining laws further strengthen Indigenous rights by requiring early engagement, consultation, and authorisation for exploration activities that impact the land, closing previous regulatory gaps and giving the Cree greater influence over resource development.
The importance of the Cree Mining Policy lies in its role as a model for Indigenous rights in mining: it places Indigenous communities at the centre of decisions affecting their lands, ensures their voices are heard from the earliest stages of development, and sets a precedent for responsible, equitable, and sustainable resource management that respects both traditional knowledge and modern economic needs.
Source: (Cree Nation, 2024[18])
Government funding programmes and supports for Indigenous Peoples and businesses in the mining sector
Various levels of government in Canada have created funding programmes to encourage Indigenous engagement and participation in the mining sector. Federal programmes generally emphasise large-scale priorities such as capacity building, infrastructure development, geoscience research, regulatory participation at the federal level, and tax incentives for critical minerals exploration (Table 1.1). Examples include the Indigenous Natural Resource Partnerships Program, the Critical Minerals Infrastructure Fund, and the Critical Minerals Exploration Tax Credit. These federal initiatives tend to offer large, multi-year funding and are designed to align with Canada’s overall strategy for critical minerals and Indigenous participation in resource development.
In contrast, Ontario’s funding programs are more localised, supporting Indigenous participation in Ontario’s regulatory processes, business and economic development, early-stage mineral exploration, and relationship building with mining proponents (Table 1.2). Programmes like the Indigenous Participation Fund and the Ontario Junior Exploration Program are generally smaller and more targeted, with support for specific activities such as hiring mineral development advisors or covering Indigenous participation expenses in exploration projects. The New Relationship Fund (NRF) supports First Nations, Métis communities, and Indigenous organisations efforts to build consultation and engagement capacity and expertise, create jobs, develop business partnerships, improve economic opportunities. Significantly, the Indigenous Opportunities Financing Program (IOFP)—formerly the Aboriginal Loan Guarantee program—triples the Government of Ontario’s loan guarantee capacity to CAD 3 billion and expands eligibility beyond electricity to include mining, critical minerals, energy, pipelines, and broader resource development. There are also general funds, such as Ontario's Skills Development Fund, open to a wide range of organisations, that specifically includes Indigenous Peoples and organisations as eligible participants and applicants. In 2024, Agnico Eagle received CAD 10 million to create a comprehensive skills development programme to support the availability of a qualified workforce for their mines, with a priority to train Indigenous Peoples from Northern Ontario First Nations (Agnico Eagle, 2024[19]).
FedNor is the Government of Canada’s economic development agency for Northern Ontario, providing funding and support to promote inclusive economic growth across the region. Advancing Indigenous participation in local economies, especially in sectors like mining and critical minerals is a key priority of FedNor. FedNor funds Indigenous-led projects that foster business development, skills training, infrastructure, and job creation (Table 2.1). Recent investments include millions in support for First Nation economic development corporations, mining-focused training programmes, and community infrastructure upgrades. By working closely with Indigenous partners and aligning with federal strategies like the Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy, FedNor works to build long-term, community-driven economic opportunities in Northern Ontario. A number of other federal programmes can be leveraged to support Indigenous participation, such as the Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) Indigenous Skills and Employment Training (ISET) Program, the Skills and Partnership Fund (SPF), and the Indigenous Habitat Participation Program (IHPP).
Note: This is not a comprehensive list of programmes. Oher programmes than those identified here benefit Indigenous Peoples through training, employment, or capacity-building opportunities. Examples include: NRCan’s Science and Technology Internship Program – Green Jobs, ESDC’s Indigenous Skills and Employment Training Program and Skills and Partnership Fund, as well as several IAAC capacity or research funding streams. These programmes may support Indigenous individuals, organisations, or community participation, and eligibility or delivery can involve third parties rather than direct Indigenous-administered funding.
First Nations and mining in Northern Ontario: Challenges and opportunities
Mining impacts
The history of mining in what is today Ontario stretches back thousands of years. The earliest evidence of mining activity comes from Indigenous Peoples, who extracted and traded minerals for tools, weapons, and decorative objects. For example, the Sheguiandah quartzite quarry on Manitoulin Island dates to around 7,500 BC, and red ochre mined at the Mattawa River before 1650 (Julig, 2009[26]). Commercial mining by European settlers began in the early 19th century and has since that time had significant and wide-ranging environmental, social, and economic impacts on First Nations communities across Northern Ontario.
Historically, mining activities that have been undertaken without sufficient environmental guidelines and monitoring have been linked to substantial damages to the lands and waters that First Nations have relied on for millennia. Some environmental impacts include contamination of water sources from mine tailings and waste rock, affecting drinking water and aquatic ecosystems (Chapter 2). For example, uranium mining dating back to the 1950s near Serpent River First Nation is linked to radioactive tailings in the watershed, leaching uranium, radon, and thorium into local water systems (Leddy, 2013[27]). This contamination has disrupted ecosystems, poisoned fish populations, and caused elevated rates of cancer and lung diseases among community members. When it has not been well-managed, mining operations have caused habitat destruction and fragmentation, impacting wildlife populations and affecting traditional activities like fishing and harvesting.
Environmental damages from mining activities have persisted long after mine closure. There are approximately 5 865 abandoned mining projects in Ontario that require remediation, with a significant concentration of these sites located in Northern Ontario. These sites include a mix of abandoned, orphaned, and legacy mines, many of which pose ongoing environmental, health, and safety risks. Remediation efforts are underway at some of these sites, such as the former Nova Beaucage mine near Lake Nipissing, but the scale of the problem means that many sites remain in need of cleanup and long-term management. Almost all closed or abandoned mine sites require some form of ongoing monitoring and maintenance to ensure that remediation measures remain effective and that environmental contamination does not recur or worsen over time.
In Ontario, government and regulatory agencies oversee these programmes, but the responsibility for monitoring can also fall to mining companies, unless the company is insolvent or no longer exists, in which case the government assumes responsibility. The province maintains an Abandoned Mines Information System (AMIS) database to track these sites, though the exact number requiring active monitoring at any given time fluctuates as new sites are identified and others are closed out after successful remediation.
Despite challenges in remediation, North Ontario also hosts cases demonstrating that grassroots and local government action can substantially help address legacy mining effects. For example, in Sudbury, decades of nickel and copper mining, along with smelting operations, have 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 that is now worldwide recognised (Box 1.5).
As a historical and ongoing centre of mining activity, the Sudbury area has had major environmental impacts. Decades of smelting released massive amounts of sulphur dioxide and heavy metals, devastating local ecosystems, acidifying soils and lakes, and leaving the landscape barren and inhospitable—a legacy so severe that Sudbury was once likened to a ‘moonscape.’
Sudbury’s regreening efforts stand as a globally recognised example of large-scale environmental restoration in response to the severe ecological damage caused by over a century of intensive mining and smelting. Beginning in the 1970s, the community, local government, mining companies, scientists, and a broad coalition of volunteers launched a co-ordinated campaign to rehabilitate the barren, acidified landscape. The process involved liming the soil to neutralise acidity, fertilising, seeding, and eventually planting millions of trees and shrubs, transforming thousands of hectares of once-devastated land into thriving forests and healthier watersheds. Over CAD 30 million was invested, with funding from federal and provincial governments, mining companies, and private sources, and the initiative provided both environmental and social benefits, including seasonal employment for local residents.
The regreening movement has evolved to become more inclusive over time. Early efforts were primarily led by scientists, industry, and government, with limited engagement with local First Nations, specifically the Wahnapitae and Atikameksheng Anishinabek. Both are now recognised as important partners, with members serving in advisory and operational roles. Their involvement is formalised through representation on the Vegetation Enhancement Technical Advisory Committee (VETAC), which guides the city’s regreening programme, and through direct collaboration on mine reclamation projects, such as the Joint Environmental Working Group between Sudbury INO and Wahnapitae First Nation. These partnerships include site visits, environmental stewardship, education, and community development, ensuring that Indigenous perspectives and knowledge contribute to ongoing restoration and monitoring. While extensive regreening and pollution control efforts have since restored much of the area’s vegetation and improved air and water quality, significant risks remain from toxic mine waste and tailings dams, which require perpetual monitoring.
Socially and culturally, mining has disrupted some traditional ways of life and cultural practices that are intimately connected to the land. In some areas, the influx of temporary workers to mining regions has led to social issues in communities, including increased rates of substance abuse, crime, and violence. The National Inquiry on Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls highlighted how resource extraction projects and associated "man camps" have been linked to increased violence against Indigenous women and girls (Brunet and S, 2023[29]). Furthermore, some mining developments have resulted in loss of access to culturally significant sites for Indigenous Peoples and intergenerational trauma from historic forced relocation
There are also health impacts of historical mining projects that did not undergo sufficient safeguards. They have occurred from exposure to contaminants and pollutants from mining activities. For instance, uranium and other hazardous substances have been detected in community water supplies near mining sites, as reported by First Nations like Serpent River and Batchewana First Nations. There are also indirect impacts. For example, the mining sector, a major employer in Northern Ontario, has been associated with higher rates of opioid-related deaths among its workforce; this is in part due to the demographics of this workforce being disproportionately male.7 Data from the early COVID-19 pandemic period revealed that 19.5% of opioid-related deaths in Northern Ontario were among individuals employed in mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction (second highest after construction) (Nunn et al., 2024[30]). Workers in these physically demanding jobs may be more susceptible to opioid use and misuse, often as a means to cope with workplace injuries or chronic pain (Maryland Department of Labour, 2025[31])
Communities have diverse opinions on mining. Some see the potential economic benefits and have become proponents of mining projects while others vigorously oppose development that they view as threatening their territories and ways of life, and others who are in between. Many First Nations continue to struggle with the long-term impacts of mining, especially of legacy projects, on their lands, waters, health, and cultures. There are deep concerns about how a new wave of mining development, driven by demand for critical minerals for green technologies and defence manufacturing, may affect Indigenous rights, livelihoods and well-being.
Opportunities to leverage mining for First Nations’ self-determination
While there are many acknowledged challenges, there are also opportunities for further involvement from First Nations in economic activities related to mining and to invest in their development priorities and futures. Recent years have seen the emergence of First Nation-owned companies and development corporations that negotiate procurement, employment, and royalty agreements that are often structured to include mechanisms like net smelter returns and governance committees to ensure compliance and transparency.
Mining has provided economic benefits through employment and business opportunities for some First Nations members and led to revenue sharing agreements in some cases (Figure 1.1). For example, agreements with companies like Barrick Gold and Generation Mining have included training, apprenticeships, and socio-economic development funds, supporting business development and local employment for First Nations such as Biigtigong Nishnaabeg and Netmizaaggamig Nishnaabeg (Pic Mobert First Nation). These arrangements, along with federal and provincial funding programmes and Indigenous economic development corporations, have enabled First Nations to invest in housing, infrastructure, and economic diversification, demonstrating how mining—when guided by equitable partnerships and community consent—can provide benefits. However, the distribution of economic benefits to communities has often been inadequate and uneven, exacerbating inequalities between Nations. There are also concerns about how the boom-and-bust cycles typical of resource extraction economies may create instability (also known as the ‘resource curse’). When mines close or commodity prices drop, communities can be left without economic alternatives.
Increasingly, First Nations are establishing partnerships with industry proponents. These partnerships can be formalised through benefit agreements, which have become an industry standard in Canada. Today, there are more than 500 exploration and post-exploration stage agreements across the country and over 140 in Northern Ontario, such as impact benefit agreements, long-term relationship agreements, and collaboration agreements. While these agreements are commercially negotiated, and therefore not available to the public, common provisions relate to jobs, education, environmental stewardship, Indigenous procurement, community investments and revenue sharing. More recently, Indigenous groups are pursuing equity in mining projects and/or decision-making opportunities for projects that may affect their communities, gaining not only increased profit but also greater control over social and environmental impacts (though they will need to bear both benefits and potential drawbacks as a result). Projects that approach communities through genuine partnership and respect for local values have led to partnerships that generate social and cultural benefits to Indigenous communities. Some examples include:
The First Nations-industry agreement between Atikameksheng Anishnawbek, Wahnapitae First Nation, and Technica Mining, has created an Indigenous-led company that provides employment, skills training, and economic opportunities for Indigenous communities, while embedding cultural values in business practices (Aki-eh Dibinwewziwin Limited Partnership, Z'gamok Enterprises Inc., Z'gamok Construction LP, Eshkaa Niibiish Day Inc).
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 establishes a First Nations Business Representative and specialized training programmes, emphasising transparency and local skills development.
Aki-eh Dibinwewziwin is a groundbreaking Indigenous-led mining partnership in Ontario, established by the First Nations communities of Atikameksheng Anishnawbek, Wahnapitae First Nation, and Technica Mining, a leading Canadian mining contractor. The partnership’s name, Aki-eh Dibinwewziwin, which means “to be owned by the earth”, was thoughtfully chosen by language holders from each of the participating First Nations. This name reflects the deep-rooted connection to land, stewardship, and the traditional values that guide the communities involved.
