For example, 31 different species of fish and a variety of animal habitats exist around the river. Because of water contamination, these species are now at risk (Greenpeace, 1). Normally, indigenous populations would use the animals as a natural food source. Instead, water contamination depletes the local ecosystem. As discussed in lecture, land and resources are more than just marketable commodities (Latulippe, 2015). The Canadian government justifies the contamination of the Athabasca River by citing federal legislation like The Northwest Irrigation Act of 1894, or land transfers like the Natural Resources Transfer Act of 1930 (Passelac-Ross & Buss, 2011). However, it is most likely that indigenous populations did not agree with the terms and/or were not comfortable with western customs.
Unfortunately, the legal and political structures in place “justify” the continuation of the Alberta tar sands, despite the contamination of the Athabasca River. It is this dichotomy between legal justification and indigenous exploitation that will frame the upcoming paper. In other words, the upcoming paper will question the ways in which Canadian (federal and provincial) governments systematically disadvantage indigenous populations along the Athabasca River through water …show more content…
Because this paper will focus heavily on public policy and law, I do not want my thesis to get lost in heavy terminology. By using McCreary’s article, my thesis can bridge the gap between traditional and contemporary practices of the Athabasca indigenous populations. By combining indigenous culture with Canadian law, McCreary provides an important narrative to indigenous affairs in Alberta. It is with this narrative that my thesis can provide a culturally sensitive approach to the serious issue of water contamination and