Why are we so apathetic about environmental injustice and indigenous suffering, Canada’s two most famous shames? “Going green” is not just a seasonal recommendation for Canadians; it is a moral imperative.
“Going green” is not just a seasonal recommendation for Canadians; it is a moral imperative.
“Continuance of life depends on sustenance and it is the duty of everyone to nurture and protect the land. As women we have a special relationship to Our Mother the Earth because we also give life and nourish children and the generations that come from us. We are responsible to teach and demonstrate that we are stewards of the natural world. The role must now encompass a much greater struggle that Indigenous peoples all around the world are facing in light of the industrialization and destruction of Our Mother the Earth.”
– Haudenosaunee Clanmothers, 2007
We are all very aware of Aboriginal people’s special relationship to land and to the environment. We know that the preservation of their lands is of paramount importance for Indigenous communities who envision land—“Our Mother the Earth”—in radically different ways from most Canadians. To the Indigenous imagination, land does not exist solely as a resource but as a source of spiritual, social and political life. Many Anishinabek, for example, characterize the Earth as a living, sentient being with emotions, thoughts and agency. In British Columbia, the Haida Nation has historically revered the cedar tree as holy and as “the tree of life.” These are sacred relationships wherein spirituality and life flow directly from the Earth. With full knowledge and appreciation of these relationships, we have taken, destroyed and continue to destroy Indigenous lands. To make matters worse, in addition to the spiritual harm this has caused, the group that has suffered the most as a result of the material consequences of environmental degradation is Canada’s Indigenous population. This reality is a double insult and constitutes a phenomenon that has come to be known as “environmental racism.”
The language of “going green” and “ecological footprints” only entered our lexicon and has gained popular currency in the last two decades. The environment has never been considered the sexiest political topic; it doesn’t rile up public opinion as much as the economy or public security issues do, and with the exception of the aptly-titled Green Party, it is rarely the centerpiece of political platforms. In stark contrast to the reverence of the environment seen in many Aboriginal communities, environmental issues do not command very much respect among Canadians. Environmentalism is often dismissed as the pastime of champagne socialists and moneyed philanthropists; advocates are labeled as hippies or “tree huggers,” all pejorative stereotypes that belittle the cause and undermine its urgency.
Sometimes the pendulum swings in the opposite direction and it’s “all green everything.” Though Canadians seem largely apathetic, interest in the climate crisis does spike every now and again. Much has been made of the green movement as being more “eco-trendy” than eco-friendly. Leonardo DiCaprio has thrown his titanic prominence behind climate change and acts as a mouthpiece for the movement. Paradoxically, even the environmental cause has been commodified and green has become the favoured hue of corporate Canada.
These developments are worrying. When “going green” becomes a caricature or is reduced to an insincere trend or a crafty marketing ploy that makes people feel better about themselves, we run the risk of breeding complacency and forget the tangible harms suffered. Notably, the only thing Canada seems to care less about than the environment is its Aboriginal population. There are a number of causal and correlative connections between Canada’s environmental record and its treatment of its most vulnerable populations. Certainly, there is plenty of apathy in both areas, but environmental apathy has the direct—and well-documented—consequence of devastating First Nations communities: a doubly debilitating outcome for this group.
Indigenous peoples in Canada and around the globe bear a disproportionate share of the costs associated with environmental damage while enjoying far fewer of the benefits than non-Indigenous populations. On top of the exacerbation of climate change and the devastating impacts on land rights, Indigenous communities pay a very high price in health. High levels of toxins, mercury poisoning and industrial contamination have been found in the waters of different communities across the country for decades. Terrifying levels of cancer in some Indigenous communities in Alberta have been attributed to tar sands extraction. It is telling that this oil—formerly referred to as “dirty oil”—is these days called “bloody oil.”
The United Nations, among other organizations, has publicly criticized Canada for its abysmal treatment of Aboriginal people. In respect of environmental protection and climate change policy too, Canada has consistently ranked the worst performer among industrialized nations in the last few years, and fares among the worst in the world.
Moreover, Canada has gained notoriety for its failure to prevent overseas mining abuses. Last week, I, along with other law students from Osgoode Hall Law School and the University of Toronto, attended the twenty-first annual Canadian International Law Students’ Conference. One of the panels was dedicated to Canadian overseas mining companies and Corporate Social Responsibility. Every panel member, including a representative from the mining industry, testified to Canada’s ugly and bloody reputation in the extractive industry overseas. We heard about the devastation both to land and communities caused by companies where the sole concern is the financial bottom line. Not many are worse than Canadian mining corporations, they acknowledged, which have been associated with forced labour, slavery, rape, murder, population displacement, contamination of waters, and so on. These corporations shelter in areas where regulatory oversight is lacking and they bury themselves in convoluted corporate structures so as to avoid liability.
And in this regard, the mining companies are largely successful. Even in Canada where a strong rule-of-law culture and institutions exist, mining corporations are almost immune from legislative oversight. Even in our own backyard, access to legal assistance for vulnerable communities is limited. Having said this, it is established law that the Crown owes a sui generis fiduciary duty towards Aboriginal peoples with implications for the development of government policy in matters that relate to Aboriginal interests. The ambitious argument may be made before courts that interference with environments and resources may constitute a violation of Aboriginal rights and therefore, a breach of the government’s fiduciary duty. Recognition of a right to environmental protection borne out of Aboriginal constitutional and treaty rights in Canadian jurisprudence is long overdue and will be an important step in protecting the interests of these neglected communities. Indeed, the environmental rights of Aboriginal peoples have long been recognized in international human rights law. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples imposes obligations on states to protect Indigenous lands, environment and the productive capacity of their resources (Art. 29(1)). Whether the Canadian government heeds this legal precept though is an entirely different question.
As a country, we are idle on the climate and we are idle on the indignities suffered by Aboriginal people. To our great shame, the world has taken notice of these two failing grades. As Canadians, we must always be cognizant of our history—the good and especially the bad. We live on a land that is steeped in a history and a modern day reality of colonial relations, Indigenous suffering and widespread injustice. We must be respectful of Aboriginal communities’ traditional ways of life and their intimate cultural connections to the land. Green activism cannot be reduced to the caricature of a nature-worshiping hippie or thrown onto a carton of juice in a pacifying business tactic. That is insufficient. Canadians must approach these issues with the utmost sincerity and seriousness, and lawyers must advocate for a more robust regime of environmental protections. As the stakes are significantly higher for one group more than others, “going green” can be neither joke nor trend—it is our moral duty to be environmentally conscious and active.