The formation of Aki-eh Dibinwewziwin marks a significant shift in how mining projects are approached within the Robinson Huron Treaty area, which encompasses much of the Sudbury Basin and surrounding territories. Historically, First Nations in this region have not fully benefited from the economic activities taking place on their lands. This partnership was created to address that imbalance by ensuring that Indigenous communities are not only consulted but are also active participants and beneficiaries of resource development on their traditional territories.
Aki-eh Dibinwewziwin is structured as a limited partnership, with First Nations holding a majority ownership stake. This arrangement empowers the communities to have a direct say in how mining operations are conducted: from environmental stewardship to employment and economic development. The partnership provides world-class mine contracting services, drawing on Technica Mining’s extensive expertise in underground and open-pit mining, construction, and maintenance, while integrating Indigenous knowledge and values into every aspect of operations. The positive economic impact of the partnership is already being realised. Aki-eh Dibinwewziwin has secured major contracts, such as the advanced exploration contract for the Crean Hill nickel-copper project in Sudbury.
Leadership from all partner communities have emphasised that this initiative is about more than business, it is about reclaiming sovereignty, ensuring that the spirit and intent of the Robinson-Huron Treaty are honoured, and a sustainable future is built. By embedding traditional values and environmental stewardship into mining operations, Aki-eh Dibinwewziwin stands as a model for how First Nations and industry can work together in a spirit of mutual respect, creating economic opportunities while safeguarding the land and culture for generations to come.
Source: (Aki-eh Dibinwewziwin, 2025[33])
Canada Nickel Company has set a new standard for Indigenous engagement in the mining sector through recent agreements with First Nations connected to its Crawford Nickel Sulphide Project. In early 2025, the company signed a progressive contracting agreement with the Mattagami, Matachewan, and Flying Post First Nations. This agreement prioritises First Nation-owned businesses for major project contracts, ensures regular engagement sessions, and includes mechanisms for land and environmental monitoring. It also establishes a First Nations Business Representative and specialised training programmes that emphasise transparency and local skills development.
A CAD 20 million investment by Taykwa Tagamou Nation (TTN) has secured the Nation an 8.4% ownership stake in the company Canada Nickel. This investment is one of the largest direct equity stakes by a First Nation in a Canadian critical minerals project. It grants TTN the right to nominate a board member, giving the Nation direct influence over company decisions, including those related to environmental stewardship and procurement. These agreements go beyond traditional consultation by positioning First Nations as business partners and co-managers of the land. They include clear commitments to environmental monitoring and ongoing collaboration, reflecting a shared commitment to responsible resource development. This model demonstrates how early, meaningful engagement and shared economic benefits can foster stronger, more equitable relationships between mining companies and Indigenous communities. However, it is also important to note that owners are financially vulnerable as their payouts come after lenders, therefore they only receive payouts based on the cash flow available.
Source: (Canada Nickel, 2025[34])
A renewed demand for mining
As Northern Ontario sees growing interest in mining projects, with global demand for critical minerals surging, centring mining development strategy in Indigenous rights, knowledge, and decision-making will be crucial for more equitable and sustainable approaches. This requires moving beyond consultation to true partnership and shared governance and benefits over lands and resources, for First Nations that wish to be involved in mining projects. This is a cornerstone to ensure relations between First Nations, governments and the mining industry lead to outcomes that genuinely benefit Indigenous communities and protect the environments they have stewarded for millennia. In the words of Chief Bruce Achneepineskum of Marten Falls First Nations:
“We reserve the right to make decisions in our traditional territory. We have watched others enjoy the fruit of development, while our community has languished in poverty and a perpetual lack of opportunity. It is impossible to change our circumstances without the proposed projects in the Ring of Fire. Without these projects, our community will continue to wither away. However, with these projects, we can inject hope into our community and plant the seeds for a brighter future” (Marten Falls First Nation, 2021[35]).
To be successful in mining partnerships, First Nations need both greater capacity and upfront investment. Engaging with mining companies before building this capacity often leads to missed opportunities or weak agreements, as communities may lack the resources, expertise, or leverage to negotiate effectively. It is crucial to focus on building scale—developing internal skills, governance structures, and economic strategies—before entering into such negotiations. Mining projects and industry timelines can move quickly, making it difficult for communities to keep pace and prepare adequately.
The increasing focus on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria in the mining industry presents opportunities for First Nations to influence corporate behaviour and secure better outcomes. Capital markets are increasingly demanding respect for Indigenous rights, which can create leverage for First Nations in negotiations with mining companies. As the mining industry evolves to meet the demands of the green economy and heightened ESG expectations, First Nations are positioned to play an increasingly central role in shaping the future of resource development on their traditional lands by utilising their traditional knowledge. There is growing recognition of the importance of incorporating Indigenous knowledge and practices into mining operations. For example, the establishment of Elder’s advisory committees to address water concerns and the use of Indigenous language in environmental discussions.
Examples of concrete opportunities for First Nations that wish to be involved in mining projects include:
Leveraging new federal loan guarantee programmes to access capital.
Forming regional economic coalitions for collective bargaining and benefit-sharing.
Developing businesses in areas such as mine contracting, logistics, environmental services, and renewable energy.
Advance equity participation to shape the terms of resource development on their lands.
Leverage mining wealth for economic diversification in areas such as renewable energy, agriculture, and tourism that can complement or provide alternatives to mining-based economic development. Some communities are investing in cultural centres and eco-tourism initiatives that capitalise on their rich heritage and natural resources. For example, Biigtigong Nishnaabeg is exploring economic diversification beyond mining, including a feasibility study for bioeconomy projects and potential Indigenous tourism opportunities arising from their new cultural centre and archaeological findings.
Development of Indigenous-led environmental monitoring programmes, directly engaging FNs for the provision of land/environmental monitoring services. For example, Biigtigong Nishnaabeg First Nation, which has conducted extensive baseline aquatics monitoring, funded by federal government and industry, to prepare for mining impacts. They have invested in mapping, cultural studies, and environmental data collection since the 1990s.
Play a significant role in the remediation and closure of mining sites, ensuring that the process has integrity.
Mining industry standards increasingly prioritise Indigenous rights and FPIC through formal protocols, governance models, and reporting requirements. Leading frameworks, such as the Mining Association of Canada’s Towards Sustainable Mining (TSM) Indigenous and Community Relationships Protocol, require companies to identify and engage Indigenous communities, build meaningful relationships, and seek FPIC for new projects and expansions affecting rights. Similarly, the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA) employs a multi-stakeholder governance model with equal voting power for six sectors—including affected communities and Indigenous leaders—ensuring balanced and representative decision-making.
The Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada's (PDAC) "Driving Responsible Exploration" (DRE) framework provides specific principles and toolkits to help explorers engage respectfully and effectively with local and Indigenous communities throughout the exploration process, emphasising the importance of building trust, collaboration, and long-term relationships. In parallel, the recently launched UL Ecologo certification (ULC TS-2723:2024) establishes comprehensive third-party standards for responsible mineral exploration. It evaluates companies on criteria such as environmental stewardship, meaningful engagement and accommodation of local and Indigenous communities, local procurement including Indigenous service providers, and fair business practices.
Kawana ‘bi ‘kag—‘Ring of Fire’
For greenfield operations, there are a different set of challenges, especially for Kawana ‘bi ‘kag, the ‘Ring of Fire.’ This region has been identified by the Ontario government as one of the most promising mineral development opportunities for critical minerals in the province, including chromite, cobalt, nickel, copper and platinum. It is located approximately 500 kilometres northeast of Thunder Bay and covers about 5,000 square kilometres.
A mining project in this region has been a challenging discussion for all parties involved, the First Nations living in that territory, the government, and the interested companies. This region contains one of the world's largest, most intact ecological systems—the Hudson Bay Lowlands, which forms part of the world's second-largest peatland complex and is globally significant for both climate change mitigation and biodiversity protection. The peatlands sequester an estimated 35 billion tons of carbon, playing a key role in regulating the global climate (Rodon et al., 2025[36]). The remote location and lack of infrastructure in this regions mean that mining development would require significant new infrastructure construction, including all-season roads, which would open up previously intact wilderness areas to further development pressures.
The massive investments needed in infrastructure including energy and road infrastructure would bring different opportunities and challenges to fly-in First Nations living in this region. If properly planned in strong co-operation with Nations, this infrastructure could help improve connectivity and quality of life. For instance, all-season road access to the Ring of Fire is an important step to creating economic opportunities in the region. Progress has been made on the three key access roads linking the Ring of Fire: Webequie Supply Road Project, Marten Falls Community Access Road Project and Northern Road Link Project. Marten Falls First Nation and Webequie First Nation have led these project as proponents and/or co-proponents (Government of Ontario, 2025[17]). They have shaped Indigenous-led impact assessments (IAs) for the two first roads to avoid sensitive areas. This has resulted in carefully plotted routes rather than the most direct paths. The IA for the Northern Road Link is lagging behind by about three years and not expected to be ready for ministerial approval until 2029 or 2030.
Nevertheless, some communities have concerns about safety and health of community members when those roads open and with the project itself. Although Marten Falls and Webequie have led the EA process, they have not yet formally consented to the projects, and broader First Nations approval remains uncertain, particularly from communities like the Neskantaga, who have expressed concerns about the government's approach and inclusivity. Final approval and the start of construction hinges on these communities' decisions, and even after environmental and community consultations conclude, the construction of hundreds of kilometres of road through remote wilderness is expected to take many years, leaving the timeline for completion uncertain and dependent on ongoing negotiations and approvals. This entails a new set of relationships, agreements and potentially partnerships between First Nations and mining firms.
Development in this region could create new pathways for income generation, long-term employment, infrastructure investment, and community-led governance over land and resources. Improved all-season road access and energy infrastructure, if designed in partnership with First Nations, could reduce community isolation, lower the costs of goods, and open up possibilities for local businesses, education, and health services. However, to capture these opportunities, there must be substantial up-front investment in communities—particularly in addressing long-standing infrastructure gaps such as safe housing, reliable energy, water, and transportation. Strengthening these foundations is essential to ensure that First Nations can participate from a position of strength, rather than being forced into reactive negotiations. Equally important is the need for genuine consent, inclusive planning, and Indigenous-led environmental assessments to balance development with cultural values and environmental stewardship. By prioritising pre-investments and supporting First Nations governance capacity, the Ring of Fire could become not only an engine of economic growth but also a catalyst for greater sovereignty, resilience, and well-being across the region.
Governance and policy related challenges
The regions and themes highlighted below reflect areas most commonly identified by participants as sources of ongoing concern, practical complexity, and the greatest need for policy action. These issues—such as determining whom to consult in disputed territories, negotiating benefit-sharing, and ensuring meaningful inclusion of First Nations in mining development—are not only prominent in research and practice, but also represent unresolved points of tension affecting both project outcomes and the broader landscape of Indigenous rights and regional economic development in Ontario.
Unclear whom to consult in some cases
In Ontario, determining which First Nations to consult for mining claims is complicated in some cases by overlapping or disputed traditional territories, incomplete or outdated government records, and the lack of publicly accessible maps delineating Indigenous land rights. Provincial and federal governments often rely on internal, confidential maps for consultation processes, which are not always shared with Indigenous communities or industry proponents due to legal sensitivities, unresolved land claims, or political concerns about setting precedents.
These confidentiality concerns can create ambiguity, as companies may inadvertently exclude affected Nations or rely on incomplete data, leading to inadequate consultation. For example, in regions like the Ring of Fire, multiple First Nations have asserted rights to the same area. But without transparent mapping, there is uncertainty over who actually holds authority. Additionally, government confidentiality can fuel distrust, as Indigenous communities argue it undermines their right to define their own territories and participate meaningfully in decision-making. This can exacerbate inter-Nation tensions, and complicate relations between First Nations and government, as well as Nations and industry proponents. The resulting disputes delay projects, increase legal risks, and perpetuate cycles of litigation. Concerns over management of shared territories should first and foremost be a matter for Indigenous Nations to resolve themselves without external and imposition, particularly when it has been the state that was responsible for imposing the ownership model of lands and resources in the first place.
The Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) has increasingly asserted rights and jurisdiction in Northern Ontario, particularly in relation to natural resource development. Through recent governance initiatives and registry-based recognition of Métis communities, the MNO is seeking to expand on existing harvesting rights (Government of Canada, 2022[2]) to secure consultation and land-related rights that overlap with areas of intensive mining exploration and development. These claims have generated tensions with both provincial authorities and First Nations, many of whom argue that Métis rights in the region are historically limited or unrecognised. The Wabun Tribal Council and other First Nations have initiated court challenges against Ontario’s policy of mandating engagement with the MNO for mining projects; these cases question whether the MNO possesses legitimate, court-affirmed rightsholder status under section 35 of the Constitution. The disputes have broader implications for the mining sector, as companies are now caught between conflicting demands from First Nations and the province, with litigation outcomes likely to affect regulatory procedures, benefit agreements, and project approvals. At the same time, the Ontario government continues to state its obligation to consult all Indigenous groups, including recognised Métis communities, while First Nations press for judicial clarification and resolution of the contested rights. These legal cases are expected to set important precedents with regard to the entities that are entitled to consultation and accommodation in the context of natural resource extraction in Northern Ontario.
