Participatory Rights in the Ontario Mining Sector: an International Human Rights Perspective Penelope Simons and Lynda Collins* There has been a growing focus in Canada on the envi- of aboriginal communities to free prior and informed ronmental and social impacts of national extractive consent, and the right of peaceful assembly have been companies operating extraterritorially. However, recent protected through Ontario’s mining regime and by the disputes concerning the lack of public consultation on pro- courts in disputes over mining activity on land subject posed large domestic mining projects, as well as disputes to aboriginal rights and/or title claims. Two recent cases, surrounding Aboriginal rights in lands subject to mining Frontenac Ventures Corporation v. Ardoch Algonquin claims, have highlighted significant human rights con- First Nation and Platinex Inc. v. Kitchenuhmaykoosib cerns associated with Canada’s domestic provincial and Inninuwug First Nation, raise serious concerns as to territorial mining regimes. This article assesses, from the whether domestic law, as it has been applied in the perspective of international human rights law, how both mining sector, is consistent with Canada’s international emerging and established international human rights of human rights obligations. Moreover, it is not clear that participation are treated in the Ontario mining sector. the new Far North Act and recent amendments to the It examines the extent to which the general right to par- Ontario Mining Act sufficiently address these concerns. ticipation in environmental decision-making, the right La question des impacts environnementaux et sociaux des communautés autochtones au consentement libre, des compagnies d’extraction minière canadiennes qui préalable et éclairé, ainsi que la liberté de réunion paci- opèrent à l’étranger a attiré dernièrement une attention fique ont été protégés par le régime minier de l’Ontario et soutenue. Les récentes controverses concernant l’absence de par les cours dans les disputes issues des activités minières consultation publique dans la planification d’importants sur des terres visées par des revendications de droits et/ou projets miniers en sol canadien, tout comme les disputes de titres autochtones. Deux décisions récentes, Frontenac entourant les droits des Autochtones à des terres faisant Ventures Corporation c. Ardoch Algonquin First Nation l’objet de « claims » miniers, ont toutefois mis en relief et Platinex Inc. c. Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug de grandes préoccupations quant au respect des droits First Nation, soulèvent de sérieuses inquiétudes quant à humains au sein des régimes miniers provinciaux et ter- savoir si le droit canadien, tel qu’il a été appliqué dans ritoriaux au Canada. Cet article évalue, de la perspective le secteur minier, respecte les obligations internationales des droits internationaux de l’homme, comment les droits du pays en matière de droits humains. De plus, il n’est de participation émergents et établis sont pris en compte pas évident que la nouvelle Loi de 2009 sur le Grand dans le secteur minier de l’Ontario. L’article examine Nord et les modifications récemment apportées à la Loi dans quelle mesure le droit général à la participation à la sur les mines de l’Ontario répondent suffisamment à ces prise de décisions en matière environnementale, le droit préoccupations. * Penelope Simons and Lynda Collins are Associate and Assistant Professors at the Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa. Drafts of this paper were presented at a workshop on “Human Rights in the Canadian Mining Sector” at the University of Ottawa on 20 November 2009 and at the Canadian Law and Society Association Annual Meeting at Concordia University on 2-4 June 2010. We would like to thank Graham Mayeda, Heather McLeod-Kilmurray, Yves LeBouthiller, Sophie Thériault, and the anonymous review- ers for their helpful comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank Jordana Laporte, Andrew Brown, Tamara Morgenthau, and Gregg Erauw for their excellent research assistance. 1. INTRODUCTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DEMOCRACY – ASSESSING LEGITIMACY IN THE MINING SECTOR 3. THE ONTARIO MINING ACT (AS AMENDED) 4. THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING 5. THE RIGHT OF FREE PRIOR AND INFORMED CONSENT AND THE DUTY TO CONSULT AT INTERNATIONAL LAW 6. FPIC, THE DUTY TO CONSULT AND CANADIAN LAW 7. THE RIGHT OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY AT INTERNATIONAL LAW 8. THE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL PROTEST IN THE CANADIAN MINING SECTOR 9. CONCLUSION SIMONS, COLLINS Volume 6: Issue 2 179 “The meek shall inherit the Earth, but not its mineral rights.” -- John Paul Getty n November 2006, the Canadian government completed a series of