When I say urban reserve, what do you think of?

When asking people this question expect a multitude of responses. While there may not be right answers, there are certainly wrong ones that are misperceptions and fallacies. I truly do understand the need to rebrand urban reserves as economic development areas (EDAs) and now, as I alluded to in my first post, will look at New Zealand as a shining examples of aboriginal success in implementing EDAs followed by underlying assumptions that inhibit aboriginal economic progress in the Canadian context.

The Base is a great example of how the Maori in New Zealand have built an economic base for their community and brought benefits to the whole surrounding area. The airbase was built on Waikto-Tainui land that was confiscated prior to World War 2 and was returned as part of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu settlement in 1995.[1] The Base began in 1998 as the Tainui Group Holdings (TGH) took ownership of the decommissioned airbase. Shortly thereafter TGH signed a joint venture with The Warehouse Group, a major shoe retailer in New Zealand. Plans were drawn up and construction began on the massive retail centre which today is valued at around 100 million dollars. There are plans to essentially make The Base a town center out of the development including healthcare, offices, and hotels to serve the entire population. This is what success in a Canadian context can look like.

However, there is an important difference between aboriginal populations and europeans in that business and business development are viewed differently in both communities. Business from a european perspective is an individual endeavour that is built on the right to private property, whereas aboriginal business is viewed as a community project on a belief in collective ownership. Quoted from the TGH website as part of their vision statement “In our view there is immense potential to fully utilise Maaoridom’s asset base by pooling resources and expertise, and as with TGH, what benefits Maaoridom will ultimately benefit the whole community.”[2] Within this statement, and larger narratives of aboriginal vision, is a view that inevitably leads a scrutinizing observer to see as anti-capitalist in that development and wealth are viewed as means to better serve the community than as an ends into themselves. That being said, not all europeans view development and wealth as the end goal and not all aboriginals have an anti-capitalist vison.

For instance Manitobah Mukluks is an aboriginal owned company that has recently outsourced some manufacturing to China. Clearly this doesn’t align with an anti-capitalist vison in the way that I suggested yet the dominant narrative is still community oriented and outsourcing will produce more capital for the community to spend. And while I am highly critical of this decision, I am not limited to criticizing Manitobah for choosing the outsourcing route as many other companies have followed the same route such as Heinz and Kellogg’s to name two. Therefore, as my classmate suggested, why should aboriginal companies be held back from achieving the material success that european companies do?

A second underlying assumption is that aboriginal culture views all things holistically as everything is inter-related.[3] This is contrasted to the european instrumental view that everything can be utilized for a purpose. Europeans fundamentally do not understand the aboriginal spiritual attachment to the land nor do they understand the traditional ways of life which are now in conflict with european values and lifestyles. These two views ultimately manifest themselves and lead to prolonged conflict on such issues as resource development and management.

Needless to say aboriginal EDAs are one way to solve the problem of persistent poverty on reserves. It should come as no surprise that repercussions of colonisation have created a festering wound on Canadian identity that need to be resolved in one way or another. When looking at places such as New Zealand it is easy to find solutions to the broken system that exists in Canada. EDAs are one step in the right direction and will hopefully overcome the barriers mentioned; thus leading to greater self-determination for aboriginal communities.

[1] http://www.te-awa.co.nz/?id=407

[2] http://www.tgh.co.nz/default.asp?sid=4&cid=20&aid=

[3] http://www.ccja-acjp.ca/en/abori1.html

Advertisements

Urban Reserves: Common Misperceptions and Quiet Success

When people first hear the label of urban reserve they likely think of it in a negative light and visualize some kind of poverty stricken ghetto. In reality there could be nothing further from the truth. Urban reserves are an opportunity for aboriginal groups to do what the rest of Canadian society takes for granted; that is have a chance at being economically successful. Not surprisingly aboriginal groups have recognized the negative stigma associated with the term urban reserve and have now decided to call such land economic development areas (EDAs). Hopefully this blog post will remove some of the misperceptions in this often controversial issue (at least in Manitoba) and build support for the framework that is so successful.