Negotiations are an unlevel playing field
The power dynamics between governments, First Nations, and the mining industry are asymmetrical and can result in the marginalisation of Indigenous rights and sovereignty. While the actions of mining companies may include FPIC, formal requirements such as Ontario’s Mining Act are insufficiently aligned with UNDRIP’s FPIC standards. Challenges for First Nations include structural inequities in negotiation capacity, as many lack resources to hire specialised legal, financial, and technical advisors, while mining firms and governments control critical data about project impacts and profits. While funding and training support to build capacity within interested First Nations (e.g. in law, engineering, and environmental science) is provided by different government levels, funds are still limited and there is scope to improve uptake.
To strengthen capacity, there is growing interest in regional economic coalitions among some First Nations to pool resources, co-ordinate development strategies and maximise benefits across traditional territories (as seen in the “Wabun Model” for collective action and benefits in Box 1.8).
The "Wabun Model" refers to the approach developed by the Wabun Tribal Council (WTC) in Ontario for negotiating and managing mining agreements to maximise benefits for its member First Nations. This model is built on collective action, where the council—representing Brunswick House, Chapleau Ojibwe, Flying Post, Matachewan, Mattagami, and Beaverhouse Nations—works together to negotiate with mining companies, ensuring that the communities most directly impacted by mining receive proportionally greater benefits, while all member Nations share in the overall compensation. By pooling revenues and leveraging their collective bargaining power, the Wabun Model ensures that benefits such as royalties, employment, procurement opportunities, and community investments are distributed more equitably and transparently. Benefits to this model include:
Pre-Negotiation Planning and Mapping: WTC maps traditional territories and establishes "economic boundaries" for each community, including buffer zones where territories overlap. If a mining project is proposed in a buffer zone, affected communities negotiate together to reach a unified position before engaging with industry, ensuring clarity and fairness in benefit-sharing.
Standardized Agreements and Flexibility: The Council has developed a standard Exploration Agreement (EA) template that all exploration companies must sign before operating on Wabun territory. This streamlines negotiations and ensures key elements—such as economic benefits, consultation requirements, cultural considerations, and successor clauses—are consistently addressed. Agreements can be customised for unique circumstances or concerns.
Impact Benefit Agreements (IBAs): For projects that advance beyond exploration, WTC negotiates IBAs covering employment, procurement, training, environmental protection, and revenue sharing. To date they have successfully negotiated over 60 exploration agreements and eight IBAs with major industry players.
Internal Communication Protocols: During negotiations, all communication between companies and communities is managed by a designated negotiation team to avoid confusion.
Implementation and Oversight: Each IBA is overseen by a First Nations IBA Coordinator and an IBA committee, who monitor compliance at mine sites, facilitate communication, and ensure that the terms of the agreement are adhered to.
Collective and Individual Benefits: While WTC negotiates on behalf of all member communities, each First Nation retains autonomy over its share of benefits and how they are used. This approach promotes both collective strength and individual community priorities.
Revenue Sharing with Ontario: WTC is a signatory to historic resource revenue sharing agreements with the Ontario government, entitling member First Nations to a share of provincial mining taxes and royalties. These funds are controlled locally and directed toward community priorities such as economic development, health, education, and culture.
Advocacy and Rights Protection: WTC is proactive in defending member rights, including opposing agreements or consultations with organisations it deems not to be legitimate rightsholders (e.g. the Métis Nation of Ontario), and has sought to protect its members’ interests in court.
This regional, coalition-based strategy allows for greater scale in economic development, supports the creation of Indigenous-owned businesses, and strengthens governance and oversight of agreements. While some Nations may see this as ceding a degree of sovereignty, the model has proven effective in building political strength, fostering a regional vision, and generating sustainable wealth and opportunities for multiple communities, rather than just those immediately adjacent to mining projects.
Source: (Wabun Tribal Council, 2025[37])
Partnership Agreements have scope for improvement
There are a range of benefit sharing models between First Nations and the mining industry that range from voluntary, company-led initiatives to those that entail Indigenous ownership and control. In Canada, Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) are the most common (Table 1.3). They have evolved from a focus on employment and environmental protections to encompass a wide range of activities such as education and training, to funds for economic development, socio-cultural support and communications structures, environmental monitoring and protection, or direct payments and financing.
However, IBAs have some significant drawbacks: i) while sometimes requested by First Nations, confidentiality clauses can undermine Indigenous groups’ bargaining power and foster internal divisions; ii) as private contracts, IBAs may be signed without full community knowledge or consent, reducing transparency and accountability; and iii) communities often face barriers to realising promised benefits due to gaps in available education/training, certification, or resources (see (OECD, 2020[39]) for a detailed overview).
Increasingly, many First Nations favour either partnership or ownership models and/or Indigenous benefit funds—approaches that may better address the need for secure, long-term and Indigenous-led development and decision-making control. For example, the previously mentioned Aki-eh Dibinwewziwin is a leading example of an Indigenous-led partnership with a mining company. Likewise, the Greenstone Gold Mines Partnership demonstrates how multiple First Nations can join ahead of new projects to leverage mining wealth for developing critical infrastructure and improving economic conditions of the communities (Box 1.9).
A First Nation Resource Charge is being explored by the First Nations Tax Commission as a type of Indigenous benefit fund. This idea stemmed from the 2014 Tsilhqot’in decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, which affirmed Indigenous land rights and clarified how Aboriginal title is proven, and required governments to obtain consent or justify infringements when developing on such lands (First Nations Tax Commission, 2024[40]). This would entail a tax on resources, infrastructure projects and expansions taking place on traditional territories. It would replace the negotiated one-off financial arrangements whenever a project takes place on First Nations title.
In Ontario’s Greenstone region, a tripartite partnership was formed between Greenstone Gold Mines Ltd., Kenogamisis Investment Corp. and Minodahmun Development LP (First Nations business entities).
Kenogamisis Investment Corporation is a joint venture corporation of Animbiigoo Zaagi’igan Anishinaabek, Aroland First Nation, Ginoogaming First Nation and Long Lake #58 First Nation, created to maximise participation by the First Nations in development projects.
Minodahmun Development LP is a First Nation-owned partnership created by Animbiigoo Zaagi’igan Anishinaabek, Aroland First Nation and Ginoogaming First Nation to ensure First Nations benefit from development, while growing the local economy.
The commitments include an agreement to upgrade the roads that connect First Nations communities to the provincial highway network, funding for the Indigenous Workforce Development Program through the province’s Skills Development Fund, and for funding the construction and maintenance of the Migizi Plaza Rest Stop, which will serve the needs of First Nation members, tourists and residents. The Government of Ontario bolstered the deal with commitments of public funding (e.g. pledging improved road infrastructure and local skills programmes) as part of the mine’s IBA.
Source: (Ontario Press Office, 2024[41])
These agreements are mostly for new projects (greenfield), but for modifications/expansions of “brownfield” sites (existing operations) companies are not required to update agreements with First Nations. Therefore some more dated agreements may not reflect current best practices such as robust procurement or employment clauses and may not be indexed to inflation, reducing the economic value First Nations are receiving from mining operations on their territory. While specific data is not available on all amendments made to mines within Northern Ontario or the province more broadly, Ontario had four new major mine expansions between 2019-2024, meaning approximately 11% of the 36 active mines across the province are being actively expanded (Ontario Mining Association, 2025[32]). This highlights the need to specify within agreements between companies and First Nations (such as IBAs) the thresholds for amendments to brownfield sites that will trigger consultation (this will differ depending on the preference of each First Nation), ranging from all amendments to only major changes. This can help to ensure stronger trust between companies and First Nations and reduce consultation fatigue in First Nations by providing the choice to be consulted on amendments to brownfield sites.
Priorities for the future to improve First Nations engagement in mining and wellbeing outcomes across Northern Ontario
Indigenous perspectives on mining in Northern Ontario are diverse—there is no single “Indigenous view” on resource extraction. Experiences range from established agreements enabling mine expansions in connected areas, to large-scale, high-investment projects like the Ring of Fire that require extensive negotiation and consent. Across the region, First Nations are actively defining their own pathways, exercising agency in shaping mining development while navigating the constraints of colonial legal and economic frameworks. Based on the abovementioned challenges and opportunities, emerging priorities for the future include:
Resolving contestations over consultation requirements (Duty to Consult, or DTC): First Nations territorial claims are unresolved in some cases. This is a challenging issue to navigate. Governments could disclose internal maps and data to prevent exclusionary practices, but First Nations may prefer for this information to be confidential. Moreover, the issue of shared/overlapping territory goes well beyond the duty to consult. In fact, DTC is not a process intended to resolve disagreements pertaining to issues involving rights, title, and continued stewardship of the lands and waterways that have sustained First Nations. Ideally this is a matter for First Nations to resolve, without external/colonial imposition.
Embedding the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and Indigenous partnership as core criteria in mining projects’ approvals: This mechanism can be used to operationalise FPIC with proper risk assessment benefits for both Indigenous rightsholders and mining companies. Capital markets are beginning to value projects with strong Indigenous partnerships, thus influencing project certainty and cost of capital. While many companies strive to adhere to FPIC (to varying degrees), FPIC standards are not yet universally adopted, creating a lack of uniformity and uncertainties of how companies can universally implement FPIC (especially for new companies entering the region and junior firms).
Ensuring Indigenous-led, strategic economic planning and business development: Of the approximately 30 fly-in First Nations communities in Northern Ontario, many are in a state of crisis due to chronic water, health, and mental health emergencies, all of which undermine their ability to meaningfully engage in mining development opportunities. Addressing these foundational challenges requires substantial, upfront investments in core infrastructure (e.g. safe water supply, adequate housing, healthcare, and social support) before communities can participate on equal footing as partners in the mining sector. Without resolving these urgent deficits, the burden of underinvestment leaves communities at a disadvantage, compounding existing inequalities and resulting in Nations negotiating from a position of vulnerability, rather than strength and self-determination (OECD 2019). Investing first in these critical areas not only honours the rights and dignity of First Nations but also creates the necessary social, economic, and governance capacity for communities to share in decisions and benefits related to resource projects.
Improving legacy brownfield agreements: In some cases (usually for small amendments) “brownfield” sites (existing mines) and patented lands are excluded consultation. This sometimes results in grey areas that have a lack of legal levers for communities to renegotiate in the situation where amendments are made to mining projects, impacting trust and creating uncertainty in partnerships.
Increasing opportunities and information to allow First Nations conduct informed decision about equity ownership in mining projects and supply chains, if desired: Equity ownership can potentially transform the role of First Nations from recipients of compensation to active partners with decision-making power regarding economic benefits, governance, and long-term prosperity. This should be presented as an opportunity for interested First Nations with proper information and capacity-building, as it can also expose the First Nation to risks. It should also be taken into account that not all First Nations are interested in equity ownership.
Strengthening capacity to close expertise and information gaps: First Nations administrations have many demands on their resources. They need to be resourced and have support for capacity building and training in specialised areas in order to effectively engage with the mining industry. Currently, many Nations rely on external experts to engage in consultation and negotiations with mining companies, highlighting the need for resourcing to train and equip community members with the skills to fill these positions.
Enhancing opportunities for First Nations involvement in long-term mining accountability: There is scope to enhance and simplify the mechanisms for Frist Nations to monitor and ensure accountability of mining impacts in their territories, including the compliance of company agreements over the long-term (inter-generational). For example, there are no clear frameworks for integrating traditional along with scientific knowledge in monitoring processes, or for monitoring cumulative health and environmental impacts of mining.
Establishing robust Indigenous procurement verification systems: There are many opportunities to grow business through procurement with the mining industry or with governments (e.g. for infrastructure investments). However, there are ongoing issues with non-Indigenous companies misrepresenting themselves as ‘Indigenous’ for procurement opportunities. This highlights the need for a universally agreed upon definition of an ‘Indigenous business’ that is constructed in consultation with Indigenous Peoples.
Leveraging sustainability standards for improved transparency: The adoption of national and international sustainability reporting standards (e.g. GRI, IFRS, task force on nature-related disclosures) is increasing. These frameworks can be used by First Nations and potentially formalised to hold mining companies accountable for their environmental and social performance, including engagement with Indigenous Peoples and efforts to adopt UNDRIP.
Addressing the challenges and opportunities of meaningful First Nations participation in mining requires a paradigm shift in policy, practice, and relationship-building. This shift must focus on Indigenous sovereignty, knowledge, and values, and be grounded in equity, transparency, and long-term sustainability for current and future generations. Drawing on interviews with First Nations leaders in Northern Ontario and 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 (Indigenous participants at 2024 OECD Mining Regions Conference, 2024[42]), this section identifies five critical areas for action: rights to land environment and safety; capacity building; access and inclusion; and partnerships and collaboration.
Rights to land, environment and safety
Indigenous land rights and FPIC
Northern Ontario should consider following British Columbia and the Northwest Territories’ model by developing mechanisms to adopt UNDRIP and subsequently the principles of FPIC in provincial/territorial law. Under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, BC has committed to co-developing new legal and policy frameworks with First Nations and to working with Indigenous organisations, such as the BC First Nations Energy and Mining Council, to develop strategies for critical minerals that prioritise Indigenous rights and economic participation. Similarly, the Northwest Territories is implementing the UNDRIP Implementation Act by modernising the Mineral Resources Act and its regulations under a protocol established by the Intergovernmental Agreement on Lands and Resources Management. This is a first for the territory and ensures that Indigenous governments are directly involved in shaping the rules and processes governing mining activities.
An intermediate step of the adoption of UNDRIP can include the creation of formal guidelines to assist in the uniform adoption and monitoring of FPIC across Northern Ontario’s resource projects. Principle 6 of Indigenous Services Canada’s Principles respecting the Government of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples acknowledges the need to go beyond the duty to consult and recognises the right of Indigenous Peoples to participate in decision-making in matters that impact their lands (Government of Canada, 2025[43]). Furthermore, many mining companies in the region are already adhering to FPIC (to varying degrees) and are legally required to consult impacted First Nations. Despite this, in Northern Ontario, there exists no formal mechanism to guide mining companies as they carry out FPIC and the monitoring of this process and outcomes from project to project. Guidelines such as the TSM Indigenous Community and Relationships Protocol (Box 1.10) set out criteria to ensure effective Indigenous engagement and dialogue with the aim to achieve FPIC across all stages of the mining lifecycle (Mining Association of Canada, 2021[44]). Protocols such as this can be strengthened to fit the context of Ontario and formalised to not only ensure greater alignment with FPIC but also provide all companies (even those who are not TSM members) with a guideline and set of monitoring principles to strengthen First Nations decision making in projects.
The Indigenous and Community Relationships Protocol is part of the Mining Association of Canada’s framework called Towards Sustainable Mining (TSM) and provides a structured assessment tool for mining facilities to evaluate their Indigenous and community engagement performance. It centres on five performance indicators:
1. Community of Interest (COI) Identification
2. Effective COI Engagement and Dialogue
3. Effective Indigenous Engagement and Dialogue
4. Community Impact and Benefit Management
5. COI Response Mechanism
These indicators guide companies in conducting proactive, meaningful, and context-appropriate outreach and relationship-building with Indigenous peoples and other communities. Under Indicator 3, companies are expected to foster meaningful engagement and decision-making processes with Indigenous communities, specifically, to aim to achieve free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) for any impacts affecting Indigenous rights, and to sustain that consent throughout a project’s lifecycle. This indicator further requires companies to facilitate equitable access to business opportunities for Indigenous peoples, and ensure that staff receive training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism. Moreover, the protocol also emphasises that FPIC implementation should align with the principles of UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) and respect applicable legal and constitutional frameworks. Companies are not expected to substitute government consultation responsibilities but to complement them through good-faith engagement aimed at broad support, not necessarily unanimous consent. All companies operating in Ontario who are members of the Mining Association of Canada must follow this protocol, which in 2025 included all major companies in the region including Vale, Glencore, IAMGOLD, and Agnico Eagle, among others.
The Government of Ontario’s introduction of Bill 5, the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025, need to be carefully implemented as First Nations express fears of the Act potentially weakening environmental safeguards, reducing oversight of mining and development projects, and limiting opportunities for meaningful First Nations consultation and consent. The Bill’s stated goal is to accelerate major infrastructure and resource extraction projects, particularly in response to global economic pressures and trade risks. The Bill proposes to streamline and fast-track approvals for projects in sectors such as mining by minimising regulatory delays and reducing what the government calls bureaucratic "red tape". A central feature of Bill 5 is the creation of "special economic zones," which allow the provincial cabinet to designate some areas in Ontario, such as the mineral-rich Ring of Fire in Northern Ontario, as exempt from some provincial and municipal laws and regulations, including those related to environmental protection, endangered species, and land use.
This Bill has been met with strong opposition from Indigenous leaders and organisations across Ontario (Schwientek, 2025[45]), who are concerned it will allow the government to fast-track critical consultation processes that protect threatened species, cultural heritage, and treaty rights, concentrating decision-making power in the hands of ministers. First Nations leaders have warned that Bill 5 could impact the province’s duty to consult. There are also concerns that the bill would restrict legal avenues for First Nations to challenge government decisions, as it prohibits lawsuits over actions taken under its provisions. The Government of Canada is also producing similar legislation (Bill C-5) to expedite projects that are of a national interest, which raises similar concerns.
Improving the competitiveness of the Provincial and Canadian economy (and its resilience in a context of trade disruptions) needs to be seen as an opportunity to also strengthen Indigenous rights, rather than threaten them. Many Nations have demonstrated readiness to sit at the table and advance projects in common, others need more capacity support and greater trust and recognition of their sovereignty. As in other OECD counties, the urgent competitiveness agenda calls for more effective internal negotiation to reach agreements that can benefit the region. Some of the recommendations of this chapter aim to build that middle ground.
Transparent environmental reporting
Transparent reporting ensures that First Nations have access to accurate, timely, and complete information about environmental risks, emissions, and remediation plans. Existing comprehensive frameworks for responsible mining help improve sustainability reporting standards. Some of these frameworks are already adopted by many companies in the region, including such as the Mining Association of Canada’s Towards Sustainable Mining Protocol and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Task Force on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA) Standard and forthcoming Canadian auditing standards that require transparent disclosure of environmental, social, and Indigenous engagement practices.
Despite the increasing adoption of these standards across companies, there is a lack of clear mechanisms to monitor their implementation or compare them among their different metrics. Therefore, Ontario Mining Association in co-operation with the government should promote a common system for easy access about the status of these standards and transparency on their monitoring. The system could be supported by training for First Nations to allow environmental monitoring to be carried out by Nations themselves.
Transparency on legacy sites is also relevant to improve trust and First Nations engagement in their remediation. In many legacy sites, historical contamination and insufficient consultation left communities with long-term environmental and health burdens. Information about legacy mines in Northen Ontario could be improved by strengthening Ontario’s Abandoned Mines Information System (AMIS) and the monitoring capacity to track environmental hazards and land tenure conflicts. This system is outdated and has incomplete data, with a lack of functional risk ranking system and limited public accessibility. Much of AMIS’s information is based on site assessments from the 1990s and early 2000s and many sites lack current, on-the-ground verification. The inability to accurately rank sites by public safety and environmental risk makes it difficult to prioritise remediation, while only a small fraction of sites, have been properly inspected. Ontario’s Ministry of Energy and Mines has yet to estimate the full cost of rehabilitating all abandoned sites, leaving financial planning fragmented. AMIS also fails to comprehensively document chemical contamination or physical instability, and does not consistently account for complex land tenure or overlapping interests, which can delay cleanup. Furthermore, the system’s reports and risk assessments are not always transparent or accessible to the public or Indigenous communities, who have called for real-time data sharing and Indigenous-led monitoring.
To improve AMIS, the Government of Ontario should prioritise up-to-date field assessments, starting from high-risk sties, and ensure that the risk-ranking tool is fully operational and transparent. There needs to be greater understanding of how site classifications are assigned. Comprehensive tracking of environmental hazards—including chemical and physical risks—must be integrated, and the system should be updated to reflect current land tenure and jurisdictional complexities. Financial planning should include regularly updated cost estimates for remediation, and AMIS should be made more accessible through user-friendly interfaces, real-time data sharing, and the integration of Indigenous knowledge and monitoring programmes. These steps would help ensure more effective, equitable, and transparent management of Ontario’s abandoned mine legacy.
Ensure community safety
First Nations have a right to safety that is enshrined in both legal and treaty frameworks, as well as international human rights standards. This right to safety encompasses protection from environmental harms, health risks, and social disruptions that can arise from mining operations on or near their traditional territories. A right to safety obligates mining companies and governments to engage in meaningful consultation, co-develop monitoring and closure plans, and address issues such as tailings management, emissions, water quality, and the social impacts of mining (including housing, substance abuse, and violence). For example, studies have pointed to increases in human trafficking and sexual abuse associated with resource development and the presence of work camps (Brooks, 2023[46]). Safety is not just the absence of harm, but also the presence of conditions that allow First Nations to thrive on their lands, reflecting the spirit of reciprocity and mutual care embedded in treaty relationships.
In 2019, the Canadian government introduced a new requirement to consider the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors” in impact assessment and energy project reviews under the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) and Canadian Energy Regulator Act (CERA). However, this framework could benefit from more effective implementation methods Hence, for mining projects, an Indigenous focused framework at the provincial level can provide helpful direction (Johnston, Walker and Hoogeveen, 2024[47]). The Indigenous Gender-Based Analysis Plus (IGBA+) Toolkit is a transformative framework designed to address the unique safety risks faced by Indigenous women, girls, Two-Spirit, and gender-diverse individuals in mining regions. It complements frameworks like the MMIWG Calls for Justice (e.g. Call 13.2 on gender impact assessments) and the Mining Association of Canada’s Indigenous and Community Relationships Protocol. IGBA+ recommends that companies co-develop safety strategies that honour Indigenous sovereignty. Its effectiveness depends on enforcement and resource allocation. Governments and industry must: adopt binding requirements for IGBA+ in mining approvals and monitoring; fund Indigenous-led training programmes to build technical and negotiation capacity; address gaps in data collection, particularly for Two-Spirit and gender-diverse communities. By embedding IGBA+ into mining governance, stakeholders can advance safety, equity, and reconciliation, thus ensuring Indigenous women and girls are empowered as decision-makers in shaping the future of their territories.
Safety is a multi-dimensional issue and a joint responsibility that can be effectively identified and directed by First Nations in conversation and collaboration with governments, industry, and support services including relevant NGOs using frameworks such as IGBA+. A key point of highlighting this is to consider safety as a form of governance agreement and potential partnership and to note the need for anticipatory planning and resourcing to address the diversity of safety issues that communities may experience. For vulnerable regions such as the Ring of Fire, governance and reporting frameworks could be established for ongoing monitoring and assessment of safety issues alongside the establishment of community-based incident reporting systems. Introducing a framework such as IGBA+ at the provincial level will also reduce complexity for companies and protect against reputational risk, providing a clear mechanism to follow to ensure structured and inclusive gender-based safety assessments and monitoring.
Capacity building
Access to appropriate expertise
Mining negotiations often require First Nations to hire specialised consultants, engineers, and financial experts to overcome information asymmetries and ensure fair agreements, interpret technical reports, manage environmental impacts, and enforce compliance through governance models like IBA implementation committees. It is ideal that much of this expertise be ‘in-house,’ ensuring institutional memory and community voice. This should not come at the expense of other aspects of governance and administration, such as investment in social and cultural initiatives. To this end, funding programmes like the Government of Ontario’s New Relationship Fund and Mineral Development Advisor positions have enabled First Nations to build consultation and engagement capacity and access technical expertise.8 Federally, the Indigenous Natural Resource Partnerships Program provides funding to support Indigenous communities, businesses, and organisations’ economic participation and readiness for engagement in natural resource projects, including mining. Furthermore, agreements such as the one between the Musselwhite Mine and the Windigo First Nations included contracts for catering and housekeeping services to the mining camp. These initial contracts enabled the First Nation communities in the area to build their own operations and capacity (Intergovernmental Working Group on the Mineral Industry, 2016[48]).
In order to increase access, the Government of Ontario should consider expanding the Mineral Development Advisor (MDA) stream of the Indigenous Participation Fund (IPF) by lowering the activity threshold for eligibility and allowing communities with moderate or emerging mineral activity to qualify. The programme could broaden the range of qualifying activities to include consultations, environmental monitoring, and negotiations for Impact Benefit Agreements, as well as anticipatory planning for projected mineral development. Introducing a pre-development stream and supporting regional partnerships would help build capacity in smaller or less active communities. Extending funding terms, providing renewal options, and allocating a portion of funds to regions with high economic need or legacy mine issues would promote equity. Enhanced training, mentorship, and streamlined application processes, along with regular outreach and performance monitoring, would further ensure that First Nations have the resources and support needed for meaningful participation in mineral development and oversight. There are a range of federal and provincially funded programs to support engagement and participation in mining. First Nations representatives have reported administrative barriers in accessing these funds due to the variety of sometimes complex application and reporting procedures. Efforts to simplify this process can help increase uptake.
Research, innovation, and education partnerships also help build and facilitate access to various types of expertise. The First Nations Major Projects Coalition is a good example of this. The coalition is the First Nation-led organisation to provide a collaborative platform for Indigenous communities to assert their expertise and advice in the context of major resource and infrastructure projects. A number of government and industry-funded programmes also support capacity building. Academic centres such as Lakehead University’s Centre of Excellence for Sustainable Mining and Exploration connect researchers with First Nations, Métis, government, and industry partners to address challenges in sustainable economic development, environmental protection, and the affirmation of Aboriginal and Treaty rights.
Beyond this both government and industry can support for capacity development in the sector by helping to finance Mining 101 training workshops tailored to First Nation communities and organisations (e.g. support a train-the-trainer model for in-community programme delivery) Research collaborations, initiatives such the Anishnawbe Business Professional Association (ABPA) and the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law, examine the effectiveness of current legal frameworks, equity ownership models, and procurement standards. These types of partnerships are often more cost effective for First Nations than reliance on external consultants. As demand for mineral exploration increases, it is critical that these types of initiatives be resourced and expanded.
Access to affordable capital and equity ownership
Promoting Indigenous equity ownership and participation options in major mining projects and related infrastructure initiatives (where it is desired by First Nations) is crucial for long-term economic benefits. A forward-looking approach to Indigenous economic inclusion in mining emphasises embedding Indigenous equity participation at both the pre-Final Investment Decision (pre-FID) and post-FID stages of project development (Box 1.11). Mining companies should prioritise offering equity stakes to Indigenous communities in new projects.
Affordable capital remains a persistent barrier, with many Nations historically excluded from direct ownership or meaningful participation in resource projects as a result. Private sector banks in Ontario are playing a growing role in providing access to capital, but their willingness to lend typically requires evidence of stable cash flows—such as net smelter return royalties or long-term service contracts with mining companies—before extending credit. While loans for acquiring equity provide First Nations ownership in a project, allowing for direct participation in governance and a share of profits, they also expose them to business risks. This may not be a preferred model.
For First Nations interested in pursuing ownership, less traditional financial models can be explored that are more appropriate for Indigenous communities, placing community assets and organisations under less risk. For instance, in Australia’s Northern Territory, the Indigenous owned Gulkula mine supplied high-quality bauxite to Rio Tinto rather than selling directly to market. This de-risks the marketing side of the operation and provides an example of how mature engagement between established mining companies and Indigenous Peoples can lead to mutual benefit (Barnes et al., 2024[49]).
Furthermore, loan guarantees are also an equity avenue for First Nations. They are not direct funding but a promise to back a loan, making it easier and cheaper for First Nations to borrow money for major investments, including equity stakes in mining projects. In 2024, the Government of Canada launched a novel Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program with up to CAD 10 billion in loan guarantees, helping First Nations secure financing for equity stakes and major investments at lower interest rates.9 It guarantees repayment of loans should a First Nation be unable to meet its obligations and provides funding for investment analysis and due diligence. This helps First Nations make informed decisions about potential mining investments.
Ontario has recently expanded and rebranded its Indigenous loan guarantee initiative, now called the Indigenous Opportunities Financing Program (IOFP), previously known as the Aboriginal Loan Guarantee Program (ALGP). This programme is designed to support Indigenous participation in major infrastructure and resource projects by providing government-backed loan guarantees. In the 2025 Ontario Budget, the programme’s funding was tripled from CAD 1 billion to CAD 3 billion. This move reflected the government’s commitment to increasing Indigenous access to capital for large-scale projects. The IOFP’s mandate has also been broadened. While the original programme focused primarily on electricity infrastructure—such as renewable energy, transmission, and generation projects—the IOFP now covers a wider range of sectors, including energy, pipelines, mining, critical minerals, resource development, and other eligible infrastructure projects.
Starting in the second quarter of 2025, the IOFP will be administered by the Building Ontario Fund, which will consolidate access to a suite of financing tools for Indigenous partners, with the loan guarantee as a central feature. The programme is available to entities wholly owned by one or more Indigenous partners, and loan proceeds must be used to fund a portion of their equity investments in eligible projects. The government typically guarantees about 75% of a loan taken by an Indigenous entity to invest in an eligible project, making it easier and more affordable for Indigenous communities to secure financing. The process includes obtaining financial and legal advice and may involve costs similar regardless of project size, making the programme most efficient for projects over CAD 5 million. Once approved, the government guarantees the loan, and the Indigenous entity can proceed with its equity investment in the project. These financial tools should be available for new (greenfield) projects as well as existing (brownfield) opportunities.
These funding programmes are important. However, the demands for access to capital may outstrip them. The Canadian Climate Institute estimates that governments will need to facilitate Indigenous access to capital of around CAD 7.5 billion to enable them to secure a 25 per cent equity stake in upstream critical minerals mining projects by 2040 (Canadain Climate Institute, 2025[50]). The First Nations Major Projects Coalition (FNMPC) estimates that over the next decade, more than CAD 50 billion will be needed to support First Nations’ equity financing in major projects across Canada (First Nations Major Projects Coalition, 2023[51]).10
In a forward-looking approach to Indigenous economic inclusion, mining proponents can embed Indigenous equity participation at both pre-Final Investment Decision (pre-FID) and post-FID stages of project development. This model positions Indigenous interests not merely as stakeholders, but as co-investors—capable of taking on aligned risk in exchange for proportionate reward.
At the pre-FID phase, Indigenous groups are formally invited to participate in capital raising alongside mainstream and institutional investors. They are provided the same Information Memorandum (IM) and access to commercial advisors, ensuring full transparency on project risk, returns, and timelines.
At the post-FID stage, further equity tranches or convertible instruments can be made available, enabling participation as the project de-risks. Indigenous interests are offered the same guidance on internal rates of return (IRR), consistent with what is extended to other capital partners.
This model ensures alignment across financial, operational, and cultural objectives, while enabling Indigenous investors—including representative economic vehicles—to build wealth, shape governance, and reinvest into community priorities. It reflects a principled, market-aligned pathway to Indigenous economic inclusion.
De-risking Project Finance and Creating Project Certainty
Introducing Indigenous interests into capital raising not only promotes equity—it also de-risks project finance by fostering early trust, transparency, and co-ownership. When Indigenous investors are granted early access to project design options and management dialogue, their input can shape more culturally attuned and environmentally responsive development pathways. This enables the proponent to address cultural heritage, land use, and environmental concerns at the front end, rather than during the consents and agreement phase, which usually occurs toward the back end of the development timeline.
Clear alignment on risk and return expectations builds confidence among all financiers, while Indigenous co-investment signals community support. This involvement is an increasingly important factor for lenders and regulators. The result is stronger social agency, faster approvals, and more resilient project economics. Inclusive capital design is not just fair—it is financially strategic.
Source: Darren Godwell, i2i Global
Royalties frameworks
Beyond access to affordable capital to facilitate equity ownership and business development, there is growing interest in some communities for more direct revenue models that could benefit First Nations. Ontario has taken steps in this direction, signing resource revenue sharing agreements in 2018 with Indigenous councils representing 35 Nations to share 40% of mining taxes and royalties from existing mines and 45% from future mines, resulting in millions directed to Indigenous communities for economic and community development (Government of Canada, 2025[43]). This system ensures equity among participating First Nations and reduces potential territorial disparities. The First Nations Tax Commission advocates for a First Nations Resource Charge that would allow First Nations to opt in and impose a pre-specified charge on resource development projects within their traditional territories or ancestral lands. This would provide them with stable and predictable revenues while also streamlining negotiations and improving business competitiveness (First Nations Tax Commission, 2023[52]). Government of Ontario should explore the viability of such an approach and provide the option where First Nations are interested.
Royalties’ frameworks may also be considered under the Government of Canada’s National Benefits-Sharing Framework (NBSF), which at the time of publication, is under development. The NSBF aims to ensure that Indigenous communities, particularly First Nations, directly and equitably benefit from major resource projects—such as mining—on their traditional territories (Government of Ontario, 2025[16]). The framework is being co-developed with Indigenous Peoples, communities, and businesses to reflect their priorities and needs, and to create more transparent, standardised, and enforceable mechanisms for sharing economic benefits, including royalties, equity ownership, employment, and business opportunities, while also supporting community well-being and long-term sustainability. The framework responds to calls from First Nations for more holistic, regionally inclusive approaches and aims to move beyond ad hoc, project-specific agreements and toward a consistent national standard that recognises Indigenous rights, supports self-determination, and advances economic reconciliation in the resource sector. The NBSF has the potential to transform some of the most persistent challenges facing First Nations, access to capital among them. It has the potential to provide a flexible revenue stream that First Nations could use to meet their development priorities—as opposed to project-based funding or earmarked transfers.
Royalty streams can provide stable funding. For example, Nations Royalty, founded by the Nisga’a Nation in partnership with mining financier Frank Giustra, is pioneering a groundbreaking model in Canada by pooling First Nations’ mining royalties to create a majority Indigenous-owned, publicly traded, dividend-paying company (Nations Royalty, 2025[53]). The company began by consolidating the Nisga’a Nation’s royalties from several major mining projects in BC’s Golden Triangle into a single investment vehicle. This enabled them to convert their individual royalty streams—typically negotiated through benefit agreements with mining companies—into shares in Nations Royalty, offering investors diversified exposure to mining assets while creating a stable revenue stream for its Indigenous shareholders. The model is designed to reduce risk for participating First Nations, especially those with royalties tied to a single mine, by spreading income sources across multiple projects. The company is actively seeking to expand its portfolio by inviting other royalty-holding First Nations across Canada to join. This could unlock greater value, foster economic reconciliation, and build one of the world’s leading royalty companies, one that is rooted in Indigenous ownership and governance.
Indigenous inclusion in ongoing monitoring and engagement of mining activities
First Nations in Northern Ontario are increasingly included in the monitoring and engagement of mining activities through a combination of formal agreements, community-led programmes, and strategic partnerships, many of which are supported by targeted funding. IBAs often establish governance structures such as monitoring committees and implementation boards, engaging First Nations to oversee compliance, environmental standards, and benefit-sharing throughout the mine’s life.
Research collaborations with First Nations have also been established to conduct monitoring. For example, Michipicoten First Nation collaborates with Trent University researchers and graduate students to analyse water samples and wildlife data related to mining activities on their territory. This partnership helps the Nation to independently verify environmental reports from mining companies, develop technical capacity within the community, and ensure monitoring processes reflect both scientific standards and Indigenous knowledge. Community-driven initiatives like the Government of Canada’s Indigenous Guardians Programme empower First Nations to conduct environmental monitoring using both traditional knowledge and scientific methods (Box 1.12). There has been strong demand for this programme, which is not mining specific.
To strengthen its relevance in mining regions, First Nations that are interested could collaborate with the federal and provincial governments and the mining industry to formally integrate Guardians into mining regulatory processes. This could include participation in environmental assessments, permitting, and compliance monitoring so that Traditional Knowledge and scientific data are jointly used in decision-making. For those interested in such engagement, mining companies could fund Indigenous-led monitoring, provide real-time data access, and grant Guardians unrestricted site access. Dedicated funding could also be allocated for Guardians to lead remediation of abandoned mines and track environmental and cultural risks where there is interest. Technical capacity can be enhanced through partnerships with academic institutions like Lakehead University that would provide training in relevant monitoring and analysis skills. Programmes like this can support Indigenous data sovereignty by developing Indigenous-controlled platforms for environmental data sharing, ensuring transparency and accountability. By embedding Guardians as key decision-makers in mining governance, Canada can better uphold Indigenous rights, advance reconciliation, and ensure that mining activities respect FPIC.
The Federal Indigenous Guardians Program has significantly empowered First Nations to monitor lands including those affected by mining and to participate in mine remediation efforts. Through substantial federal investments—over CAD 200 million nationally, including recent multi-million dollar allocations to Northern Ontario communities—the programme supports Indigenous-led environmental stewardship initiatives that place trained Guardians on the ground as the “eyes and ears” of their Nations. These Guardians are responsible for monitoring environmental conditions, collecting data on water, wildlife, and land health, and ensuring that mining activities—both active and abandoned—are managed in ways that respect Indigenous rights, traditional knowledge, and local priorities.
In practice, Guardians programmes have enabled First Nations to conduct independent, culturally informed monitoring at mine sites, such as at Voisey’s Bay, where on-site Indigenous Guardians have improved communication between communities, governments, and mining companies. They have also played a direct role in identifying and responding to environmental hazards. In Northern Ontario, federal funding has supported projects like the Matawa First Nations Management’s Four Rivers Regional Guardians Network and the Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek community programme, which specifically include protocols for monitoring mining sites and integrating traditional knowledge with scientific analysis. These initiatives not only enhance environmental oversight and remediation but also foster local employment, build technical capacity, and strengthen community decision-making around resource development.