National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the Canadian Extractive Sector in Developing ICountries. The roundtables were held pursuant to the recommendations of a report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade calling on the federal govern- ment to initiate a multistakeholder process with the goal of strengthening existing corporate social responsibility programmes and policies and developing new programmes and policies for Canadian extractive industries operating outside of Canada, in developing countries.1 The roundtables Advisory Group, composed of members from the private sector, academia, and NGOs, produced a consensus report released in March 2007 that recommended to the Canadian government the adoption of a comprehensive CSR framework, including volun- tary standards, reporting guidelines, and an accountability mechanism.2 In March 2009, the Canadian government released its response, rejecting the bulk of the Advisory Group’s recom- mendations and leaving unsettled the question of CSR norms for Canadian companies operat- 1 Parliament, “Response of the Government to the Fourteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade: Mining in Developing Countries — Corporate Social Responsibility” in Sessional Papers, No 8512-381-179 (2005). 2 National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the Canadian Extractive Sector in Developing Countries, Advisory Group Report (Ottawa: Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, 2007). 180 JSDLP - RDPDD SIMONS, COLLINS ing outside Canada.3 In February 2009 the Hon. John McKay tabled a private member’s bill (Bill C-300) which sought to impose accountability on mining, oil, or gas companies that are found to be complicit in violations of human rights or environmental standards in their activi- ties in developing countries.4 These developments signal a growing domestic concern with respect to the environmen- tal and social impacts of Canadian extractive companies operating extraterritorially. In 2008 Canada was the domicile for seventy-five per cent of the world’s largest exploration and mining companies.5 Of these companies, approximately seventy per cent had plans to operate outside Canada.6 The Advisory Group Report, the government’s response and Bill C-300 are all based on the policy imperative that Canadian corporations operating abroad should comply with the same environmental and social standards to which they are legally bound in Canada, and that these standards are reflective of Canada’s international legal obligations, including, in particu- lar, its international human rights obligations. This view is expressed in recent Parliamentary debates7 and in a bill tabled by the New Democratic Party on 16 June 2008.8 Recent disputes concerning the lack of public consultation on proposed large domestic mining projects,9 as well as disputes surrounding aboriginal rights in lands subject to mining claims10 have highlighted, 3 Canada, Building the Canadian Advantage: A Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector (Ottawa: Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, 2009). 4 Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, 2nd Sess, 40th Parl, 2009 (at the time of writing the Bill was beginning its third reading; it has now been defeated). 5 Canada, Building the Canadian Advantage, supra note 3 at 3. 6 André Lemieux, “Canada’s Global Mining Presence,” in Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Minerals Yearbook (Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada, 2005) at 7.7, online: Natural Resources Canada <http:// www.nrcan.gc.ca/ms/cmy/content/2005/08.pdf>. 7 Canada, House of Commons Debates Official Report (Hansard), 39th Parl, 2nd Sess, No 111 (12 June 2008) at 1130 (Hon Peter Milliken). 8 Bill C-565, An Act respecting Corporate Social Responsibility for the Activities of Canadian Mining Corporations in Developing Countries, 2nd Sess, 39th Parl, 2007-2008, (reintroduced as Bill C-298, 2nd Sess, 40th Parl, 2009) (The bill seeks to ensure that corporations engaged in mining activities in develop- ing countries comply with Canada’s general international law and international human rights law obliga- tions, at s 3). 9 MiningWatch Canada v Canada (Minister of Fisheries & Oceans), 2008 FCA 209, [2009] 2 FCR 21. 10 See e.g. Frontenac Ventures Corp v Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, [2007] OJ No 3360 (Ont Sup Ct) [Frontenac I 2007]; Frontenac Ventures Corp v Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, [2007] OJ No 3361 (Ont Sup Ct) [Frontenac II 2007]; Frontenac Ventures Corp v Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, [2008] OJ No 792 8247 (Ont Sup Ct) [Frontenac 2008]; Frontenac Ventures Corporation v Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, 2008 ONCA 534, (2008) 910R (3d) 1 [Frontenac