What happened?
Many reserves were located in areas not suited to farming, and many grain seeds and farming implements promised to First Nations never materialized. In addition, natural phenomena such as floods and frost turned a bad situation even worse. Agriculture on the reserves took a back seat to focusing on increasing numbers of settlers flooding into the Prairies.
However, even with these impediments, farming was at first very successful in a number of First Nations communities:
During the early 1880s … many First Nations farmers were successful in competing in the farming economy along with the non-aboriginal farmers. Utilizing newly developed dry land farming techniques and acting as a collective, many First Nations won local prizes and awards for their crops.7
Stolen harvests
Despite the lack of any real effort to support reserves in implementing an agricultural lifestyle, many First Nations managed, through communal effort, to make it work. You might expect that the federal government would be pleased by this, but, instead, it went out of its way to sabotage these efforts by implementing a number of harmful policies:
severality was a system of ownership in which reserve farmland was divided into 40-acre (16-hectare) plots and no one farmer could own more than 160 acres (65 hectares). The intention was to promote “individualism,” directly undermining successful collective efforts. Also, any leftover land could be surrendered and made available for sale to non-Indigenous people.
peasant farming was a practice in which “experts” were sent in to teach Indigenous farmers what to do. The purpose was to reduce output to subsistence levels, essentially yielding just enough to support a single family. Thus, expensive large-scale machinery would be unnecessary, and Indigenous farmers would become “more self-sufficient” by using peasant methods of production instead of the more advanced techniques they’d been using.
the pass and permit system restricted the ability of First Nations peoples to leave the reserve, as well as severely curtailing their ability to sell their products or purchase farming implements. In essence, these systems ensured that Indigenous farmers could not compete with non-Indigenous farmers.8
The Greater Production Campaign
The early 20th century saw attention focused farther abroad as World War I broke out. At the same time, great efforts were made to first lease and then alienate reserve lands for cultivation by non-Indigenous peoples. The Greater Production Campaign was announced in 1918 at the end of the war. During this time, vast amounts of Indian lands were already being taken up and provided to settler veterans, resulting in significant erosion of Indigenous lands.9 Indigenous veterans were denied benefits afforded to their non-Indigenous counterparts, and First Nations veterans were often left without location tickets, which would have entitled them to settle back on their home reserves.10
The Greater Production Campaign resulted in many amendments to the Indian Act, making it easier to alienate (take) lands that were not being cultivated.11
Can we just take a moment to think about that? The First Nations that had the least amount of success were given land unsuited to farming, or were not given the farm stock, seed, and implements promised in their treaty. When some First Nations did well despite this, an entire system was put into place to ensure their farming ability – including the methods they were able to use – would be the most ineffective and small-scale possible. After that, any lands not properly cultivated according to Indian Affair’s standards were essentially “up for grabs” because the lazy Indians just couldn’t handle farming.
Oh, yes, that is bitterness in my tone.
Non-Indigenous farmers didn’t care much for the Greater Production Campaign as it applied to them, and it was pretty much scrapped in 1919. It had held a mostly advisory role, anyway. On the reserves, however, Indian Affairs had absolute power via its office of the Commission for Greater Production up until 1924.
Sweeping and absolute power
In 1918, the Commissioner for Greater Production was given the power to use as much Prairie reserve land as he liked, and to spend band monies, including all the profits from decades of agricultural efforts, if he wished. The plan was threefold:
1.Lease as much reserve land as possible to non-Indigenous farmers.
2.Create government-run Greater Production farms on reserve.
3.Stimulate agricultural activity among reserve residents.12
No monies were expended to help individual farmers. Most of the financial focus was on the Greater Production farms. For example, a farm tractor was purchased for the Alexander reserve in Alberta, but the Commissioner for Greater Production told Alexander’s Indian Agent:
If you are under the impression that the tractor is to be used by the Indian farmers, you are quite mistaken, as this is to be run entirely separate by Mr. Laight and more as a home farm for Greater Production.13
All purchases desired by individual First Nations farmers came out of their own pockets or band funds and had to be approved by the Commissioner – approval that was often withheld.
Since no real effort was put into accomplishing the third goal of stimulating agricultural activity among reserve residents, it is unsurprising that it failed miserably. Some managed to find part-time work as labourers on their own reserves in the Greater Production farms. The Greater Production farms enjoyed some profits, though not princely in sum, all of which went back into Indian Affairs coffers.14
In addition, the lands on-reserve that were taken up for Greater Production farms were not leased to paying tenants, and that loss of potential revenue is immense. Estimates of what that rate of return would have been on a number of reserves between 1918 and 1924 are significant. For example, Blackfoot lands, 8000 acres (3200 hectares) in total, would have brought in $160,000 over four years.15 These, and other lands, had been released for production without fee during the wartime period “as a patriotic gesture,” but they continued to be used in this fashion long after the war ended.
Set up to fail
It is clear the extreme interference in First Nations agriculture in the Prairies led to conditions that made it all but impossible for Indigenous farmers to succeed and thrive. As with so many other aspects of Indigenous life in Canada, success in agriculture was met with policies that undid all those hard-won gains. When racist opinion columns allude to Indigenous laziness as a reason for current levels of poverty, these facts are never mentioned. It is doubtful the authors of such vile screeds are even aware of the history.
It is time we are all made aware of the history. It is time to put these lies to bed. I don’t want another generation of Indigenous children growing up in the Prairies being told their ancestors were too lazy and stupid to survive the horrific collapse of their traditional economic base. The fact is, our peoples adapted swiftly to a set of completely new conditions, and we were damn good at it.
Our resilience and ability to adapt is constantly underestimated and glossed over. We are seen as incapable of adopting new technologies, despite the fact we have demonstrated again and again just how easily we do precisely that.
This centuries-long era of infantilization can only end when it is recognized that we were capable adults all along.
NOTES
1.My editor points out that technically, what we call buffalo are actually bison, but phrases like “Education is the new bison” simply don’t sound the same, so I’m sticking with the familiar term!
2.Treaty No. 6 between Her Majesty the Queen and the Plain and Wood Cree Indians and other Tribes of Indians at Fort Carlton, Fort Pitt and Battle River (1876), accessed October 20, 2009, http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028710/1100100028783.
3.Treaty 6 was signed on August 23, 1876, at Fort Carlton in Saskatchewan. Treaty 6 area stretches from western Alberta, into Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The Office of the Treaty Commissioner of Saskatchewan has an excellent resource on the Numbered Treaties that includes territory in Saskatchewan, as well as maps of those treaties’ t
erritories extending outside of the province.
4.Gabriel Dumont Institute, “Back to Batoche: Farm Life,” last accessed November 18, 2015, http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/sgc-cms/expositions-exhibitions/batoche/docs/proof_en_metis_farmers.pdf.
5.“The Story of Treaty Six,” treaty6education.lskysd.ca, last accessed November 18, 2015, https://treaty6education.lskysd.ca/book/export/html/4.
6.James Keith Johnson, In Duty Bound: Men, Women, and the State in Upper Canada, 1783–1841, vol. 227 (McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP, 2013), http://www.mqup.ca/lost-harvests-products-9780773507555.php?page_id=46.
7.Eric Tang, “Agriculture: The Relationship Between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Farmers,” Western Development Museum/Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Centre Partnership Project (2003), 5–6, http://apihtawikosisan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FNAgriculture.pdf.
8.Ibid., 5–8.
9.Sarah Carter, “‘Infamous Proposal:’ Prairie Indian Reserve Land and Soldier Settlement After World War I,” Manitoba History 37 (1999): 9–21, http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history/37/infamousproposal.shtml.
10.Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, “Volume 1: Looking Forward, Looking Back,” Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1997), http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071211055504/http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg45_e.html#132.
11.Bruce Dawson, “‘Better Than a Few Squirrels’: The Greater Production Campaign on the First Nations Reserves of the Canadian Prairies” (master’s thesis, University of Saskatchewan: 2001), http://ecommons.usask.ca/bitstream/handle/10388/etd-06052008-105240/Dawson_bruce_2001.pdf?sequence=1.
12.Ibid., 74.
13.Ibid., 77.
14.Ibid., 139.
15.Ibid., 140.
24
Dirty Water, Dirty Secrets
Drinking Water in First Nations Communities
A few years ago, a grad student in journalism at Concordia University contacted me to ask a few questions about the state of drinking water in First Nations communities. Her shock at what she had been learning reminded me, yet again, that many Canadians are totally unaware of conditions that far too many Indigenous people, particularly First Nations on-reserve, are all too familiar with.
The term potable water is often used when discussing various water purification initiatives in other countries. It’s not a term we often use in our own homes because it is taken for granted. I think it’s safe to say most Canadians would feel that access to potable water is a settled issue in this country, and every person living here has (and should have) clean drinking water. Unfortunately, such is not the case for thousands of Indigenous people. One of Canada’s dirty secrets is just how bad the water situation is, and has been, for so many Indigenous communities.
While this is an issue that has predominantly affected First Nations communities up until now, the issue of access to safe water, or just access to water period, is one that has the potential to affect all communities. In 2014, more than 30 000 households in Detroit had their water supply cut off, ostensibly because of unpaid water bills.1 The United Nation decried the situation, calling it a human-rights violation, something I think most people would agree with.2 Bills or no bills, access to water is necessary for human life, and it should not be possible to simply deny it to anyone.
