"What thought has been given to northern needs when resources are developed?"

As it turns out, quite a lot of thought. Does the exerpt below sound familiar?

"The north serves and is dominated by Ontario's more populated industrial south. This reality underlies the environmental degradation and social malaise that has characterized the exploitation of northern resources. Because the bulk of development benefits have flowed south, the north and the people living there have been left to cope with the long term consequences of resource development. That burden has often been greater than any benefits derived from short-term employment or business opportunity. The north has not shared equitably in the profits that have flowed from the exploitation of its natural resources.

The greatest impacts of resource development are clearly experienced by those who live near the resource. Resource extraction, whether it is the cutting of trees or the mining of minerals, can drastically change the physical landscape. It can also cause profound economic and social change which can be devastating for adjacent communities. Resource development can also bring jobs and business opportunities that greatly increase the standard of living for northerners.

... development in the north has rarely been designed to meet the long-term needs of northern communities.

What thought has been given to northern needs when resources are developed? Rarely have comprehensive remedial and mitigative measures been designed and implemented before the development commences. Nor in the past, has there been any real effort to determine how best development could be structured so that benefits for local communities businesses and residents would emerge as a consequence of resource exploitation.

I have concluded the we must attempt to ensure a more equitable sharing among all Ontarians of the benefirs derived from resource use. We must approach development collectively and creatively, without the polarization of positions that seem to have become a common feature of debate over resource proposals. To do this, we must ensure that those who may be directly affected by development have a real say in how it should occur and a real return if it does occur. When people believe they will have a share or be partners in development, and that interest will not be manipulated by others or taken away arbitrarily, I believe they will be favourably inclined to support it. (emphasis added)

...............................

New counter-balancing mechanisms are required so that specific developments can be better designed to harmonize with and contribute to the betterment of the northern environment. The
Commission recommends that an independent agency - the Northern Development Authority - be established and empowered to negotiate mandatory resource use agreements with enterprises proposing significant development of northern resources. The Commission
contemplates that mitigation of adverse impacts, compensation for other resource users likely to be deprived of their livelihoods, construction of multi-purpose infrastructure, employment and local business opportunities would be normal subjects of resource use agreements. Northerners would administer the Northern Development Authority - and reflect the interests of northern people, including Indian people, and their towns, municipalities and communities."
...........................................


This is taken from the 1985 Report of the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment. After eight years of study, Ed Fahlgren, the Commissioner, recommended a form of self government for the north. It's a thoughtful, practical approach that makes more and more sense in light of the Supreme Court decisions on "duty to consult and accommodate."

http://www.archive.org/details/finalreponorenviron00onta

It's worth a read.