By breaking down barriers that impacted the ability of subarctic First Nations people to harvest waterfowl, the Sharing-the-Harvest program provided a safe, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food (i.e., geese) to James Bay Cree communities while also helping to protect the environment by harvesting overabundant geese. However, the impacts extend beyond those described above. Thus, the objectives of the present paper are twofold: to document the food sharing networks of the Sharing-the-Harvest program; and to examine the benefits associated with the harvest program beyond food security and environmental sustainability issues, as revealed through semi-directed interviews. In the regional initiative, harvested geese were shared with all James Bay communities; sharing is an important part of Cree culture. Where detailed information was collected, the goose-sharing network reached 76% of the homes in one of the communities. Likewise, in the local initiative, the goose-sharing network had a 76% coverage rate of the homes in the community. Although decreasing food insecurity was an important focus of the harvest-sharing programs, there were other benefits, from an Indigenous perspective, of being on the land, as identified by the Cree harvesters through semi-directed interviews (e.g., the transmission of Indigenous knowledge, the strengthening of social networks, and the feeling of wellness while out on-the-land). Thus, by participating in the on-the-land harvest programs, the Cree gained benefits beyond those solely related to strengthening food security and contributing in part to environmental sustainability. The Sharing-the-Harvest protocol has the potential to be adapted and employed by other Indigenous (or marginalized) groups worldwide, to help improve health and wellness, while, also protecting the environment from overabundant and/or invasive species.

Scoping includes the establishment of unambiguous spatial boundaries for a proposed development project (e.g., a treaty) and is especially important with respect to development on Indigenous homelands. Improper scoping leads to a flawed product, such as a flawed treaty or environmental impact assessment, by excluding stakeholders from the process. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to gather (and collate) printed and online material in relation to Treaty No. 9 and its Adhesions, as well as the Line-AB. We searched academic databases as well as the Library and Archives Canada. The examination of Treaty No. 9 and its Adhesions revealed that there is unceded land in each of four separate scenarios, which are related to the Line-AB and/or emergent land in Northern Ontario, Canada. Lastly, we present lessons learned from our case study. However, since each development initiative and each Indigenous Nation is unique, these suggestions should be taken as a bare minimum or starting point for the scoping process in relation to development projects on Indigenous homelands.

Transdisciplinary sustainability training is a recognized need in many graduate programs. However, there is limited analysis of specific pedagogical tools to support this effort, particularly from the perspective of graduate students. Here, we reflect on the application of a "theory of change" process to support transdisciplinary thinking among early career researchers with diverse disciplinary backgrounds. For class participants, the theory of change process helped to clarify the diversity of actors associated with their research, to unpack their assumptions about complex problems, to clarify important causal linkages, and to support the development of a systems perspective. Challenges in using the theory of change in the classroom context included the difficulty of putting boundaries around student projects, and the additional time requirements involved in completing a detailed theory of change. The process helped class participants situate their specific and more disciplinary research projects in a broader sustainability context.

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.

In northern Ontario, Canada, there have been two “negotiated” documents that required consultation between First Nations and the federated government of the land: Treaty No. 9 signed in 1905-1906 (Dominion of Canada, with the concurrence of the Province of Ontario) and Ontario’s Far North Act (2010). Treaty No. 9 has defined the relationship between First Nations and Canada; while, the Far North Act will define the relationship with Ontario. This article evaluated whether the Far North Act marked a new beginning or the reinforcement of an unacceptable relationship, using primary and secondary data analyses. Analyses revealed that the passing of the Far North Act was not a new beginning, but the continuation of an unacceptable relationship.