Importantly, the Indigenous Guardians Program is Indigenous-led, with funding decisions and programme design controlled by First Nations themselves through the National Guardians Network. This structure ensures that monitoring and remediation activities are responsive to the needs and values of each Nation, rather than being dictated by external governments or industry. As a result, the programme has become a model for reconciliation, supporting First Nations in fulfilling their stewardship responsibilities, building trust with industry, and ensuring that mining and mine remediation are carried out in a manner that protects both the environment and Indigenous ways of life
Source: (Government of Canada, 2025[54])
Access and Inclusion
Enhance Indigenous procurement opportunities
Indigenous procurement in the mining sector represents a significant opportunity for advancing Indigenous economic development and reconciliation. Mining project procurement is often the largest operational expense, creating substantial potential for Indigenous businesses to participate meaningfully in local and regional economies. Organisations such as Mining Shared Value work to promote best practices and transparency in local and Indigenous procurement, while resources like the Canadian Minerals and Metals Plan (CMMP) Local Procurement Checklist offer practical guidance for both companies and Indigenous suppliers. These tools encourage firms to set clear procurement targets, involve Indigenous communities in determining business eligibility, and support meaningful partnerships that foster supplier development and capacity building.
Despite these growing opportunities, Indigenous enterprises often face barriers such as limited organisational capacity, inconsistent access to information about contract opportunities, complex procurement processes, and geographic challenges. Set-asides in contracts, Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs), and joint ventures have proven helpful, but expanding the reach and impact of Indigenous procurement will require continued support from government policy, industry leadership, and targeted outreach. Addressing these challenges through inclusive policies and partnership strategies will not only ensure shared economic benefits, but also strengthen relationships between mining companies and Indigenous communities, laying the foundation for long-term business growth and operational stability.
Mining companies should streamline their procurement processes to increase accessibility for Indigenous suppliers, including providing plain-language guidelines, up-to-date information on procurement opportunities, and culturally relevant outreach. Expanding mentorship and training supports for Indigenous entrepreneurs—especially those operating in remote communities or through community-owned ventures—will build organisational and technical capacity to participate effectively in bids and contracting. Integrating Indigenous business directories, standardised business definitions, and feedback mechanisms into procurement systems can further reduce barriers to entry and ensure opportunities are widely communicated. Cultural competency training for company staff and contractors is crucial, fostering mutual respect, understanding, and effective partnerships with Indigenous suppliers and leadership. Ultimately, embedding procurement requirements, consistent reporting, and Indigenous participation metrics into government and industry standards will promote long-term economic reconciliation and shared prosperity in the mining sector.
Beyond mining sector procurement, governments at all levels should work in partnership with Indigenous Peoples to design and implement procurement policies that create real opportunities for Indigenous businesses to participate in and benefit from infrastructure projects. This includes establishing clear Indigenous procurement targets. For example, a percentage of contracts could be set aside specifically for Indigenous businesses. Moreover, Indigenous communities should be directly involved in defining what constitutes an Indigenous business for procurement purposes. These policies should evaluate using the Indigenous Business Definitions that were developed by National Indigenous organisations (NACCA, 2023[55]).
The Government of Ontario has had an Aboriginal Procurement Program since 2015. It has achieved some positive outcomes, such as increasing contracting opportunities for Indigenous-owned businesses, particularly in Northern Ontario, and supporting local employment and capacity-building. However, the programme faces significant challenges. Results from the 2020 Canadian Council of Aboriginal Business Survey finds that only around 36% of Indigenous businesses in Ontario are aware of the programme, and just 20% have ever bid on a provincial government contract (Canadian Council of Aboriginal Business, 2020[56]). Many Indigenous businesses report barriers such as the complexity of government procurement, lack of experience, and uncertainty about the relevance of their products or services to government needs (Canadian Council of Aboriginal Business, 2020[56]). While joint ventures have helped some Indigenous businesses access larger contracts, finding suitable partners and managing those relationships can be challenging. The majority of Indigenous businesses have not engaged with government procurement opportunities, indicating that the programme’s reach and impact could be expanded through improved outreach, simplified processes, and more targeted support.
Enhance recruitment and retention of Indigenous Peoples in mining companies and firms
Strengthening collaboration and partnerships is essential for increasing Indigenous participation in mining, where communities wish to participate, and responsibility for implementation should be shared across different levels of government and the private sector. The federal government should set national standards and provide funding for Indigenous skills development, training, and mentorship programmes. It should also ensure that its policies promote inclusive and equitable participation in the mining sector. The provincial government of Ontario should continue (and expand) targeted investments such as the recent CAD 3.1 billion commitment to Indigenous participation in mining. This commitment includes loan guarantees, grants, and scholarships for Indigenous students interested in mining and resource development careers. The province should also support structured, ongoing dialogue among Indigenous communities, mining companies, and government authorities to identify employment interest from communities and priorities and co-create solutions. This would go a long way in encouraging partnerships with Indigenous-owned businesses and local employers to create direct pathways into mining careers.
Mining companies should operationalise culturally relevant recruitment strategies, including outreach through community visits and school presentations, and involve Indigenous staff in recruitment to inspire potential candidates. Many companies already undertake such outreach, but broader adoption and formalisation are needed. Companies should also develop and expand mentorship programmes, especially those pairing new Indigenous hires with experienced Indigenous workers to facilitate orientation, integration, and ongoing support. While some formal and informal mentoring exists, scaling these programmes across the sector will further support retention. Larger mining firms, with greater resources, should provide comprehensive wrap-around and retention services tailored to Indigenous workers, while smaller firms should be encouraged and supported to do the same.
Inclusive decision-making and governance should be mandated by governments, requiring the involvement of Indigenous Peoples in project development, environmental management, and employment policy decisions. Both federal and provincial governments should require regular monitoring and evaluation of recruitment and retention strategies. This should include structured meetings and feedback from Indigenous employees and communities in order to ensure that initiatives remain effective and responsive over time. Some companies and agreements already include Indigenous governance roles and regular feedback mechanisms, but sector-wide consistency and accountability are needed.
Include Indigenous Peoples in remediation and abandoned mine sites reclamation
To ensure Indigenous Peoples are meaningfully included in abandoned mine site reclamation in Ontario, Ontario’s Mining Act could be amended to mandate supporting Indigenous co-management of abandoned mine sites, where communities are interested. This would include Indigenous participation in decision-making bodies, joint oversight committees, and the integration of Traditional Knowledge into risk assessments and environmental monitoring. The process could mirror the First Nations Major Projects Coalition (FNMPC) framework (FNMPC, 2024[57]), which prioritises Indigenous sovereignty in project approvals. Ontario’s Abandoned Mines Information System (AMIS) should be updated to include Indigenous-defined risk criteria, such as threats to cultural sites and traditional food systems, and enable Indigenous-led monitoring, supported by expanded Indigenous Guardians programmes (Chong and Basu., 2024[58]).
The Government of Ontario could legislate procurement quotas for Indigenous-owned firms in remediation contracts. Procurement rules should prioritise verified Indigenous-owned businesses for remediation contracts, and a dedicated legacy remediation fund, co-managed with Indigenous partners, could be established to address high-risk sites. Financial assurance requirements should be strengthened so that companies secure bonds covering more than the estimated remediation costs, with Indigenous communities involved in approving these estimates. Transparent, real-time data sharing about contaminants and site conditions is essential, with GIS platforms managed by First Nations.
Invest in land-based and Indigenous-focused learning
Land-based learning offers a powerful means of strengthening First Nations’ economic development and engagement with Ontario’s mining sector by weaving together traditional knowledge, cultural values, and practical skills that reflect community priorities. This approach fosters self-determination and environmental stewardship and can enhance workforce readiness. Through land-based education, community members gain the skills necessary to participate meaningfully in mining projects such as environmental monitoring. Programmes such as the Indigenous Guardians Program exemplify this by training participants to assess ecological impacts using both traditional knowledge and scientific methods, empowering communities to advocate for sustainable practices and hold companies accountable. This dual expertise is crucial for informed consent processes and ensures that mining activities align with Indigenous land-use plans, such as those developed under Ontario’s Far North Land Use Planning Initiative.11
By combining hands-on training in resource management with cultural teachings, land-based learning prepares Indigenous Peoples for diverse roles in mining while preserving sovereignty over traditional territories. Initiatives like Aki-eh Dibinwewziwin emphasise culturally grounded skills such as land mapping and treaty rights awareness, which are essential for leadership in mining operations. These programmes also support Indigenous-led businesses, like Ednysian Camp & Logistics, by fostering entrepreneurship rooted in community values. Moreover, land-based learning helps address historical distrust by equipping Indigenous communities with the tools to engage proactively with industry. The Anishinabek Nation’s advocacy for mandatory cultural competency training for mining professionals underscores the importance of understanding Indigenous protocols and land relationships as a way to reduce conflicts (Anishinabek Nation, 2011[59]). Land-based education is supported by resources like the First Major Projects Coalition Spirit of the Land Toolkit, that integrates traditional ecological knowledge into the complete mine lifecycle, including mine closure planning, ensuring that projects respect sacred sites and biodiversity (First Nations Major Projects Coalition, 2025[60]). Such approaches align with the growing demand for ESG compliance in mining and provides integrated policy and technical guidance to support consent-based decision-making and the protection of Indigenous cultural rights.
To advance land-based learning, region-specific land-based curricula is needed to emphasise skills like GIS mapping, environmental monitoring. The Government of Ontario and industry partners can support this by funding Indigenous-led training hubs that blend traditional knowledge with technical mining expertise. Educational institutions should collaborate with First Nations to create curricula that integrate traditional ecological knowledge and land-based learning with technical mining skills. Programmes such as the "stope school" developed by Barrick Gold and Confederation College could be expanded to include more Indigenous content, while field schools that bring training to learners in remote communities—such as Confederation College’s carpentry training in fly-in communities—help reduce barriers to participation and ensure skills are relevant to local mining projects. Initiatives like Women in Trades and Lakehead University’s collaborations with industry partners address sector-specific gaps. Mining companies can also play a role by sponsoring cultural camps and land-based learning opportunities for Indigenous youth, which could spark interest in both traditional practices and modern mining techniques.
A cohort model is especially important for training because it fosters a strong sense of community, belonging, and mutual support. In cohort-based programmes, such as the Aboriginal Women in Mining Program (Box 1.13), learners progress together and support one another through challenges unique to Indigenous students, such as being away from home, facing cultural barriers, or balancing family obligations. This model helps reduce isolation, increases motivation, and enhances retention and completion rates, as students encourage each other and learn collaboratively. In the context of workforce training, especially in sectors like mining, cohort models can also facilitate mentorship, collective problem-solving, and the sharing of lived experiences, all of which are vital for building capacity, confidence, and leadership among Indigenous participants. The Aboriginal Women in Mining (AWIM) programme is primarily funded by the Government of Canada through Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) as part of the Skills and Partnership Fund (SPF). In addition to federal funding, the programme has received support from the Ontario government, notably through the Investing in Women’s Futures programme, which allocated CAD 325,000 over three years to Keepers of the Circle, the parent organisation of AWIM, to provide pre-employment training and wraparound supports for Indigenous women in northeastern Ontario. These types of programmes are a leading practice and should be expanded.
The Aboriginal Women in Mining (AWIM) programme, led by Keepers of the Circle, is a transformative initiative designed to support First Nations and Métis women in accessing employment and self-employment opportunities within the mining sector and other non-traditional industries. AWIM provides a holistic pathway that begins with personal development and life skills training, followed by technical instruction and industry-specific certifications, such as the Common Core Modules required for mining work. The programme also offers job coaching, on-the-job placements, and direct connections to employers, ensuring that participants are well-prepared for long-term, meaningful employment. Since its inception in 2013, AWIM have trained over 700 Indigenous women and Two Spirit individuals, with more than half securing employment or work placements in mining or related fields.
In 2019, the Bucket Shop (a manufacturing and heavy equipment firm) partnered with Keepers of the Circle and the Canadian Welding Bureau (CWB) to create a programme that mirrored the curriculum used in Ontario colleges, but condensed it into an intensive eight-week, five-hours-per-day practical format. The CWB generously donated the curriculum, typically a 2.5-year programme, allowing participants to gain the same foundational skills in a much shorter timeframe. Trainees learned essential welding techniques and, upon completion, took the CWB welding test, with all participants earning at least one welding ticket. Over two years, the programme graduated 42 Indigenous women, five of whom were hired full-time by the Bucket Shop, while the others received references and support to pursue careers in the mining sector.
The initiative not only addressed the skilled trades gap in the region but also demonstrated that, with the right support and culturally sensitive approach—including staff training on Indigenous culture and history—Indigenous women could quickly gain industry-recognised credentials and transition successfully into non-traditional roles. The programme’s success has influenced the development of a new, fast-tracked credentialed training pathway in partnership with local colleges and the Ministry of Education, ensuring continued opportunities for Indigenous women in mining-related trades, with a strong emphasis on cultural inclusion and practical, workplace-based learning.
