Realizing Reconciliation: Analyzing Resource Revenue Sharing Agreements and Indigenous-Settler Relations in Ontario's Mining Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2018, the Government of Ontario and the Grand Council Treaty #3, the Mushkegowuk Council and the Wabun Tribal Council announced that they had entered into three resource revenue sharing agreements. These new agreements were publicly celebrated as an example of reconciliation with First Nations in Ontario. This dissertation critically studies the development of these new agreements, from their conceptual origins in reconciliation to how they reshape Indigenous-settler relations in Ontario. Relying on settler colonial studies, governmentality, and Mills’ legality tree as theoretical frameworks, and through archival research, textual analysis and the principles of Indigenous research methodologies, this dissertation paints a complex picture of reconciliation, resource revenue sharing and settler colonialism in Ontario. I begin by theorizing the lifeworld of liberalism, noting how Christian creationism influenced liberal philosophy, settler colonialism, and reconciliation discourses. I argue that Christian theology is anthropocentric, which is reflected by how state actors use reconciliation discourses, and that this contrasts with Indigenous worldviews. Despite the narrower conception of reconciliation, I contend that reconciliation, as a political rationality, was heavily influenced by Indigenous peoples seeking to remake their relationship with the state in the 1990s. I explicate that resource revenue sharing emerged as a new governmental concept for repairing Indigenous-settler relations. Next, I trace the development of reconciliation as a new political rationality in Ontario. I then examine the decade and a half long story of how resource revenue sharing went from a divisive concept to one that was widely accepted by a diverse assemblage of Indigenous, state, extractive and market actors in Ontario, and how it was developed into a reconciliatory technology. With humility, I also consider how these new agreements can affect Indigenous-settler relations in Ontario. I reason that while reconciliation produces concessions for Indigenous peoples from settlers, it may still leave in place asymmetrical power relations, as settlers seek to govern Indigenous peoples in accordance with their own settler colonial interests regarding resource extraction. However, rather than concluding that reconciliation is an ideology that only shields settler colonial relations, I argue that since reconciliation has a concessionary logic, reconciliation discourses have the potential to affect the actions of settler actors, even if it does not end settler colonialism. This is further explored by how the Progressive Conservative government eschewed reconciliation to de-Indigenize resource revenue sharing, and how there are fierce discursive struggles to define reconciliation and influence the scope of its concessions. Finally, I assert that reconciliation produces messy alliances, technologies and outcomes, and that future scholarship requires a careful and contextual analysis of reconciliation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".