Risk management and the logic of elimination

ABSTRACT

This intervention is premised on the observation that differentiated and relational exposure and protection are fundamental to the political economy of settler colonialism in Canada. These orderings map directly onto a value logic that privileges the life of capital above all else, and orchestrates the voluntary and involuntary sacrifice of value to the national economy. Herein, the value of Indigenous life is continually metered out (and in various ways) in relation to the valued life of capital. I argue that ‘risk management’ – by which I mean the variety of techniques and practices that order and organize exposure to (and protection from) harm – is vital to the political economy of settler colonialism in Canada because of how it normalizes colonial violence. To support my argument I make three observations about ‘risk management’ anchored in three ‘exposure scenarios’ drawn from my research in the mining sector: (1) risk management is an intervention analogous to securitization; (2) risk management is powerful because it makes social relations fungible; and (3) risk management is a value logic consistent with settler governmentality and the logic of elimination.

KEYWORDS:

• Risk management
• settler colonialism
• elimination
• political economy
• Canada

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributor

Anna Stanley is Assistant Professor at the University of Guelph in the Department of Geography, Environment and Geomatics. Prior to Joining the university of Guelph she was faculty at the National University of Ireland, Galway. She has also held a number of visiting professorships including at York University and the University of Toronto. Her research focuses on the political economy of settler colonialism in Canada with specific reference to mining and mineral exploration, infrastructure development and toxic exposure.

Notes

1 I have written more extensively about each of these scenarios elsewhere in (Stanley 2016, 2019).

2 I wish to make clear that this deconstruction was not undertaken in collaboration with or on behalf of any Indigenous community in the Tar Sands. The purpose of my analysis is not to represent or qualify Indigenous exposure to the effects of Tar Sands extraction, but to interrogate attempts by the state (Alberta) to circumscribe exposure of Cree, Dene, and Metis peoples to the toxic effect of the tar Sands extraction.

3 This is by far the more substantive consideration of cancer risk in the community. The 2014 study was technically a follow up study that reproduced some of the methods and conclusions of the 2009 study (though with considerably less analytical rigour, for instance it did not adjust for Fist Nation status) over a subsequent time period. This study is not discussed here due to space constraints.

4 The Study was initially supposed to include several Indigenous communities downstream of the tar sands, but due to disagreements with Alberta Health authorities most of the other communities refused to participate or eventually withdrew.

5 This is of course also true in respect of other racialized, working class populations, deemed surplus in Canada and elsewhere. Here however, in keeping with the focus of the essay I confine myself to examination of the ways in which risk management as a politics of measure normalizes the systemic and structured overexposure of Indigenous life to the toxic effects of settler colonial-capitalism in Canada in order to highlight the ways in which risk this particular modality of risk management is vital to the political economy of setter colonialism in Canada.

6 This amendment was first announced in the 2015 federal Conservative budget prior to losing the federal election to the Liberals. Evidence suggests, however, that Canada Revenue Agency has permitted mining firms to claim community consultation costs as CEE and to structure FTS arrangements on the basis of costs associated with addressing Indigenous rights in the mineral exploration and development process beginning in 2013, for the 2012 tax year.

7 For instance, according to its financial documents and regulatory filings Noront Resources Limited, a tier 2 exploration firm and primary land holder in Ontario’s fraught ‘‘Ring of Fire’’ mining area (home to at least nine Mattawa First Nations), raised 9.3 million dollars of flow-through financing (in 2016) 1 million of which was earmarked for ‘fulfilling consultation requirements with first nations’ in relation to completing the company’s environmental assessment. It raised another 3.7 million in September 2017 via flow through for the 2018 exploration programme. Analysis of first and second quarter financial materials and regulatory filings suggest that between January and June 2018, 233 thousand dollars of this budget had already been spent on ‘first nations community engagement,’ including ‘pre-development negotiations’ and other ‘community engagement activities.’

8 Indeed despite their ongoing involvement in the development of the Bank, leading Canadian Pension funds consistently expressed significant concern with the ‘risk and return characteristics’ of greenfield infrastructure investment (Stanley 2019).

9 Cree Dene and Metis communities in the Peace-Athabasca Delta, including in the Mikisew Cree First Nation (MCFN) and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) most closely associated with Fort Chip engage in land based practices of governance and care, including the harvest and consumption of wild foods. Many are (or have been) employed in the tar sands. A remarkable 2014 study conducted jointly by the ACFN, MCFH, and University of Manitoba (CBC 2014) detected elevated levels of carcinogenic polycyclic hydrocarbons and heavy metals (such as arsenic, cadmium, methyl mercury and selenium) in the muscle, kidney and liver tissues of wild foods (plants, animals and fish) including at levels that were of concern for child and adult safety (CBC 2014). The study (which was not a risk assessment) also identified high rates of cancer including rare soft tissue and biliary duct cancers, and determined that cancer occurrence amongst Indigenous study participants increased significantly (in the statistical sense) with participant employment in the tar ands and with increased consumption of wild foods (including animals and plants) and locally caught fish (CBC 2014). This is to my knowledge the only study that measures contaminate levels in wild foods, and that directly investigated the linkage between environmental exposure and Indigenous health (including cancer). Immediately following the release of these finding Alberta Health’s 2009 and 2014 studies were used by government and industry to dismiss the study. I am not aware of any subsequent research undertaken to address linkages between health effects and tar sands contaminants (indeed this type of research appears to be actively avoided by industry and government) or to follow up on cancer rates in FC. The current Alberta government is however, actively surveilling, criminalizing and discrediting environmental opposition to the tar sands.

10 The study speculated that any increased risk (if it did exist) was most likely to result from, in descending order: ‘lifestyle factors’ (obesity rates, diabetes, smoking); socio-economic factors; family history; possible genetic predisposition; and lastly to possible occupational or environmental exposure (AH 2009, p. 44).

11 The 2014 study compared cancer incidence in FC (2007 and 2011) to the age, sex adjusted rates for the province of Alberta standardized to the FC population. It did not adjust IRs to reflect First Nation status (despite much lower cancer Incidence in unexposed Indigenous communities relative to their settler counterparts). The study determined that overall rates of cancer were no different than in the Alberta population, with the exceptions of lung, cervical, and biliary cancers. These were attributed not to exposure but to (a) viral infection (‘the majority of cervical cancers are related to human papilloma virus exposure’); (b) smoking (‘the majority of lung cancers are due to smoking’); (c) chance, lifestyle factors (obesity and smoking), family history, and aging (AH 2014, p. 1). No evidence from clinical histories (e.g., smoking habits) was examined to support these attributions.