Provide greater opportunity for Indigenous representation within international organisations and events related to mining
Providing greater opportunities for Indigenous representation within international organisations related to mining and sustainable development is important for ensuring Indigenous perspectives are considered at a global level. Among key international organisations, only United Nations bodies and the Arctic Council have specific forums for the representation and participation of Indigenous Peoples.12 The OECD has also committed to fostering platforms for ongoing dialogue and knowledge-sharing among Indigenous communities, governments, industry, and researchers in support or Indigenous rights.
Participation in international forums can be costly and information might not reach participants in time. Governments in partnership with mining companies can keep supporting the participation of Indigenous leaders in such international forums and conferences. Sponsorships for Indigenous representatives to attend and present at international mining events as well as secondees opportunities to work in mining-related organisations, such as the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), could be strengthened. Additionally, supporting the development of international Indigenous networks focused on mining and resource development can help amplify Indigenous voices on the global stage.
Partnerships and collaboration
Indigenous regional planning
The basic unit of governance of a First Nation is a band, which is a creation of the Indian Act. This structure has sometimes set up bands to compete with one another for resources and recognition (and thus potentially exploited by governments and industry). Each First Nation has a common history, language and territory; if FNs work together as a collective they can pool resources and know-how to realise their development objectives. This is an ongoing political project across many First Nations that changes how they collectively voice their interests.
Indigenous regional planning supports such co-ordinated and strategic engagement. This can take a variety of forms. For example, the development of regional economic coalitions among First Nations, such as the Wabun Tribal Council model, which can strengthen negotiating positions and ensure more equitable distribution of benefits for all members. Regional planning requires resourcing and a range of expertise to be successful. The OECD has previously recommended that the Government of Canada encourage regional partnership and strategic planning by:
Expanding the Government of Canada’s Comprehensive Community Planning initiative (funded by Indigenous Services Canada) to support regional planning in addition to community level plans;
Expanding the role of Indigenous Financial Institutions to include support for strategic planning activities and governance building;
Simplifying the community and infrastructure planning framework for First Nations (consolidate planning requirements); and
Providing support for multiple First Nations communities to undertake joint community and infrastructure planning (OECD 2019).
These recommendations remain relevant today. It is also noted that there is a need for more regional support institutions that are non-profit and apolitical. Presently, when communities need this type of support, they often hire consultants, which is expensive and creates a resentful relation of dependency.
Regional planning is critical for impact assessments such as the unique government-First Nations Regional Assessment process for the Ring of Fire area (Government of Canada, 2025[5]). Co-led by 15 First Nations and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC)13, the collaborative framework will evaluate the environmental, health, social, and economic impacts of potential mining and infrastructure developments to inform future project-specific impact assessments under the federal Impact Assessment Act. The resulting final report will be submitted to the Chiefs of all First Nations, partners and the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change to guide decision making. The original framework lacked mechanisms for Indigenous governing bodies to co-enforce or co-lead the assessment, leading to accusations of token participation and a top-down approach. Concerns also arose about the narrow scope prioritising mining interests over holistic considerations like climate impacts, gender-based analysis, and the protection of peatlands critical for carbon storage. These issues prompted a reset in 2023, with the federal government committing to a revised, co-developed process. The revamped regional model, finalised in 2025, addresses many of these critiques and offers significant benefits for participating First Nations. The terms of reference now require collaboration on defining assessment boundaries, data collection methods, and mitigation strategies, which should reduce the risk of fragmented or exclusionary planning.
The Government of Ontario has raised concerns about the regional assessment process, federal intervention and the perceived undermining of provincial jurisdiction and priorities. This favours a project-by-project, road-by-road approach to environmental assessments rather than a comprehensive, cumulative regional review (Scott, 2020[62]). However, while the regional assessment may take time, it will help First Nations to comprehensively understand risks, plan, and engage with industry proponents. The process can also strengthen Indigenous capacity for self-determination, providing a template for future partnerships and fostering economic opportunities aligned with sustainability principles. This is a novel and potentially leading practice in the field of impact assessment, though it is still relatively new and untested.
First Nations-Municipal partnerships
Over the past two decades, the landscape of Northern Ontario has been shaped by a growing awareness that historical divisions, if left unaddressed, will continue to impede economic growth, social cohesion, and the realization of a just society. In response, First Nations and municipalities have begun to forge new relationships, moving from transactional interactions to collaborative, long-term partnerships that prioritise community well-being, economic opportunity, and cultural preservation.
Collaborations often focus on sector-specific growth. Municipalities like Thunder Bay have partnered with Fort William First Nation to attract major industrial investments, including a ferrochrome processor, by presenting a united front to potential investors and government agencies. Additionally, partnerships in infrastructure development, such as Biigtigong Nishnaabeg First Nation and the municipality of Marathon's port authority project, can create opportunities for long-term economic diversification beyond mining activities (Box 1.14). By aligning economic interests and pooling resources, First Nations and municipalities are able to undertake projects that would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve independently.
Despite their successes, First Nations–municipal partnerships in Northern Ontario face ongoing challenges. Communication gaps, differing timelines and priorities, and capacity limitations can delay projects and strain relationships. Smaller municipalities and First Nations may lack the staff or financial resources to sustain long-term collaborations, while navigating provincial and federal funding criteria often requires external support. First Nations–municipal relations in Northern Ontario can be strengthened through a combination of relationship-building, formal agreements, inclusive consultation, and ongoing education. A foundational step is recognising Indigenous communities as sovereign partners and engaging in government-to-government relationships based on mutual respect, trust, and shared decision-making. Municipalities can move beyond project-specific or ad hoc engagement by establishing ongoing, structured partnerships, such as regular consultation meetings and the creation of joint advisory boards or reconciliation committees. These mechanisms ensure that Indigenous voices are consistently included in municipal planning and decision-making, not just when legal obligations arise.
Formal agreements, like local Friendship Declarations or Indigenous-Municipal Relationship Agreements, provide clear frameworks for collaboration and set expectations for how municipalities and First Nations can work together. The Declaration of Mutual Commitment and Friendship, developed by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and the Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres (OFIFC), is a model (or example) that municipalities can adapt locally to articulate shared goals and responsibilities with local First Nations. These agreements help to institutionalise the relationship, making it more resilient to changes in leadership or staff. Building cultural competency among municipal leaders and staff is another crucial element. Training on Indigenous history, rights, and contemporary issues can help break down barriers, address systemic racism, and foster a deeper understanding of the contributions and needs of Indigenous Peoples. This cultural awareness supports more respectful and effective collaboration.
Capacity building on both sides is essential. Municipalities and First Nations can benefit from joint training, shared resources, and collaborative economic development initiatives. Programmes such as the Community Economic Development Initiative (CEDI), which is a partnership between the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and Cando (Council for the Advancement of Native Development Officers), have demonstrated success by supporting more than 20 partnerships across Canada, providing toolkits, and facilitating joint projects that strengthen both communities (CEDI, 2025[63]). Addressing systemic barriers is another critical function of these partnerships. By simplifying bureaucratic processes and sharing resources, partnerships make it easier for smaller or under-resourced communities to access funding and participate in regional development.
Strengthening these relationships requires a long-term commitment to reconciliation. This includes responding to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action, adopting inclusive policies, and advocating for municipal involvement in broader land claim and treaty implementation discussions when municipal interests are affected. By embedding these practices into their operations, municipalities and First Nations in Northern Ontario can create durable, equitable partnerships that improve social equity, economic opportunity, and community well-being for all residents. As Northern Ontario continues to navigate the challenges of resource development, demographic change, and social transformation, these partnerships offer a blueprint for building inclusive, resilient communities that honour the past while embracing the future. When municipalities and First Nations work together, they create a collective future that is stronger, more just, and more sustainable than the sum of its parts.
The municipality of Marathon’s new port project, developed in partnership with Biigtigong Nishnaabeg First Nation, and logistics company QSL, stands to deliver significant benefits to local First Nations. Through a formal memorandum of understanding, Biigtigong Nishnaabeg is a co-owner and co-decision-maker in the port authority, ensuring that First Nations have a direct voice in the governance, management, and long-term planning of the port. This partnership model creates opportunities for equitable economic development, with First Nations positioned to share in revenues generated by port activities, access new employment and training opportunities, and participate in procurement and supply chain contracts linked to both the port and the broader mining and resource sector.
The port’s revitalisation is expected to support the movement of critical minerals and other resources, aligning with regional mining projects in which First Nations are already involved, and strengthening their role in the local economy. Additionally, the collaborative approach to port development reflects a commitment to reconciliation and mutual prosperity. This sets a precedent for future infrastructure projects in the region by embedding Indigenous rights, consent, and benefit-sharing into the core of economic development.
Source: (Ross, 2022[64]), (CBC News, 2024[65])
References
[19] Agnico Eagle (2024), AGNICO EAGLE AWARDED $10 MILLION FROM THE ONTARIO SKILLS DEVELOPMENT FUND TO CONTINUE LEADING SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING FOR MINING INDUSTRY IN NORTHERN ONTARIO, https://www.agnicoeagle.com/English/news-and-media/news-releases/news-details/2024/AGNICO-EAGLE-AWARDED-10-MILLION-FROM-THE-ONTARIO-SKILLS-DEVELOPMENT-FUND-TO-CONTINUE-LEADING-SKILLS-DEVELOPMENT-AND-TRAINING-FOR-MINING-INDUSTRY-IN-NORTHERN-ONTARIO-11-12-2.
[33] Aki-eh Dibinwewziwin (2025), Aki-eh Dibinwewziwin is a new kind of mining partnership., https://adlp.ca/.
[59] Anishinabek Nation (2011), Anishinabek Minerals and Mining: Community Engagement Sessions., Nipissing First Nation: Anishinabek Nation. www.anishinabek.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/MiningReport.pdf.
[28] Autumn Watkinson, M. et al. (2022), “Ecosystem Recovery of the Sudbury Technogenic Barrens 30 Years Post-Restoration”, Eurasian Soil Science, Vol. 55/5, pp. 663-672, https://doi.org/10.1134/s106422932205012x.
[49] Barnes, R. et al. (2024), Gulkula Mining: Indigenous Landowners in Control. A Collaborative Case Study with Gumatj Corp, https://www.csrm.uq.edu.au/publications/gulkula-mining-indigenous-landowners-taking-control-a-collaborative-case-study-with-gumatj-corporation.
[15] BC Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals (2025), Overview of the Mineral Claim Consultation Framework, https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/mineral-exploration-mining/documents/mineral-claims-consultation-framework/mccf_overview.pdf.
[46] Brooks, J. (2023), Two Countries in Crisis: Man Camps and the Nightmare of Non-Indigenous Criminal Jurisdiction in the United States and Canada, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 55: 533-578. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle.
[29] Brunet, N. and L. S (2023), Local Communities and the Mining Industry, Routledge.
[34] Canada Nickel (2025), Crawford Nickel Project, https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/documents/p83857/159950E.pdf.
[50] Canadain Climate Institute (2025), Critical path: Securing Canada’s place in the global critical minerals race, https://climateinstitute.ca/reports/critical-minerals/#:~:text=The%20Canadian%20Climate%20Institute's%20report,the%20production%20of%20critical%20minerals.
[56] Canadian Council of Aboriginal Business (2020), Promise and Prosperity, The 2020 Ontario Aboriginal Business Survey.
[13] Cavaluzzo (2024), Grassy Narrows Seeks Declaration that Ontario’s Mining Act is Unconstitutional, https://www.cavalluzzo.com/resources/news/news-item/grassy-narrows-seeks-declaration-that-ontario-s-mining-act-is-unconstitutional.
[65] CBC News (2024), New agreement marks big step forward for Marathon port, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/marathon-port-partnership-1.7137952.
[63] CEDI (2025), First Nation-Municipal Community Economic Development Initiative (CEDI), https://www.cedipartnerships.ca/.
[12] Chiefs of Ontario (2023), Chiefs of Ontario Express Support for Matawa Chiefs Council in their Response Against Ontario’s Bill 71: Building More Mines Act, https://chiefs-of-ontario.org/the-chiefs-of-ontario-call-on-the-government-of-ontario-to-declare-a-365-day-moratorium-of-mine-claims-staking/.
[58] Chong, K. and N. Basu. (2024), Contaminated sites and in Canada and the United States: A scoping review, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 20 (5): 1306-1329.
[18] Cree Nation (2024), Cree Nation Mining Policy, https://www.cngov.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/cree_nation_mining_policy-1.pdf.
[20] Crown Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (2018), Northern Participant Funding Programme, https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1545150205116/1547478360408.
[60] First Nations Major Projects Coalition (2025), Spirit of the Land Toolkit: The Indigenous Cultural Rights and Interests Toolkit., https://fnmpc.ca/tools-and-resources/environmental-tools/.
