Resourceful impacts: Harm and valuation of the sacred

The use of rationalized risk assessment to identify the costs and benefits of protecting Aboriginal sacred sites is ubiquitous in Canadian law. Like other contemporary critics of cost-benefit analysis, I voice concerns with its use to adjudicate moral claims and recognize that it can misidentify the depth of loss experienced by Aboriginal peoples when sacred sites are destroyed. Nonetheless, in this article, I question in what ways technocratic approaches to risk could be helpful in protecting sacred sites. The article draws on two recent environmental assessments, the Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project in British Columbia and the Screech Lake Uranium Exploration Project in the Northwest Territories, to argue that innovative approaches to characterizing loss illustrate the potential of rationalized methods to identify harm better than it has in the past. The panels’ recommendations to reject the projects, based on the risk that the communities would suffer mental and psychological harm, reflect a genuine effort to provide decision makers with the real cost of approving these two projects. While I do not suggest that cost-benefit analysis can represent the loss of absolute values, I argue that, if done with cultural context in mind, assessment may help to extract the type of information needed to find the depth of empathy from which legal solutions may be constructed.