Grassy Narrows (Again)

  In 1970, the Ontario Government banned commercial fishing on the English-Wabigoon river system. The reason - the fish were too poisonous to eat. Poisonous because of mercury pollution, mercury from a plant operated by the Reed Paper Company.

Today, leaders from the Grassy Narrows are going to release a new study, done by environmental health expert Donna Mergler, a member of a World Health Organization-affiliated research group. If this report is anything like the multitude of reports that have been released in the past, the results will be frightening, alarming and just downright embarrassing to all Canadians. A report released in 2015 stated that mercury levels were " still rising in some nearby lakes. Japanese researchers found more than 90 per cent of the populations of Grassy Narrows and Wabaseemoong First Nations show signs of poisoning" (CBC). There is absolutely no reason to believe that anything has changed. At least changed  for the better - there is a good chance that things are even worse.

When I was teaching sociology at a community college, I always used the story of Grassy Narrows to introduce my students to some of the theories of Emile Durkheim. His work, at the turn of the last century, on the causes of suicide and his discussion of anomie were perfectly introduced by the story of Grassy Narrows. That story describes the effects in graphic detail the consequences of a whole community being forced to move to a new location (for no other apparent reason that it was more convenient and cheaper for the government) and what happened to the community when their one source of outside income (the commercial fishery) was destroyed because of the mercury pollution.

Millions of dollars have been allocated to resolving the problem and yet it would appear that living conditions in the community have not gotten better - it is in fact worse. It may be impossible to ever clean up English-Wabigoon river system - it may be polluted with mercury forever. Providing an alternative and reliable source of drinking water might have been a good first start but it took far too long for any government to make a commitment to do so. The neurological damage from the mercury had already been done. Providing an income to the community, other than social welfare would have benefited the community, providing educational and recreational opportunities may have reduced the level of self inflicted violence. Not forcing the community to move in the first place would have prevented the problem.

It has been over 45 years since the river system was first polluted. The people of Grassy Narrows are still eating the fish (there is no other affordable protein available), they are still drinking polluted water and they are still waiting for a permanent solution to a problem caused by other people. A whole generation (perhaps two) have been raised in a toxic environment. During that same time period, we as a species have managed to send men and women orbiting the earth for months at a time, invented hundreds of new devices, learnt how to drill a mile underground looking for oil, learnt to replace countless millions of knees and hips and cured/prevented numerous epidemics and diseases,- but we can't figure how to help a small community get better.

Shame on us!

for a range of CBC documentaries on this issue go to http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/grassy-narrows-compensation-and-shame

Notley's Refusal to Participate

CBC has reported that Premier Notley of Alberta has backed out of the western premier's meeting this week. She says she is doing so because she needs to monitor Kinder Morgan's end of May deadline. Notley also " said it would be surreal and exceptionally tone deaf for anyone to think we could politely discuss pharmacare and cannabis when one of the players is hard at work trying to choke the economic lifeblood of the province and the country"(CBC).

I appreciate that emotions amongst the premiers may be running a bit high. I can understand why it might feel easier to run away as opposed to trying to work with someone on other issues when you are really pissed off at them. But suck it up children.  You are not the first manager of a large corporation (because that is what premiers are) who is in a serious conflict with a colleague and occasional competitor. Most of us who have been in similar situations have had to attend that meeting and have had to find a way to, at least in the short term, to work together. If I had been able to miss meeting just because I didn't like what a colleague or the government was going to say to me, I could have worked a three day work week. If your job is to advocate on behalf of a group of people (and surely that is part of the premier's job) of course someone is going to disagree with you. Hell, the Prime Minister has historically had to attend meetings of the premiers where at any one time at least half of the provincial premiers are royally pissed off at him.

There are serious issues that the western premiers need to discuss. Some of them may not be resolvable but surely on such issues as pharmacare, the decriminalization of marijuana or universal daycare there is some common ground. If the "leaders" of our provincial governments cannot figure out a way to at the very least be civil to each other that, if nothing else, demonstrates the public's inability to elect mature leaders.  I expect that the leaders within my country should have the capacity to see the big picture, to know how to work with a range of people, some of whom they do not agree with. I expect them to be able to recognize that their colleagues, no matter how misguided or ill-informed they are, do have the best interest of their constituents at heart. Throwing verbal sticks and stones at them, from a distance, strikes me as more than somewhat childish.

While I have some admiration for Notley in terms of some of her environmental decisions (e.g. carbon tax) and at least some sympathy for her limited range of options around oil production when oil is her province's only real income generator, it is hard to respect someone who won't attend a meeting because someone disagrees with her.