[51] First Nations Major Projects Coalition (2023), https://fnmpc.ca/blog/first-nations-major-projects-coalition-welcomes-the-government-of-canadas-commitment-to-establish-a-national-indigenous-loan-guarantee-program/, https://fnmpc.ca/blog/first-nations-major-projects-coalition-welcomes-the-government-of-canadas-commitment-to-establish-a-national-indigenous-loan-guarantee-program/.
[40] First Nations Tax Commission (2024), First Nations Tax Commission: Clearing the Path, https://fntc.ca/fntc-news-2/.
[52] First Nations Tax Commission (2023), Statement by Chief Commissioner C.T., (Manny) Jules Regarding the First Nations Resource Charge. https://fntc.ca/fnrc/.
[57] FNMPC (2024), Establishment of BC Frist Nations Equity Financing Framework in Budget 2024: A Strong Step Towards Economic Reconcilitation, https://fnmpc.ca/blog/establishment-of-bc-first-nations-equity-financing-framework-in-budget-2024-a-strong-step-toward-economic-reconciliation/.
[5] 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.
[6] Government of Canada (2025), Guidance for proponents: Early engagement with Indigenous Peoples in impact assessments under the Impact Assessment Act, https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment-agency/services/policy-guidance/practitioners-guide-impact-assessment-act/information-proponents-preliminary-consultation-impact-assessments.html.
[54] Government of Canada (2025), Indigenous Guardians, https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-funding/indigenous-guardians.html.
[43] Government of Canada (2025), Principles respecting the Government of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/principles-principes.html#:~:text=6.,their%20lands%2C%20territories%20and%20resources.
[2] Government of Canada (2022), Métis Rights, https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100014413/1535468629182.
[21] Government of Canada (2022), Programs and funding for critical minerals projects, https://www.canada.ca/en/campaign/critical-minerals-in-canada/federal-support-for-critical-mineral-projects-and-value-chains.html;.
[8] Government of Canada (2021), The Government of Canada adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in 2021, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/declaration/about-apropos.html.
[24] Government of Ontario (2025), Available funding opportunities from the Ontario Government, http://www.ontario.ca/page/available-funding-opportunities-ontario-government.
[16] Government of Ontario (2025), Consulation framework: implementing the duty to consult with Aboriginal communities on mineral exploration and mine production in Ontario, https://www.ontario.ca/page/consultation-framework-implementing-duty-consult-aboriginal-communities-mineral-exploration.
[25] Government of Ontario (2025), Junior Exploration Program, http://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-junior-exploration-program.
[17] Government of Ontario (2025), Ontario’s Ring of Fire, https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontarios-ring-fire (Accessed on August 2025).
[11] Gray, J. (2025), Nine First Nations in Ontario launch constitutional challenge against Bill 5 and Bill C-5, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-first-nations-constitutional-challenge-bill-5-bill-c-5/.
[14] ICLG (2024), First Nations challenge Ontario’s Mining Act over treaty and equality rights, https://iclg.com/news/21247-first-nations-challenge-ontario-s-mining-act-over-treaty-and-equality-rights.
[42] Indigenous participants at 2024 OECD Mining Regions Conference (2024), Indigenous Call to Action: Indigenous-led Pathways for Sustainable Futures in Mining Regions, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/mining-regions-and-cities/iIndigenous-led-pathways-for-sustainable-futures-in-mining-regions.pdf.
[48] Intergovernmental Working Group on the Mineral Industry (2016), GOOD PRACTICES IN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND READINESS, https://natural-resources.canada.ca/sites/nrcan/files/mineralsmetals/files/pdf/rmd-rrm/GoodPractices2ed_En.pdf.
[47] Johnston, A., H. Walker and A. Hoogeveen (2024), Gender Based Analysis Plus: Respectful Engagement for Equitable Outcomes., West Coast Environmental Law.
[10] Jones, A. (2025), Ontario First Nation asks for halt to Ring of Fire mining development, https://www.nationalobserver.com/2025/08/07/news/ontario-first-nation-asks-court-halt-ring-fire-mining-development.
[26] Julig, P. (2009), Northland Power Archaeological Report, https://www.northlandpower.com/en/resourcesGeneral/ProjectDocuments/McleansMountain/Appendix_F_-_Archaeological_Report.pdf.
[61] Keepers of the Circle (2025), Aboriginal Women in Mining, https://keepersofthecircle.com/aboriginal-women-in-mining-awim.
[27] 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.
[1] Ma’lingan, W. (2012), “Regional Assessment in the Ring of Fire Area”, Indigenous Law Journal.
[35] Marten Falls First Nation (2021), Regional Assessment in the Ring of Fire Area, https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/80468/contributions/id/57596.
[31] Maryland Department of Labour (2025), Opioids at Work: Raising Awareness and Understanding - MOSH, https://labor.maryland.gov/labor/mosh/moshopioidsatwork.shtml#:~:text=Opioids%20and%20Work&text=Those%20in%20high%2Drisk%20jobs,risks%20of%20overdose%20and%20death.
[44] Mining Association of Canada (2021), Towards Sustainable Mining: Indigenous and Community Relationships Protocol, https://mining.ca/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2021/06/Indigenous-and-Community-2019-EN.pdf.
[55] NACCA (2023), Engagement Findings for a National Indigenous Business Definition, https://nacca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Indigenous-Business-Definitions-Feb-2-1-UPDATED-20241202.pdf.
[53] Nations Royalty (2025), Nations Royalty, https://nationsroyalty.ca/.
[9] Northern Ontaio Business (2023), Indigenous consultation, environmental safeguards lacking in mining bill, say NDP, https://www.northernontariobusiness.com/industry-news/mining/indigenous-consultation-environmental-safeguards-lacking-in-mining-bill-say-ndp-6869543.
[23] NRCAN (2025), Funding Programmes, https://fednor.canada.ca/en/indigenous-economic-development-northern-ontario.
[22] NRCAN (2025), Funding to help FNMPC to advance Indigenous participation in natural resource projects, https://www.renewcanada.net/funding-to-help-fnmpc-to-advance-indigenous-participation-in-natural-resource-projects/.
[30] Nunn, A. et al. (2024), “Opioid-related deaths in Northern Ontario in the early COVID-19 pandemic period”, Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 116/3, pp. 344-355, https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-024-00906-5.
[39] OECD (2020), Leading practices for resource benefit sharing and development for and with Indigenous communities, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/leading-practices-for-resource-benefit-sharing-and-development-for-and-with-indigenous-communities_177906e7-en.html.
[4] OECD (2019), Linking Indigenous Communities with Regional Development, OECD Publishing.
[3] OECD (2019), Linking Indigenous Communities with Regional Development, https://doi.org/10.1787/fa0f60c6-en.
[32] Ontario Mining Association (2025), OMA Releases State of the Ontario Mining Sector Report, https://oma.on.ca/en/news/oma-releases-state-of-the-ontario-mining-sector-report.aspx#:~:text=Mining%20remains%20vital%20to%20Ontario%27s,billion%E2%80%94a%2035%25%20increase.
[41] Ontario Press Office (2024), Ontario and First Nations partnering to support eocnomic and resource development in Northern Ontario, https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1004734/ontario-and-first-nations-partnering-to-support-economic-and-resource-development-in-northern-ontario.
[36] Rodon, T. et al. (2025), Mining and Indigenous Livelihoods: Rights, Revenues, and Resistance, Taylor and Francis.
[64] Ross, I. (2022), Two North Shore communities have ambition to revive a Lake Superior port, https://www.northernontariobusiness.com/industry-news/transportation/two-north-shore-communities-have-ambition-to-revive-a-lake-superior-port-5285635.
[45] Schwientek, S. (2025), First Nations opposition to Bill C-5 draws comparisons to Idle No More movement, https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/bill-c5-first-nation-idle-no-more-1.7574417.
[62] Scott, D. (2020), Ottawa steps into ‘Ring of Fire’ debate with Doug Ford, The Conversation, 17 February., https://theconversation.com/ottawa-steps-into-ring-of-fire-debate-with-doug-ford-131818.
[7] United Nations General Assembly (2006), United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/U-2.2/page-2.html#:~:text=Article%2021&text=States%20shall%20take%20effective%20measures,children%20and%20persons%20with%20disabilities.
[37] Wabun Tribal Council (2025), Resource Revenue Sharing, https://www.wabuntribalcouncil.ca/services/resource-revenue-sharing/.
[38] Wilson, E. (2019), “What is Benefit Sharing? Respecting Indigenous Rights and Addressing Inequities in Arctic Resource Projects”, Resources, Vol. 8/2, p. 74, https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8020074.
← 1. In 2019, the mining industry provided approximately CAD 60 million to Indigenous governments and community partners.
← 2. This includes modern treaties (also known as comprehensive land claim agreements) and the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (a statement of the British Crown that recognises Indigenous sovereignty).
← 3. The relevant sections are ss. 78 and 78.6 of the Mining Act and Ontario Regulation 308/12. This regulation provides certain procedures by which s. 35 consultation is to be carried out in relation to proposed early exploration activities, which are set out in Schedules 2 and 3 of the regulation (plans activities and permit activities).
← 4. Some mining companies in BC are proactively adopting UNDRIP principles, for example, Tahltan Nation’s partnership with Skeena resources for the Eskay Creek gold-silver project, which is the first mining project in British Columbia to have permits authorised by an Indigenous government, reflecting full recognition of Tahltan title and rights and aligning with the principles of UNDRIP.
← 5. The 2025 BC Court of Appeal hearing in Gitxaała Nation v. British Columbia centres on whether the province’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) legally enforces alignment with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Gitxaała Nation and Ehattesaht First Nation argue that DRIPA—passed in 2019 to implement UNDRIP—requires BC to reform its Mineral Tenure Act (MTA) to ensure free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) and consultation before granting mineral claims. They contend the 2023 BC Supreme Court ruling, which found the MTA’s automatic claim system unconstitutional but declined to enforce UNDRIP via DRIPA, erred by treating DRIPA as non-justiciable (unenforceable in court). BC maintains that DRIPA’s alignment process is a political, collaborative effort outside judicial oversight. Intervenors, including the First Nations Leadership Council and BC Human Rights Commissioner, support the Nations, asserting DRIPA is quasi-constitutional and mandates courts to interpret laws consistently with UNDRIP. The appeal’s outcome will determine whether DRIPA holds enforceable legal weight or remains a non-binding commitment, impacting Indigenous rights in resource governance.
← 6. For example, Manitoba’s First Nations Mineral Development Protocol, establishes mutually agreed processes for consultation and partnership throughout the mineral development cycle, ensuring Indigenous communities have a defined and respected role in decision-making.
← 7. The proportion of opioid-related deaths in Ontario is significantly higher among males than females, with males accounting for about 71–78% and females for 22–29% of these fatalities in recent years.
← 8. The New Relationship Fund and Mineral Development Advisor programmes in Canada are funded by the Government of Ontario through the Ministry of Indigenous Affairs and the Ministry of Mines, respectively. The New Relationship Fund provides financial support to First Nations and Métis communities and organisations to build consultation and engagement capacity, particularly in the context of resource development projects like mining. The Mineral Development Advisor programme, administered by Ontario’s Ministry of Mines, specifically supports Indigenous communities in accessing technical expertise and advice for engaging with mineral exploration and development projects.
← 9. The Canada Indigenous Loan Guarantee Corporation is a subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation (CDEV)—a federal Crown corporation established by the Government of Canada to manage and hold certain investments and assets on behalf of the government. CDEV operates at arm’s length from government and is responsible for managing major federal investments in sectors such as energy, natural resources, and infrastructure.
← 10. This figure is based on research indicating that approximately $630 billion in capital investments are anticipated in sectors such as energy, mining, forestry, infrastructure, and trade, with Indigenous communities seeking equity participation in many of these projects.
← 11. Ontario’s Far North Land Use Planning Initiative is a collaborative process between the Ontario government and First Nations to determine how public lands in the Far North region, an area covering about 42% of the province, will be used, protected, and developed. This initiative was established under the Far North Act, 2010, which provides a legislative framework for community-based land use planning. The Act sets out a joint planning process, giving First Nations a leadership role and ensuring that planning is consistent with the recognition of Aboriginal and treaty rights, including the duty to consult.
← 12. These are the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP), UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the UN Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples. The Arctic Council includes the Indigenous Peoples’ Secretariat.
← 13. The Working Group comprised community members of the following 15 First Nations, with administrative support from Matawa and Mushkegowuk Councils; Aroland First Nation, Attawapiskate First Nation, Constance Lake First Nation, Eabametoong First Nation, Fort Albany First nation, Ginoogaming First Nation, Kashechewan First Nation, Long Lake #58 First Nation, Marten Falls First Nation, Missanabie Cree First Nation, Moose Cree First Nation, Neskantaga First Nation, Nibinamik First Nation, Webequie First Nation, and Weenusk First Nation. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada is also a member of the Working Group.