Anishinabek Nation leadership responds to The Sudbury Star Letter to the Editor
Previously published in The Sudbury Star on January 16, 2026
The Anishinabek Nation firmly asserts that the claims made by retired real estate and business lawyer Peter Best in response to our position on critical minerals shared by The Sudbury Star published on January 6, 2026, are rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of First Nation rights and their legal status within Canada. His assertions that the Anishinabek have no “inherent rights”, that “no one does”, and alluding that treaties have extinguished all Aboriginal claims, are inaccurate and legally flawed.
First and foremost, Inherent rights are not just a matter of opinion, they are recognized and affirmed by Canada’s own constitution. Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, explicitly recognizes and affirms “the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights” of First Nation peoples. These rights are inherent to the nations’ existence — they are not granted by the Canadian state but are pre-existing and continue to exist independently of Canadian law. As per section 35, they are simply “recognized and affirmed”. To dismiss these rights as mere “legal rights” created solely by the state is to ignore the constitutional foundation that affirms their existence.
Secondly, Best’s assertion that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) does not apply to Ontario projects and that First Nations consent is not required is incorrect. Canada, including Ontario, has committed to implementing UNDRIP, which explicitly recognizes the right of Indigenous peoples to free, prior, and informed consent. Numerous Canadian courts have upheld that UNDRIP reflects customary international law and is relevant to the interpretation of First Nations rights within the Canadian legal framework. Ontario has a duty to conform to international obligations supported by Canada.
Furthermore, the claim that the Anishinabek have no connection to the Ring of Fire because it is outside of our “ancestral, traditional, or treaty lands” ignores the ongoing relationship and rights that extend beyond historic boundaries. That is a sweeping generalized conclusion that ignores the dynamic history of each First Nation. First Nations’ rights are not solely based on geographic boundaries imposed by colonial constructs but also on their ongoing existence and cultural practices. Treaties recognized their sovereignty and rights to their lands and resources.
Regarding treaties, it is an incorrect and gross misrepresentation to claim that Treaty 9 extinguished all rights of the Anishinabek or that their rights are subordinate to Crown promises. Courts have consistently affirmed that treaties are living documents, and their interpretation must uphold the spirit and intent of the agreements, which include recognition of Anishinabek’s rights to land and resources. The notion that First Nation peoples are “loyal subjects” in a manner that negates their inherent rights is a colonial perspective that has been challenged and rejected by modern legal standards. Our history has always rejected subjugation, which is reflected in the
Royal Proclamation, and our treaties – they did not include subjugation. If you understand First Nation history and involvement in the War of 1812, World War I , World War II, and other conflicts, you would be aware that our involvement has always been as allies, not subjects.
Finally, characterizing the Anishinabek Nation’s position as “disloyal to and adverse in interest to the Crown” is ignorant, disrespectful and historically inaccurate. Anishinabek First Nations are sovereign peoples with inherent rights that precede and exist alongside the Canadian state. Their opposition to projects like the Ring of Fire, and now the transportation of nuclear waste, is rooted in the protection of their lands, cultures, and future generations — rights that are recognized and protected under Canadian and international law.
In conclusion, Best’s opinions are rooted in ignorance of Anishinabek First Nation rights, their legal protections, and the ongoing realities of First Nations in Canada. The Anishinabek First Nation’s will continue to assert their inherent rights and uphold its sovereignty, in accordance with constitutional protections, treaties, and international commitments. Any attempt to dismiss or diminish these rights is not only legally unsound, but also morally unjustifiable.
Respectfully,
Linda Debassige
Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief