CCN Back Issues Vol 5 Issue 3

The Supreme Court of Canada's September 17 decision regarding Donald Marshall (and the Court's subsequent "clarification" of that decision) changed forever the way peoples will relate to one another in our coastal communities. Changed, too, will be the way people in those communities relate to the resources surrounding them. More room will be made for the Mi'Kmaq people when it comes to resource management and allocations.

In late November, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans travelled to Atlantic Canada to conduct hearings regarding the Marshall Decision. Its intention was to make recommendations to the federal government on "potential means of implementing Treaty rights recognized and affirmed" by the Decision.

Many representatives of the fishing and Native communities spoke before the Committee, including Arthur Bull on behalf of the Coastal Communities Network (CCN) and Chris Millay on behalf of the Mi'Kmaq Fish and Wildlife Commission. The two articles that follow are based on documents presented by those two organizations at these hearings.

Arthur Bull's reflective article underlines CCN's position on Marshall and its implications – that the financial burden of implementing the Marshall Decision must not fall on inshore fishers or their communities, that dialogue and mutual respect are essential to successful negotiations between Native and non-Native groups, and that those negotiations should be face-to-face, without intermediaries.

The article by Chris Millay and John Prosper is printed here in an effort to further encourage dialogue, understanding, mutual respect, and cooperation among all those who will share in the fisheries of the next century.

"For the Sake of Our Grandchildren"

On the evening of Friday, October 22, 1999 in a high-school auditorium in Yarmouth, almost 1,000 non-Native fishermen from Lobster Fishing Area (LFA) 34 rose to their feet and gave a long and loud ovation for Deborah Robinson, Chief of the Acadia Band, as she was introduced. The speech that followed, in which Chief Robinson outlined an agreement that had been reached on the LFA 34 lobster fishery, was interrupted several more times with standing ovations. To understand the importance of this moment, you have to grasp the intensity of the situation in the coastal communities of southwestern Nova Scotia during the five weeks since the Marshall Decision had been handed down – the fear, the uncertainty, the sense of balancing on the edge of uncontrolled violence, the widespread mood of public anxiety and anger.

Such moments are defining moments, not just for their own importance as events, but for what they reveal. In itself, it was remarkable to see non-Native fishermen and Mi'Kmaq leaders coming together in a show of good faith to reach an agreement to defuse an immediate crisis. But it was also revealing because of who was not present when the agreement was reached: there were no national network television or radio crews, no politicians, no lawyers, no corporations, no officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). Agreement had been reached through direct talks between elected leaders of non-Native fishermen and Mi'Kmaq communities. This fact in itself tells us something about the post-Marshall crisis and how we as rural and small-town Nova Scotians should approach it.

Great upheavals, such as the one that hit Atlantic Canada in the wake of the Marshall Decision, always have a way of revealing things about the interests and biases of all the groups involved. They seem to scrape away a top layer of social interaction that covers up normally hidden attitudes and assumptions, exposing them to open sunlight. It is therefore worthwhile to reflect on what can be learned from these crises. Of course, it is still too early to say anything definitive about the situation or to assess the final impact of the Marshall Decision on Native and non-Native communities in Nova Scotia. But it might be useful to take a look at some of the things that were revealed in the fall of 1999. This is by no means an attempt to address all the substantive issues raised by the Marshall Decision. Neither is it a final comment on any of the principal players in the crisis. Rather, it is simply a reflection on some of the lessons learned by someone who was close to the situation as it evolved.

This crisis revealed some important things about organizations that played secondary but important roles in the crisis – the press, the political parties, the government bureaucracies, and others. Although none of these groups seemed to play a central role, they all influenced the situation in critical ways, and in doing so revealed something about themselves.

The media has unquestionably played a major role in the crisis. From the beginning, words and images of Burnt Church, Yarmouth, and elsewhere served to heighten a sense of emergency. It is always interesting to observe how the media portrays an event we ourselves are involved in, to see how far the media "reality" is from we actually experience. In the case of the post- Marshall crisis, many fishermen felt that media coverage was irresponsible and inaccurate. I have talked to a number of fishermen's representatives who gave media interviews that seemed to be solely aimed at getting them to say something inflammatory.

