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.

Baby and the Bathwater

The May edition of the Walrus had two separate articles that I don't think were meant to be compared to each other but in fact are, at least in my mind, two sides of the same coin.

Lauren McKeon's article Here's Looking at No Kids discusses the growing number of women who are not having children. Some of those women are not able to have children, but there appears to be an increasing number of women who are making a conscious choice not to be mothers. The article discusses amongst other things the incredible pressure that women are placed under to have children and when they decide to not - how society can view that decision. When I first read the article it struck me that we are living in an extraordinary world where it can be recognized that all sorts of people and their very specific issues can be identified as being different and that they need special attention. It is a world where everyone has the right to feel discriminated against and to have those issues addressed. It struck me as I was reading McKeon's work that we, at least in the west, are at some risk of being so fragmented by our special needs that we will have almost nothing in common with each other.

The second article, Lonely Boys by Rachel Giese discusses the fact that young men (and older ones too) are more likely to be socially isolated and at risk of a whole range of mental and physical health ailments because of that isolation. She discusses the various factors that at some point around puberty encourage/force boys to separate from their best pals, that boys they may have been close to throughout their childhood - but no longer seem to be as important. Giese suggests that much of that separation is because society does not encourage or perhaps even allow young men to be close to each other. Giese further suggests that there was a time when men were allowed, by society, to have warm relationships with other men, that in the time of all male clubs, universities, service clubs and the military there was ample opportunity for men to develop strong relationships - relationships that could sustain them throughout their lives. And that as women started to demand access to those all male bastions of power and influence, men lost their places to develop relationships.

As I read those two articles it occurred to me that as we become more aware of individual special needs for growth and development, as we continually reject societies demands for us to conform - there is value in being careful that in making the changes, that we do not destroy the very institutions that have made it possible to survive as a species.

As well while some women are demanding that society cannot and should not expect them to follow the tradition that all women need to have children and that society must support that decision - at the same time men need to be able to demand a society that allows for and facilitates the growth of the male's capacity to develop relationships. And that may include male only institutions.

Depressing News

The Ford Motor company has announced that within a few years they will no longer be making sedans. The company is abandoning its Fiesta, Fusion and Taurus line of vehicles and will instead concentrate on pickup trucks and SUVs. Not  for the entire world, just for the United States (and presumably Canadian) markets. It can only be assumed that the other big American car producers (GM and Chrysler) will follow suit.

While I am not one of them, for anyone who follows the car market - this business decision is not a surprise. In fact the almost complete switch to larger vehicles is obvious to anyone who parks in a large box store parking lot. As a driver of a small car, I am constantly aware that that the majority of vehicles surrounding me are either trucks or SUVs. Consumers have for the past decade have been making the switch from sedans and cars to bigger, boxier vehicles, vehicles with big tires that are reputably safer (except of course if you are driving a smaller import and get hit by a SUV). It is clear that the American (and Canadian) markets are enamoured with the concept of driving something big. Not that most of them need to - they just want to.

This news is particularly discouraging in that in spite of the  general acceptance that global climate change is real and that the change is caused at least in part because of the amount of carbon that is released into the air; in spite of the fact that a significant percentage of the public list environmental concerns as being one of their top three concerns; in spite of the fact that there is a constant debate about how safe it is to transport oil, we are insisting on driving larger vehicles that consume more gas. As is so often the case, there is a large disconnect between what we say and what we do.

I can appreciate that pickup trucks and SUVs are far more fuel efficient than they use to be. I understand why all of that space is attractive. As I pack my car for market day, or have to rearrange the back of my car to ensure that I can get two booster seats into the back seat or wonder how I am going to get that 10 foot piece of fragile wood trim home - I think about how I would love to have a bigger vehicle. But I do not need one. What I need is a reliable vehicle that will meet most of my needs, most of the time. What I need is a vehicle that is fuel efficient all of the time.

There are some Canadians who argue that we need larger vehicles because we have to drive large distances (as compared to people in Europe or Asia), there are others who argue that we need to have big vehicles with all wheel drive because our weather conditions are terrible for so many months of the year. While the former argument has some limited validity, the reality for most people is that they do not drive those great distances all of the time; the latter argument's validity becomes questionable when it is made by those who live on Vancouver Island or by people whose chosen life styles occasionally force them to drive through harsh conditions (e.g. choosing to live in a  new house on a poorly maintained rural road and then saying you need to own a SUV).

 

According to Statistics Canada, 81% of Canadians live in urban areas. Why would one need a vehicle that is, at least supposedly, made for rough roads or carrying heavy loads? If car manufacturers have been able to fabricate more fuel efficient vehicles, that does not mean that we get to drive bigger cars.

As we sit and ponder the environmental fate of the world, as we are alarmed by the violent weather patterns that seem to be emerging, as we bemoan the irresponsible producers of oil - maybe we should drooling over the newest SUVs.