Attawapiskat is a pretty big story these days. I don’t really know much about the underlying issues, but just some random thoughts. Obviously it’s a travesty that we have this level of poverty and neglect in Canada. It’s even worse that the government took so long to respond at all to this emergency. I find the political discourse on this issue is pretty disappointing. The government has managed to spin this issue to their advantage by asking: “where’s the money”? Essentially, they have managed to convince people that this is just a case of mismanagement of money. Honestly, I really have no idea of the federal funds were mismanaged, (this is good analysis) but even if they were, it’s hardly the real issue. Several points to consider:
(a) This is not an isolated incident.
(b) Canadians don’t seem to think it’s an important issue. It pops up every now and then … but Canadian’s are generally happy to ignore the north, and I think the “where’s the money” story is popular because it’s the path of least resistance.
(c) There are certainly issues about the long term viability of Northern Communities that are real. Canada is locked into certain orthodoxies about economic development models for these communities that don’t seem to work. Obviously the “why are they living there” argument is too narrow - first nations communities closer to urban areas also suffer some of these problems.
(d) Is it too obvious to say that First Nation’s communities need a sustainable economic base, and they need better governance structures. Probably… how do you get there? No f’ing clue.
This post is a pretty good summary. I think it may overstate the control that INAC actually has over federal transfers – one line of the Indian Act doesn’t really prove anything about how programs are actually managed. But other than that, good set information.
(HT: MB)
Finally some sense from AM.
ReplyDeletereally bad response from the Harperites, really bad management from the Dept. of indian affairs. If we invested in social programs this probably would be solved. Northern development is absolutely viable if we put some investment into it.
AM,
ReplyDeleteHow does your beliefs (libertarian, anti-regulation - loosely) coincide with your feeling that the government should be doing more in the north? Shouldn't they be doing less and letting the reserves play themselves out by their own free will/enterprise?
I cannot get past the fact that we are supporting a community where otherwise there really wouldn't be one. Reserves are not the classic native way of life. Personally I would think a giant nature reserve spanning caribou ranges, etc would allow them to continue their historic ways relatively unfettered (Northern Ontario and Manitoba are still relatively untouched - thankfully). No development would be allowed in these refuges, and they would be free to live life as they once did.
I do NOT think, as HM points out, developing the north 'for them' is a smart idea. We have trashed enough of our wilderness with roads, etc already, and Dalton's plan to bring roads into the north to 'allow [natives] access to resource extraction etc' is an awful plan. More than likely, the big corporations will be in there and the natives will play little part.
To further to pt against HM, I do not see how a social program in Attawapiskat is going to solve anything. It may bring short term stability to the current community, at an extremely high cost, however their bill will forever be footed by the Canadian tax payer. Att. is a community in relative extreme isolation (I didn't want to sound dramatic, hence the relative). Churchill is a giant port now, but between there, south along the Bay, there is nothing (trust me, I have mapped it all with landsat at 1:50,000). There is also a certain landform type (found this quickly: http://www.markville.ss.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/teacher/geography/9/Academic/LANDFORM%20REGIONS%20IN%20CANADA%20%20PPP.ppt) which is known as the Hudson Bay Lowlands. READ IMPASSABLE. Peat bogs and 'wetlands' to the late person (Dumb & Dumber ref there for ya!) which you will not be able to build a road into - so no road for a resource rich Att. anytime soon, sorry.
Roads will cost a fortune (in other feasible northern areas which Dalton has targeted) and will only bring massive destruction to an otherwise astoundingly beautiful area.
I would absolutely love to live in the north of Ontario. Wheres my house? Medical? Schools for my children? Its ridiculous; I do not live there because it is not feasible. I travel there for as many weeks of the year as possible, but ultimately I am pulled back into a money making position to fend for myself and family.
I would suggest making a giant nature reserve which spans caribou herds etc, off limits to development, and if they'd like to live their old lifestyle in that they could. But if they want support for economy etc they should really come a bit more south. As much as I hate logging practices, as I have worked and seen the dirty practice first hand, it is part of what this country was and still is built upon. It is necessary, however we should be looking for alternatives, not starting new projects farther and farther into the north (don't get me started on THIS subject!).
How is Attawapiskat going to sustain THEMSELVES long term? A port is all I could think of off my the top of my head, servicing Churchill-Att., but that would require major investment, and... what does Att. have that Churchill doesn't? Besides it's too far south into the bay, and I believe Hudson's Bay is only large enough (in population) for 1 major port - on the Ont side at least.
Its not logical supporting them way up there. Would love to hear objections and counter arguments; this is a great topic. And obviously relevant, as AM has touched upon it! ;)
TG: I am going to be very careful before making any suggestions on this one just b/c I don't really know enough of the specifics.
ReplyDeleteI think the proponents of development want them to make money from either mining or tourism, both of which might be viable without significant government investment. I don't know though..
I wonder what they would think of that national park idea. It depends if they want to go back to more traditional ways of life or something else.
Over time, many will likely leave voluntarily - anyone with ambition, anyway.
