Hydro Democracy: Water Power and Political Power in Ontario

Macfarlane, Daniel; Watson, Andrew

doi:10.7202/1048923ar

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To the point, in the same year that Treaty No. 9's field expedition was completed in 1906, the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario was formed as a publicly funded and owned utility company of the Government of Ontario (Armstrong, 2000;Macfarlane and Kitay, 2016;Macfarlane and Watson, 2018). This crown corporation would later be known as Ontario Hydro after 1974 (Sholdice, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treaty No. 9 and the Question of “Unceded” Land South of the Albany River in Subarctic Ontario, Canada

Tsuji¹,

Tsuji²

2021

ARCTIC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treaty No. 9 and the Question of “Unceded” Land South of the Albany River in Subarctic Ontario, Canada

Tsuji¹,

Tsuji²

2021

ARCTIC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Canada, the provinces hold jurisdiction over natural resources [43], including waterpower generation. In 1906, the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, known as Ontario Hydro after 1974 [62], was formed as a crown corporation, that is, a publicly owned utility company of the Government of Ontario [63][64][65]. The year of 1906 was also of importance in Ontario because the western James Bay region of northern Ontario, Canada, was "ceded" by First Nations people to the Government of Canada from a common law perspective [66], with Ontario being a signatory, through the signing of Treaty No.…”

Section: History Of Hydroelectric Power In Ontariomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Flooding also impacted riverine, boreal, and wetland ecosystems; this also meant that subsistence activities were affected, especially fishing due to mercury contamination [63,64,71]. After several First Nations' grievances over past hydroelectric developments were prioritized by the Government of Ontario [72] When hydroelectric development began in the southern areas of the Moose and Albany River Basins in the early part of the 20th century, there was no consultation with the First Nations communities or any forewarning [65,66,73]. The consequences of hydroelectric development were severe and wide-ranging.…”

Section: History Of Hydroelectric Power In Ontariomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The consequences of hydroelectric development were severe and wide-ranging. Impacts included, but were not limited to, major flooding of cultural sites and relocation of First Nations communities due to the erection of dams [65,66,73]. Flooding also impacted riverine, boreal, and wetland ecosystems; this also meant that subsistence activities were affected, especially fishing due to mercury contamination [65,66,73].…”

Section: History Of Hydroelectric Power In Ontariomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Green Energy—Green for Whom? A Case Study of the Kabinakagami River Waterpower Project in Northern Canada

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…However, the research conducted to date has laid a strong foundation for the critique of such rhetoric. Critics cite the environmental impacts of green energy projects, especially in Indigenous communities, which are typically in close proximity of hydroelectric projects (e.g., Armstrong, 2000;MacFarlane & Kitay, 2016;MacFarlane et al, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic Recovery in Response to Worldwide Crises: Fiduciary Responsibility and the Legislative Consultative Process with Respect to Bill 150 (Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009) and Bill 197 (COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020) in Ontario, Canada

Tsuji

2022

iipj

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Green Energy and Green Economy Act (2009) was an omnibus bill that affected a number of other acts. Due to the breadth of its effects, it should have seen a rigorous consultation and review process; this is especially true given how it would impact First Nations and its explicit mention in the Bill. However, it took less than three months for it to receive Royal Assent and become an act. This timeline is extremely short, even among similar bills within the same context. One of the core reasons for this swift transition is due to its labeling as green energy, which has benign connotations. This effectively allowed the bill to be expedited through the consultation process. The consultation process had many hurdles of its own that inhibited meaningful consultation including its timeframe, location of hearings, accessibility, and other factors. The term green energy was also never defined within the Act, meaning it only served as a form of signaling. This raises many questions with respect to the Government of Ontario’s conduct in the situation and how they handled their legal duty to consult with Indigenous people of Ontario, Canada. There are many voices that have raised issues with this process. If nothing else, this example serves the purpose of demonstrating the dangers of green-labelling, especially to Indigenous people of Canada and other Indigenous groups worldwide.

show abstract

Hydro Democracy: Water Power and Political Power in Ontario

Cited by 9 publications

References 5 publications

Treaty No. 9 and the Question of “Unceded” Land South of the Albany River in Subarctic Ontario, Canada

Treaty No. 9 and the Question of “Unceded” Land South of the Albany River in Subarctic Ontario, Canada

Green Energy—Green for Whom? A Case Study of the Kabinakagami River Waterpower Project in Northern Canada

Economic Recovery in Response to Worldwide Crises: Fiduciary Responsibility and the Legislative Consultative Process with Respect to Bill 150 (Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009) and Bill 197 (COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020) in Ontario, Canada

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About