Indigenous peoples’ perceptions of wellbeing differ from non-Indigenous constructs. Thus, it is imperative to recognize that Indigenous peoples will conceptualize wellbeing from their perspectives and set their own wellbeing priorities. In keeping with this viewpoint, the aims of the present study were to conceptualize wellbeing and determine what was (and is) important for wellbeing from Canadian Indigenous peoples’ perspectives. In this paper, we take a partnership approach based on the elements of respect, equity, and empowerment. One primary data source and two existing data sources were examined and analyzed thematically utilizing a combination approach of deductive and inductive coding. Indigenous leadership and organizations viewed wellbeing holistically and conceptualized wellbeing multidimensionally. From across Canada, wellbeing was communicated as physical, economic, political, social, and cultural. The scaling of wellbeing represented a collectivist perspective, and land was the connecting thread between all types of wellbeing, being a place to practice cultural traditions, reassert one’s Indigenous identity, find solace, and pass on Indigenous knowledge and languages. Although wellbeing was discussed in the context of the individual, family, community, and nation, wellbeing was most often discussed at the cultural level by regional and national Indigenous leadership and organizations. Even in acknowledging the great cultural diversity among Canadian Indigenous nations, four concordant themes were identified regionally and nationally, with respect to what was important for cultural wellbeing: land and water, sustainability, and inherent obligations; being on the land, and indigenous languages and knowledge systems; sustainable development; and meaningful involvement in decision-making, and free, prior, and informed consent. Taking into account these themes is foundational for any interaction with Indigenous peoples, especially in the context of land, culture, and development. There needs to be a new beginning on the journey to reconciliation with land and cultural wellbeing at the forefront.

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.

It is well documented that the colonizers of Canada have long coveted the ancestral homelands of the Canadian Indigenous peoples for settlement and development. With this end goal in mind, it is not surprising that there exists an extensive history of assimilative efforts by the colonizers with respect to the Indigenous peoples of Canada—for example, legal assimilation through enfranchisement (voluntary and involuntary) and blood quantum requirements, and cultural assimilation through residential schools and the “sixties scoop”. Another form of assimilation is environmental assimilation, that is, colonial development on Indigenous homelands to the extent whereby Indigenous cultural activities can no longer be supported in the development-transformed environment. Herein, I examine Bill C-69, a Government of Canada omnibus bill, through an environmental justice lens in the context of development across Canada on Indigenous homelands and impacts on Indigenous cultural sustainability. Specifically, Part 1 (i.e., the Impact Assessment Act, 2019) and Part 3 (i.e., the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, 2019) of Bill C-69 pose significant threats to Indigenous cultural sustainability. Through an environmental justice lens, procedural aspects include the use of the project list and scheduled waterways, the discretionary decision-making powers of the Government of Canada representatives, and the lack of acknowledgement of procedural elements of the environmental assessment processes that are constitutionally protected in comprehensive land claims. While, distributive justice aspects consist of unsustainable development from an Indigenous perspective, whereby environmental costs and benefits have been (and will be) distributed inequitably. Bill C-69 is a flawed statute that reinforces the colonial policy of assimilation.

Green energy has become a term that heralds efforts of environmental conservation and protection worldwide; however, much of it is marred with questions of what it means to be green. More precisely, it has become a question of Green for whom? While many of the impacts of supposed green energy projects are local in their reach, some may be more regional in their scope, such as hydroelectric power. Hydroelectric power generation negatively impacts the environment and people who rely on the environment for sustenance, such as, Indigenous peoples of northern Canada. Taking into account their position with respect to the areas impacted by these green projects, many Indigenous peoples have voiced their concerns and doubts concerning green energy, which is purported to be a mode of energy production that champions the environment. The Kabinakagami River Waterpower Project serves as a case study for both the potential effects of the project and the different views associated with these endeavors. If nothing else, the accounts and testimonies found within shall stand as a testament to the hubris of calling an energy project green without properly assessing and considering the impacts. While these statements relate to the case presented, they also carry significance in the wider world due to the numerous Indigenous communities around the world that are having their spaces slowly being encroached upon in the name of sustainable growth, or green energy. This will especially be true in the post-COVID-19 period where green energy and a green economy are being touted as a way towards state and worldwide recovery.

The James Bay Treaty-Treaty No. 9 was unique among the numbered treaties of Canada in that there was a need for the concurrence of the Province of Ontario. Last-minute negotiations by the Dominion of Canada to gain said concurrence led to an agreement with the Province of Ontario, and this agreement became part of the Treaty No. 9 package at Ontario’s insistence. However, since the agreement was not executed until after the Treaty No. 9 expedition had left for the field, an incomplete Treaty No. 9 package that lacked the agreement was presented to and signed by the First Nation groups in 1905. Furthermore, spaces had been left in the vellum copies of Treaty No. 9 and the agreement to add in the date of the agreement when fully executed. In the spaces that were left for this purpose, the date of the agreement was backdated to 3 July. This act of deception was suggested by the Treasurer of the Government of Ontario, A. Matheson in order to date of the agreement earlier than the date in the Treaty. Thus, the common law legality of the Treaty No. 9 package must be questioned, especially since officials of the Governments of Canada and Ontario left documentation of their deception. Without the agreement being attached as specified in the Treaty No. 9 document that left Ottawa in 1905, consideration of the terms of the agreement by the First Nation signatories of the treaty could not have occurred prior to signing. It follows that there exists a question of whether the land south of the Albany River was ever ceded in Treaty No. 9 from a common law perspective, unless documentation can be presented indicating that the complete Treaty No. 9 package was presented to the First Nation signatories; the written record indicates otherwise. In the end, the courts will have to decide the legality of Treaty No. 9 from a common law perspective.

In Canada, Indigenous communities have been disproportionately flooded. Specifically, Fort Albany First Nation (FN) located on a flood plain near the mouth of the Albany River in subarctic Ontario, Canada, has been evacuated frequently due to flooding or the threat of flooding―even though dikes were constructed in the late 1990s to safeguard the community. Thus, a fundamental question needs to be asked: Why is Fort Albany FN located on a flood plain in the first place? We answer the question through an Indigenous environmental justice lens using document and archival research in the context of the treaty making process between Fort Albany FN and the British Crown, and the establishment of reserves. In brief, procedural issues were noted, as there was no transparency in reserve choice at the time of signing the treaty, and during the actual surveying of the reserve boundaries with certain types of land being excluded from reserve locations, unbeknownst to the FNs peoples. The Cree were also misled into believing that they would retain access to their whole traditional homeland―and not be confined to reserve land―the Cree believed that they only agreed to share the land. Historically, the Cree harmonized with the seasons and would not be residing in the Albany River floodplain during river freeze-up and during river break-up―adaptive behaviour to avoid flooding. Harmonizing with the environment had allowed the mobile Cree to live successfully with the annual flooding of the Albany River for millennia, until being forced to live permanently on reserve land by the colonial government. Nonetheless, the Cree still sustain their cultural worldview acknowledging the Cree cycle of life. The way forward for Fort Albany First Nation will be either relocation to high ground or trying to tame nature by reinforcing the existing dikes—or some novel combination of both based on two worldviews.