Several interesting threads have come together over the past week that warrant a short historical overview of economic development in Ontario’s north. First, there was the passage of Bill 5 which gives the Ontario government the powers to establish special economic zones to speed up mining and other development projects and which has been denounced by environmental and Indigenous groups in the province. While this bill could be applied to a variety of sectors including housing one suspects the goal is to speed up development in the critical mineral rich Ring of Fire area which has been on the cusp of development for decades but, has yet to really go anywhere.
Second, there was this week’s First Minister’s Meeting in Saskatoon which saw a rather amicable gathering in which the premiers presented wish lists of nation building infrastructure projects. Here, Premier Ford stated that his priority was mining in the Ring of Fire and along with infrastructure to access and develop the project. Premier Ford’s full list was of course rather ambitious and included “Ring of Fire critical mineral deposits in northern Ontario, both large-scale nuclear energy generation and small modular reactors, GO passenger train service and a new James Bay deep-sea port.”
The emphasis on the Ring of Fire and a port on James Bay is probably the most ambitious northern Ontario oriented development strategy of recent years. In the 19th century there was a northern Ontario policy of land settlement, railroad building and a manufacturing condition (domestic processing of resources) which guided Ontario’s northern economic development until the 1930s (Di Matteo, 2022; Zaslow 1971). As well, Bill 5 in many respects represents a repudiation of the Far North Act (2011) which set aside from development about 20 percent of Ontario’s landmass in its north. However, the emphasis on special economic zones, mineral development and rail access with a port on James Bay are old themes in Ontario’s northern development strategies.
The provincial government has generally resisted the creation of special economic zones especially in northern Ontario. In the wake of the forest sector crisis nearly two decades ago, the Common Voice Initiative published a report titled “Enhancing the Economy of Northwestern Ontario” which among other things advocated Investment Incentive Zones which in many respects was more transformational than what the province is currently proposing. As the report stated (p.17): “The Province should designate Northwestern Ontario as a Special Economic Development Zone. The rates for Provincial sales, personal income and corporate taxes for the Northwest should be set 20 percent lower than those for the province to reflect income differences Northwestern Ontario and Southern Ontario…” Bill 5 is more about suspending various government acts and regulations at ministerial discretion to fast-track development rather than a coherent approach to economic incentives within special economic zones.
As for mineral development, Ontario has long recognized the vast richness and wealth of the Canadian shield underlying Ontario’s north and particularly the James Bay region. In the 19th century, Benidickson (1980: 62) notes that “descriptions of Ontario's northland including the James Bay region contributed to the gradual emergence of an increasingly favourable impression of the area's resource which was in marked contrast to previous assessments. For example, in commenting on a railway intended to reach James Bay, the Dominion Illustrated regarded the construction proposal as "the latest instance of the changed valuation which recent developments have put upon a region once deemed practically worthless.'” The result was several initiatives to build a railway to James Bay and a deep-water port on James Bay as a conduit not only for agricultural products (which was a bit optimistic given the land and climate of northern Ontario) but also minerals and forest products. The Toronto business community in the late 19th and early 20th centuries even saw a James Bay port as a third outlet to Europe that would expand the city’s agricultural hinterland (Nelles, 1975, p/.19).
Again, quoting Benidickson (1980: 63) “For nearly three decades, beginning with the Lake Superior and James Bay Railway proposal of 1882, private railway promoters planned and advocated a series of northern rail lines to reach Ontario tidewater at James Bay. Although these proposals differed with regard to the location of the southern terminus, overland routing, and port selection, they were generally similar in intent. An Ontario railway to James Bay would contribute to the development of the territory through which it passed, and, having reached northern waters, would confirm the province’s still theoretical status as a maritime power.” A number of private railway projects followed but they were unsuccessful and it was not until the Ontario government itself took the bull by the horns and built the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway starting in 1902 that an effort was made to access this region and also assert provincial sovereignty over the region. Ontario had an ownership dispute with the Manitoba and federal governments over its north that was not fully resolved until 1912. However, plans for a deep-water port on James Bay never came to fruition though they periodically surfaced with the concept emerging and retreating in the 1940s, late 1950s and 1970s.
Once again, the Ontario government is embarking on a northern Ontario development strategy that has been nearly 150 years in making. Projects such as deep-water seaport on James Bay have been proposed and resurfaced a number of times with their success limited by first the scale and cost as well as conceptually what the shipping purpose of the port would be. This time, the impetus is coming from the Trumpian challenge to both Canada’s economy and its sovereignty. In the 19th century, Ontario was competing against the federal government with respect to a northern development strategy that mimicked the national policies of western development. This time may perhaps be different if the federal government is brought onside to assist with infrastructure development in the region given the new push for Arctic sovereignty. However, the key difference this time is that despite Bill 5, the Indigenous peoples in the region will be more aware of their interests and more assertive and any development will need to ensure that there are direct, tangible and substantial benefits to the Indigenous peoples in the region. As well, the ultimate determinant of any successful project to build a new port on James Bay will be economic viability - what is the demand for shipping from James Bay and what is going to be supplied?
References
Benidickson, J. (1980) “Ontario’s James Bay Vision,” Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'études canadiennes, Volume 15, Number 3, Fall 1980, pp. 60-73.
Di Matteo, L. (2022) Arrested Development: A Brief Economic History of Northern Ontario, 1870 to 2020, American Review of Canadian Studies, 52:2, 163-192.
Enhancing the Economy of Northwestern Ontario, December 5th,2006.
Nelles, H.V. (1975) The Politics of Development. Forests, Mines and Hydro-electric Power in Ontario, 1849-1941.Toronto: MacMillan.
Zaslow, M. (1971) The opening of the Canadian North, 1870-1914. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