Before building support for the idea of EDAs, there needs to be some fact finding about what this label actually means. First and foremost an EDA is often a commercial area within a city that operates businesses and uses the profits to support the rural reserve with amenities that the rest of Canadians take for granted. Services such as running water, roads, electricity, and healthcare are some services that are supported through these businesses. Often people do not understand that such basic services are unavailable on some rural reserves. EDAs can also include housing arrangements as people from the home community are encouraged to work at the businesses operating on the reserve land.

Do aboriginal businesses pay taxes? Aboriginal groups and individuals are required to pay the same taxes as other Canadians. The only exception is when the transaction or employment is on reserve land which, under section 87 of the Indian Act, stipulates that aboriginal personal property on reserve land is tax exempt.[1] In an EDA this means that property, sales, and income taxes will not be collected. However, being on reserve land means that aboriginals are not included in the services that the city would normally provide for taxpayers such as sewer and water, fire protection, among many other services. To overcome this obstacle, aboriginal groups have negotiated service payments with the municipalities where the EDA is situated to provide the same government services for a cost. Generally, the payments that are negotiated are comparable to what would be paid in property and other taxes had the business and land not been on reserve.

So how does land become reserve land? In 1997 the Canadian government, Manitoba government, and The Treaty Land Entitlement Committee signed the Treaty Land Entitlement Act to compensate aboriginal groups which never received the land that was included in treaties. In order to gain land, the Treaty Land Entitlements Act gives aboriginal groups the right to purchase designed surplus lands from the crown and a fund for purchasing privately held land at market value. The claim for land then moves through the additions to reserve process to be designated as reserve land.

Has this been a successful process? Yes. Saskatchewan has been touted as a leader in the area of EDAs and has the oldest EDA established in 1988 which has been a boon to the Saskatoon economy employing around 400 people and bringing millions of dollars to the local economy. Manitoba can learn a lot from the success of the Saskatchewan leadership on this issue and hopefully see through the myth and misperceptions to fully embrace the idea of economically successful aboriginal peoples.

On my next post I will look into specific cases in Manitoba and New Zealand to compare and contrast the process and progress that each has chosen to take.

David Scammell

[1] http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100013800/1100100013801

Aboriginal Hunting and Fishing Rights, Who Has Them Anyway?

Intro
As students of an Indigenous Politics course at the University of Manitoba, we were challenged by our professor to explore indigenous issues in a public forum. A recent Winnipeg Free Press article by Aldo Santin described a widening gulf between Aboriginal and non-aboriginal residents. As a group of four non-aboriginals, we are posting a series of blogs that explore topics that contribute to that Aboriginal/non-aboriginal divide our city.

Let us know what you think by adding comments, so we can keep the discussion going. In the next few weeks we will adding a number of posts, so stay tuned.

I will start off with a blog post exploring hunting and fishing rights. This topic has no shortage of misconceptions and controversy. It’s probably fair to say that most hunters and anglers hold strong opinions on what their rights are. They also hold strong opinion on what they think the rights of those on the other side of the divide should be.

Tim

What non-aboriginals are thinking
A widely held sentiment among non-aboriginals is that Aboriginals have the right to hunt or fish whatever they want, whenever they want, and they are beyond the reach of the long arm of the law. There is a lot of resentment going around about all the rules that non-aboriginals have to follow, and they often feel it’s unfair. “Aren’t we all supposed to be equal?”, they would say. And by “they”, I actually mean “we”, since I count myself as part of the non-aboriginal group.

I also love the outdoors and think that wild game and fish are the best foods out there. I consider myself fairly open-minded and think aboriginal subsistence hunting and fishing is great. In fact, I think most non-aboriginals would agree to that. But here in Manitoba, there is still an underlying tone of resentment and mistrust, one that is not that hard to flush to surface with a little prodding.

That is quite apparent if you read comments in the Winnipeg Free Press. As an example of this underlying mistrust let me provide two hypothetical conversations. In the first instance I might say something like, “The fishing is terrible this year, it sure was better last year.”

And my hypothetical buddy might respond, “It was great last year, but that was before the natives netted all the fish out.”

My response, “when did that happen?”

My buddy, “I heard it was last year, just after they stocked the lake. You know, they are legally allowed to block of two-thirds of the river at the mouth, so no wonder all the fish are gone”

Does that conversation sound familiar? I will make up a second hypothetical conversation about big game hunting. I might say something like, “too bad we can’t go moose hunting this year, they completely closed the season in Duck Mountain and every other good moose place is too far to drive.”

The other hunter might respond, “Yeah, Conservation said the moose population was way down, too bad the natives will go in with their freezer trucks and finish the rest of them off.”

Stories in the media
I think the narratives I just described are not too far off from what is said in pick-up trucks all across Manitoba. Just look at the stories and comments that have surfaced on the web in recent years. In 2012 there was a social media firestorm when a video went viral about aboriginal hunters taking 12 elk in eastern Manitoba. Non-aboriginal hunters were in an uproar about how subsistence living could justify such a large kill. The hunters maintain that they were harvesting just one animal per family, and if 12 licensed hunters had taken the picture there would be a celebration.

Just this summer an aboriginal hunter was sentenced to 13 months in prison for accidentally shooting his hunting partner at night, after mistaking his LED lamp for the eyes of a moose, which reflect back light when hunting with a spot light. Non-aboriginal hunters feel resentful. They feel it’s like the wild west out there, and what little enforcement there is, is directed only at them.

Rich resources of Manitoba
Manitoba is blessed with a bounty of unspoiled wilderness, and most urban Manitobans, especially those in Winnipeg, are completely unaware of the resources just beyond the city. It’s not just the fish and big game, there are game birds, wild rice, berries and mushrooms. And besides the food, there is timber for firewood and building cabins, herbs, medicines and fur-bearing animals.

It may look like a desolate landscape, especially when it is under a thick blanket of snow, but the wilderness is alive with life-giving sustenance. The land is more like an extension of a home, it is part of the living room and kitchen. Harvesting of fish and game is like getting some food from the fridge. The question is, who’s kitchen is it? Did we, the non-aboriginals just find it and declare it ours to keep, or was there always an owner in place? Hmmm, a thought provoking question.

Who manages what?
As it stands right now, Hunting and Fishing in the province of Manitoba is managed by the government branch, Conservation and Water Stewardship. Fishing and Hunting is restricted to seasons, and licenses are required. Strict limits are set for how many fish or how much game is allowed to be kept. Nets are not allowed, and there are limits to what types of firearms are approved and the magazine size for firearms. Commercial harvesting is limited to fish and fur only, and those are controlled by their own regulatory bodies.

Conservation and Water Stewardship publishes a handbook for fishing and hunting every year, which outlines specific rules and limits for specific lakes and hunting areas. Wildlife surveys are conducted and regulations are updated on yearly basis in response to fluctuating populations. All the other provinces have similar management systems.

Aboriginal People are not regulated by those same rules. Aboriginals in Manitoba are actually two distinct groups, First Nations and Metis. First Nations are a collection of distinct ethnic groups, each having their own language and customs, some similar to each other, and some very distinct. But for legal purposes, First Nations members all fall into one category.

The definition of Metis is bit more complicated. Metis are sometimes referred to as a mix between First Nations and non-aboriginals, and that they have a distinct ancestry, culture and language. An excellent explanation can be found at the âpihtawikosisân blog. The government requires that Canadians hold to only one ancestry, they are either non-aboriginal, First Nation, Metis or Inuit. In reality, things can get a bit messier, as some Canadians are a mixture of those groups but can only hold membership in one, and some identify strongly with a group and don’t hold membership in any.

In Manitoba, the government set hunting and fishing rules for First Nations members, which are regulated by the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement (1930). I won’t list all the specifics, but most of the restrictions for First Nations are common sense rules, like not being allowed to hunt along a road, the safe handling of firearms, not wasting any meat, not selling any meat, and not hunting in areas closed to hunting.

Metis hunting and fishing is managed by the Manitoba Metis Federation (MMF), and it publishes its regulations in a handbook. The rules are also based on common-sense principles. But since they are self-managed, they also include more specifics, like game hunting areas, limits on game, fish, fur-bearers and defined harvesting seasons. Furthermore, the MMF conducts harvesting surveys to manage population levels and closes areas that are threatened. Both First Nations and Metis rights are based on the principle of using food harvested from the land for sustenance, and not commercial purposes.

On the other hand, the provincial non-aboriginal regulations are not based on sustenance, but on recreation. Hunters are still required to take all the meat for consumption, but they don’t have the right to live off the land. They are also not expected to manage the animal populations or self-enforce. That is done by the provincial department. But they also contribute the most to the hunting and fishing pressures, which is why there is so much management and enforcement.

Misconceptions about Aboriginals
A common misconception about Aboriginal People is that they hunt and fish whatever they want, whenever they want. If that was true, then the fridge in the wilderness kitchen would have been emptied a long time ago. In reality, the opposite is true. The fridge was kept fully stocked for thousands of years. Sure, there are some theories that Aboriginal hunters may have cause the extinction of woolly mammoths, but lets not forget that there also was an end of an ice age that coincided with that. And even if Aboriginal hunters did hunt the woolly mammoths to extinction, it would have taken about 6000 years.

Now compare that to the near-extinction of over 60 million bison in only a few generations, caused by hunting pressure and habitat decline. Interestingly enough, that happened to coincide with settlers expanding exponentially across North America. The settler have a natural design to exploit everything they can, to seek out every commercial opportunity possible. All those provincially regulated hunting and fishing rules are an effort to slow that down before the animals disappear. Kinda makes sense that they only to non-aboriginals.

Three’s company
So how is everything managed in this three-party system? That is where things get confusing. As already mentioned, there are three quasi-separate management systems. Even though First Nations and Metis have distinct rights, they still fall under federal and provincial law, except for the exceptions. All three sets of hunters that can rightly hunt on the same land for the same game, and all three sets of anglers that can fish on the same lake for the same fish. Each group is managed and enforced separately, all have to obey the same criminal code. This triple system has let to frustration, resentment, and mistrust. This article offers a good summary of the frustrations around declining moose populations.

Two divided worlds on common land
I’m not going to offer any legalistic remedies to this 3-party system. A good vision needs to be based on communication and mutual understanding. A recently came across a great example of this found in an article by Nick Martin in the Winnipeg Free Press. The article describes the lasting effects that a forest fire from 2008 has on the Misipawistik Cree Nation living in Grand Rapids. The fire was accidentally set during a wilderness field trip run by a Brandon School. The intention was to learn, explore, and preserve nature, but the outcome couldn’t have been further from it’s goal.

The school group was exploring the biodiversity of the region, which is known for bat and garter snakes caves that are formed in the limestone cracks and outcroppings. The fire was caused by the burning of toilet paper, which ironically, was intended to destroy the evidence of human activity. And now, 6 years later, the Cree Nation describes the burned out area around Norris Lake as “a desert, it’s like a planet that has no life.” The community feels that part of it has been destroyed.

What the urban school failed to realize is that the wilderness they were exploring was not an unoccupied, but it is someone else’s home. It is land that is fished, hunted, and trapped. It is where medicines and timber are collected. After the fire, the Cree members wanted to open a dialogue with the school, and to offer reconciliation. They want to educate the on fire safety and “how to treat the land”. It is quite amazing for the Cree Nation to reach out with grace to those that destroyed their home, their livelihood, their kitchen, their pharmacy, their place of being. Sadly, the school did not reach back to them and all the students have since gone their own way. What a missed opportunity of cooperation.

The need for a new vision for living on common land
I think that is a lesson that all hunters and anglers should internalize. To treat the wilderness not as “wild”, but as an extension of somebodies home. We, the non-aboriginals, should ask ourselves, who’s home is it? What does it mean to them? Can we have a share in the resources?

We need to open lines of dialogue and begin to understand what it means to the owners of the home, and how we too can harvest with respect. I know we can’t ignore the realities of bureaucracy. There definitely is a need to manage the dwindling fish and game resources. This is a high-tech world of GPS, ATVs and powerful semi-automatic rifles. There will always be those, regardless of race, that will exploit the loopholes. They think they can do anything just because they can get away with it. Yes, there needs to be a better three-way partnership for management and enforcement, and one that allows everyone a share of the common resources.

It does come down to a matter of respect. Can we think past the bureaucracy and think about a vision? Can we accept the fact that Aboriginals need the freedom to manage their resources and enforce their members? And can non-aboriginals understand that they are hunting and fishing out of privilege? It’s not really a matter of equality or inequality, it a matter of respecting the Aboriginal land-owners. The land owners have allowed us our limit of Pickerel and Moose, so maybe we should reach out and thank them. If you think about it, it’s the non-aboriginals that have been granted the hunting and fishing rights. And the Aboriginals? They had it all along.

Tim