AM:
ReplyDelete' Over time, many will likely leave voluntarily - anyone with ambition, anyway. '
'I wonder what they would think of that national park idea. It depends if they want to go back to more traditional ways of life or something else. '
I agree with you; unfortunately I personally do not think that most of them want to return to their native way of life. The temptations are too great - you can't blame them.
I just think that the irony is thick where our solution to helping them maintain a semi-native way of life is to build roads to their remote communities and involve them in practices that destroy the very forests and nature that they thrived in for thousands of years before we arrived. I would be really interested to hear from a native first hand their perspectives on these issues.
It must have been really nice, before 'we' arrived to ruin everything. Warring aside, they had been doing remarkably well, since the Inuit ancestors came to NA between (approx) 40,000-10,000 years BCE. Some theories suggest as early as 65,000yrs BCE. (I realize psysio. would change, however it would have been the same hunter/gatherer lifestyle, in the North/Wooded lands anyway.). Love this topic - can you imagine taking down a mastodon with your band? Feast...
That is a long time for any civ to survive.
Incredible.
The current situation in Attawipiskat is appalling to say the least. The entire community is government funded, meaning that all the housing, infrastructure and services are 100% government funded. All housing is built using government funds. The band then owns these houses and leases them to the band members.
ReplyDeleteProblem #1: No pride of ownership. Why would any of these people put their own money into a house built by the government and not owned by them? Sure the band owns it, but not the individual. So these houses go into disrepair and eventually become unlivable, hence the people living in shacks.
Problem #2: The bleeding hearts. We see images of people living in huts, poor conditions in general on the reserve etc and cry out, 'oh government, why are you not doing more?' The fed spends millions in this small community of less than 2000 people. In fact they spent 90 million between 2006 and 2011! Thats roughly 45000 per person! And this is now under scrutiny because of mismanagement. and fraud.
The majority of people moved up there in the 60's. It is not traditional land in any sense of the word. there are few viable businesses, fewer jobs and little reason to stay on the reserve. The cost of living is astronomical (5 apples for $20 as an example), conditions are poor to say the least.
How long should the government keep throwing money at these small communities along the James bay coast? The corruption is rampant (see 'the aboriginal industry' by CBC), there is little oversight into how funds are spent and little hope of sustainability. No other town or hamlet would ever be able to sustain themselves the way these communities do - through 100% government funding at every level, for everything.
Look at all the ghost towns around Ontario, old mining towns, lumber villages etc that are no longer around because people moved on, knowing there was no work or money left. Even if their families had farmed the land for 200 years they went elsewhere to find a better life. The government didn't subsidize these folks to keep them in an area that was clearly not a viable option. So why up North? Because the land they are on is their traditional home? Hardly, the Cree are from much farther south. The Innu on the other hand know how to live in the North - because they've been there for thousands of years!!! Iqalauit (sp) is sustainable because a) government is well-run b) the people are from the land, not transplanted 1000's of miles from their traditional region. You wouldn't move an Innu to southern Ontario and expect them to run a farm would you?
The aboriginals scream for autonomy on one hand, but cannot subsist without massive federal infusions of cash on the other. There needs to be a weining process where the communities can learn to either exist on their own with minimal government influence or consider moving the community to a more hospitable area of the North. Not possible? They moved Kashechewan and Fort Albany (twice!) after they realized it was built on a flood plain!
Great comments, anon. I really like point 1 about ownership. That makes a lot of sense. When you don't own something, you have no incentive to take care of it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, very good point about tradition. Their argument falls apart if they have only lived there for 40 years.
Finally, agree about the weening process. That is probably not viable politically. There are also legal obligations and court decisions etc... behind some of these policies that may not be easily undone.
Schooled my rambles... well done Anon.
ReplyDeleteAgree and agree that weaning is not a politically viable option. I thought too that they had been there forever, when in fact it has been less than 100 years. Notice also that the bands that have reserves farther south have noticeably less problems and issues (though there are still many).
ReplyDeleteAccess is also an issue here. There are no roads up there and everything has to be flown in. The Innu are able to survive largely off the land whereas the James Bay coast is dependent on regular shipments of goods and supplies. It is difficult to live a modern life with modern conveniences in an area as remote as that. Also, the contrast between the expressed desire to live traditionally, but still enjoy modernity at ones convenience is a conundrum that plagues the northern communities - you want to hunt and trap like your ancestors, but you want to do it on a snowmobile, and return to a home with electricity and running water.
All of this is further compounded by the actions of white colonialists that are still affecting the native population today. We are seen as owing them something for all the wrongs we committed in the past, and thus the situation persists. Any word of cutting off funding for anything is met with protests and opposition, saying that the government owes the native people that money or that land. This sense of entitlement is strong throughout the communities not just in Northern Ontario, but across Canada.
Pride and self-determination must be restored to the first nations. How to do this? I am unsure. One thing to do to get the ball rolling would be to begin a process of winding down subsidies and handouts - how can you have pride and positive self-worht if you must live off someone else's money? As long as there are handouts there will be long line of people with their hand out.