���˴�Ƭ

Many of the 30,000 attendees of the March 2024 harbour a “wild desire” to extract the mineral riches of , in the words of Johnny Cash’s well-known song of the .

While some might be attracted by the desire to , others could be driven by concern for our planet and the belief that the region’s minerals can help reduce carbon emissions and support a .

As some Indigenous groups have pointed out, however, the construction of roads and mining in the Ring of Fire represents a significant disruption to .

Some environmental groups have argued that mining activities in the region could result in a net increase of carbon emissions due to the removal or severe degradation of the vital .

Despite the significant economic and environmental impacts surrounding the development of the Ring of Fire, this focus overlooks another crucial issue: .

The importance of Indigenous treaties

Our on the prospects for Indigenous/non-Indigenous conflict in relation to Québec’s has compelling parallels with Ontario’s .

Both regions are located in the mineral-rich and ecologically sensitive northern reaches of the provinces that are home to numerous Indigenous Peoples.

Like Ontario, Québec’s Indigenous groups have a and are often suspicious of plans to develop natural resources.

Our study reveals that if an Indigenous group has signed a modern treaty, there is a reduced risk of conflict related to proposed resource developments since there’s less uncertainty surrounding land tenure rights. Given the fundamental importance of land to Indigenous Peoples, threats to these rights — perceived or real — represent an understandable source of grievance that can spark conflict.

Although there will likely be procurement of services from local Indigenous communities and companies in the Ring of Fire region, the vast majority of its development activities will attract non-Indigenous workers and businesses to the area.

Our study also demonstrates that an influx of non-Indigenous workers can produce tensions with Indigenous groups that can rapidly escalate and lead to contentious interventions by the RCMP.

Uncritical media coverage

Given the potential economic windfalls associated with the development of the Ring of Fire, it’s easy to assume support among local residents. Politicians at all levels have called for the rapid development of the region as part of a to cast Canada as a critical minerals leader.

These political leaders highlight the dangers of climate change to encourage companies and consumers to embrace energy sources that reduce carbon emissions. In 2020, the Canadian government announced its aimed at achieving net-zero operations by 2050.

Reducing carbon emissions is also a key element of Canada’s .

Meanwhile, media coverage of political pronouncements regarding mineral supply chains is often uncritical.

Another of ours reveals that media coverage in Canada in both French and English rarely includes the perspectives of Indigenous people. Instead, reporters prefer to focus on the more sensational aspects of roadblocks and standoffs, which tend to marginalize the position of Indigenous Peoples.

Little consideration is given to assessing the complex impacts of natural resource development projects on Indigenous communities.

Take the case of the quip by Ontario Premier Doug Ford that “” to underscore his government’s pledge to build road access to the Ring of Fire.

Although (for example, greater mobility and connectivity; better access to public services such as health care; lower prices for consumer goods), they can also lead to negative outcomes (for example, they can degrade the natural environment, they’re expensive to build and they can serve as a route for criminal networks).

Roads also lead to . Federal and provincial environmental impact assessments of the proposed to the Ring of Fire are already underway, and there’s reason to believe that a regulatory green light could dramatically transform northern Ontario’s demographics — and thus increase probabilities for future conflict.

Three recommendations

What can be done to prevent conflict in the Ring of Fire? We propose three recommendations.

1. Respect existing treaties with Indigenous communities in the region. Where appropriate, negotiate side agreements that align with modern legal approaches to land use and property rights, thereby reducing uncertainty. Canadian governments could justify the investment in political capital to secure these agreements with Indigenous groups given the importance they’ve placed on promoting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples () and to facilitate a just energy transition.
2. The Ontario government should begin a new round of consultations with Indigenous communities and stakeholders that are inclusive, transparent, extensive and responsive. The previous round of consultations were . Truly consultative engagement would reduce grievances and signal to the world that sub-national governments can be global leaders in forging positive relationships with Indigenous Peoples.
3. Although the environmental impact of road construction is already mediated by regulatory , the effects of an influx of workers must be addressed. Federal and provincial governments — together with input from relevant Indigenous groups and municipalities — should revise existing urban planning and so that hamlets and small towns that are sure to grow do so in an economically, socially, and politically sustainable fashion. Incorporating all levels of governments in producing thoughtful urban planning measures would go a long way toward mitigating the negative impacts associated with increased migration to the region.

Critical minerals can serve as Canada’s , generating economic benefits domestically and boosting its in the just energy transition.

But if Canada fails of the Ring of Fire, and ignores the real prospects for serious conflict around the projects, these critical minerals could become Canada’s kryptonite by jeopardizing reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples and tarnishing its .

, Associate Professor of Political Studies, ; , PhD Candidate/Researcher in International Relations, ; , Associate Professor, Political Philosophy, , and , Associate Professor, Political Studies,

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .