Abstract
Canada has a long history of assimilative efforts with respect to Indigenous peoples. Legal assimilation efforts occurred on two fronts: the voluntary and involuntary enfranchisement of First Nations people, and the dissolution of First Nations reserve lands. Cultural assimilation occurred through the residential school system, and the removal of Indigenous children from their homes by Canadian child welfare agencies in the “sixties scoop”. Another form of assimilation is through environmental assimilation. I define environmental assimilation as changes to the environment through development, to the extent whereby the environment can no longer support Indigenous cultural activities. Herein, I examine environmental assimilation in northern Ontario, Canada. The “taken-up” clause in Treaty No. 9, the “Exemption Orders” in the Far North Act, the “Except” stipulation in the Mining Amendment Act, and the unilateral streamlining of projects in the Green Energy Act and the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act—these pieces of legislation pose threats to the environment and serve to facilitate the reality of contemporary environmental assimilation of First Nations.
Highlights
IntroductionIn Scott’s case, he described environmental justice as both a theoretical lens that takes into account the sharing (distributive dimension) of environmental costs and benefits “associated with environmental policy and natural resource development decisions, and the extent to which the decision -making has meaningfully included the participation of affected communities [procedural dimension]” [4]
Passages in government documents allow for development in Indigenous homelands when in the interest of the government and/or “in the public interest.”
Through an environmental-justice lens [156], the lack of meaningful involvement by Indigenous people is apparent, along with distributive-justice and recognition-justice aspects, in that the environmental costs and benefits would not be shared; the Indigenous homelands and their people would bear the brunt of the costs with little or no benefit, while their voices are drowned out
Summary
In Scott’s case, he described environmental justice as both a theoretical lens that takes into account the sharing (distributive dimension) of environmental costs and benefits “associated with environmental policy and natural resource development decisions, and the extent to which the decision -making has meaningfully included the participation of affected communities [procedural dimension]” [4] Through this realization of relations, procedural aspects lapse into the realm of recognition-based justice ideals. Another procedural dimension to environmental justice is that everyone should have full access to information used for decision-making purposes, and enough time to analyse the information in order to make informed comments [5]. As detailed in the Canadian Constitution Act, 1867 [16] (Section 91(24)),
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