The situation is hardly unique to Detroit; early in 2015, Baltimore became the next city to see mass water shutoffs, affecting 25 000 households.3 The cut-offs disproportionately affect Black people and non-Black people of colour, and the justifications for these shutoffs ring very hollow:
City officials…claim that residents using water without paying are to blame for the $40 million in overdue water bills. In fact… more than a third of the unpaid bills stem from just 369 businesses, who owe $15 million in revenue, while government offices and nonprofits have outstanding water bills to the tune of $10 million.4
This growing trend of denying a basic human need to urban households is extremely worrisome. As the People’s Water Board puts it:
Water is life…We believe water is a human right and all people should have access to clean and affordable water. Water is a commons that should be held in the public trust free of privatization.5
tâpwê.6
Drinking water in Canada
Let us first take a look at the Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines put out by Health Canada:
Canadian drinking water supplies are generally of excellent quality. However, water in nature is never “pure.” It picks up bits and pieces of everything it comes into contact with, including minerals, silt, vegetation, fertilizers, and agricultural run-off. While most of these substances are harmless, some may pose a health risk. To address this risk, Health Canada works with the provincial and territorial governments to develop guidelines that set out the maximum acceptable concentrations of these substances in drinking water. These drinking water guidelines are designed to protect the health of the most vulnerable members of society, such as children and the elderly.7
Thus, “clean” in relation to water is quantifiable. Note that while Health Canada, in its federal capacity, issues guidelines and procedural documents, the ultimate responsibility for water safety lies in the hands of the provincial and territorial governments. This, of course, makes it more difficult to get a sense of what is going on with water supplies in Canada. In addition, First Nations are a federal concern, and sometimes so are the Inuit. (The federal government has long denied responsibility for Métis, in case you were wondering.) I point these things out so you understand the following discussion is not going to be as clear, or as simple, as you may have hoped.
What is a water advisory?
According to the Health Canada, there are basically three types of water advisories:
1.Boil Water Advisories/Orders: Tap water should be brought to a rolling boil for at least one minute before using it for drinking or brushing teeth. This advisory is issued when there are disease-causing bacteria, viruses, or parasites in drinking-water systems.
2.Do Not Consume Advisories/Orders: Tap water should not be used for drinking or used for brushing teeth, cooking, washing food in, making infant formula or bathing infants/toddlers in, or for giving to pets. Adults and older children can still use it for bathing. This advisory is issued when there is a contaminant in the water that cannot be removed by boiling.
3.Do Not Use Advisories/Orders: Tap water should not be used for any reason. This advisory is issued when even exposure to the water could cause skin, eye, or nose irritation, and the contamination cannot be removed by boiling.8
The snapshot
Water advisories are not limited to First Nations. At any given time, there are upward of 1700 water advisories issued throughout Canada; a number that has not changed much since 2008.9 That number, by the way, does not include water advisories in First Nations communities.
Water security in this country is something that should concern everyone. Nonetheless, what sets water advisories in First Nations communities apart from advisories throughout the rest of the country are severity and duration.
Health Canada reports that, as of September 30, 2015, there were 138 drinking water advisories in 94 First Nations communities.10 This number excludes British Columbia, as Health Canada no longer reports on water advisories for First Nations in that province after turning that task over to the First Nations Health Authority in 2013. In 2012, when British Columbia was still included in these stats, 116 First Nations were under a drinking-water advisory, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all First Nations communities.
Between 1995 and 2007, one quarter of all water advisories in First Nations lasted longer than a year.11 Sixty-five percent of these long-duration water advisories lasted more than two years. One of the reserves I grew up by, the Alexis Nakota Sioux First Nation, has been on a boil water advisory since 2007.
Another aspect of this problem is the fact that some First Nations do not have running water at all and, thus, are not
counted when water advisories are tallied.12 In Manitoba alone, 10 percent of First Nations have no water service. Across Canada, there are 1800 reserve homes lacking water service and 1777 homes lacking sewage service.
Since water advisories can be lifted if conditions improve even temporarily, a community can have the same water advisory in place for an extended period of time or may experience a series of advisories without the situation truly improving. Neskantaga First Nation, bordering the Ring of Fire in Northern Ontario, has been on a boil water advisory since 1995.13
Information is hard to come by.
In 2011, Global News published an interactive map showing all the water advisories in First Nations communities at that time, as well as the duration of those advisories. To create that map, Global News had to submit an Access to Information request. That is because, although Health Canada does keep track of water advisories that are issued throughout Canada, it does not make a list available to the public. The only way to find out if there is a water advisory in place is to track media releases or find out after the fact through Access to Information.
That would be the only way, if it weren’t for Water Today, a website that tracks water advisories across the country and publishes them in an interactive map.14 Water Today divides water advisories into four categories: do not consume, boil water, water shortage, and cyanobacteria bloom. Why we have to count on a volunteer research group to monitor this situation on a national level for us, instead of having the information consolidated on the Health Canada site, I cannot fathom.
Why is potable water out of reach for so many First Nations communities?
Hopefully, right now, you’re asking yourself how this is even possible. Well, the issue has been studied intensively. In 2005, the Auditor General of Canada issued a report on drinking water in First Nations communities.15 Basically, here’s how it works:
Indigenous Writes Page 26