In some cases, interviews were ended abruptly when it become clear that no threats of violence were going to be made. How many times did we watch the same images of angry pushing and arguing on the Burnt Church wharf, even weeks after it had happened? Of course, there was some good reporting, but more often than not, the most inflammatory statements by unelected individuals were the ones that made it into the headlines and sound bites. Examples of cooperation, dialogue, and leadership were hardly noticed in the press. And, perhaps more important, the media did little to facilitate debate and discussion, opting instead to focus on confrontation and conflict – the kind of exchanges that, as they say, generate more heat than light.

Politicians also played an interesting role. Of course, there were a number of positive responses, from quiet appeals for calm to supportive speeches in the House of Commons. But there were also a surprising number of politicians who used the crisis to gain political points. One example stands out particularly: those out-of-province politicians who came to Yarmouth soon after the Decision and made extremely inflammatory statements at a mass meeting of fishermen. Considering the level of fear, uncertainty, and anger in the room at the time, it was just like yelling "Fire!" in a theatre. I've never seen such blatant political opportunism. Local politicians were generally more responsible, although, as always, some were ready to jump on any bandwagon so long as there were already enough people on it.

Of course, DFO would be expected to be the main player in a fisheries crisis of this scale, but since it was most conspicuous by its absence, it too must be included as a secondary player. Questions about DFO's role have been loudly raised and will continue to be raised. Why was it so totally unprepared? When the Mi'Kmaq leadership knocked on DFO's door in February 1999 to discuss the possible ramifications of a favourable ruling, that knock went unanswered. And in the weeks following the Marshall Decision why was DFO so passive? Certainly these questions will have to be addressed. For many fishermen, DFO's actions seemed to fit a familiar pattern: first allow a situation to unravel, then declare disaster, then determine that there is no consensus, and finally, impose a solution that fits DFO's corporate agenda.

This pattern of DFO behaviour is familiar to most Atlantic fishermen, given that this is how the corporate agenda has been imposed by DFO for the last twenty years. It is hard to believe that such a Machiavellian approach could be taken in the face of such a serious human emergency, but it is a measure of the low level of trust in DFO that many fishermen believed it to be true. And rumours that senior DFO officials were considering placing a Total Allowable Catch on lobster as part of a DFO "solution" only served to further inflame feelings. At the same time, it must be said that area-level DFO staff showed a high degree of leadership and professionalism throughout the crisis, much to their credit.

The fact that DFO has not played a major role may point to a newly emerging relationship among fishermen, their communities, and the federal government, a relationship that is more like a working partnership than what we have known in the past. This kind of re-defined relationship is long overdue and, in fact, many within DFO itself have recently been calling for just such a change. Of course, this does not discount the fact that the federal government has a very real responsibility to ensure that the brunt of the Marshall Decision's effects does not fall on the inshore fishermen and their communities. The creation of modest livelihoods in Mi'Kmaq communities must happen, but not at the expense of modest livelihoods in Nova Scotia's other coastal communities. The federal government must implement all the fiscal measures necessary to ensure that this does not happen, including voluntary buy-back programs and other financial compensation. This is one position that all concerned parties in Nova Scotia can agree on.

So what are the lessons to be learned from the fall of 1999? At a minimum, we can conclude that the media is usually sensationalistic, politicians are often opportunistic, and DFO is negligent and even at times manipulative. "So what else is new?" we might ask. For most of us, these are not great revelations. But neither have corporate interests, the legal community, and a whole list of other groups contributed in any positive way to resolution of this crisis. And, however negative or unhelpful the roles of these various players, there is one really important lesson to be learned from the events of the past several weeks as we move to work our way toward the post-Marshall future: that it is the people centrally involved – the fishermen, the communities, both Mi'Kmaq and non-Native – who have both the responsibility and the wherewithal to reach solutions.

All of which brings us back to that meeting in Yarmouth and the LFA 34 agreement. It was reached through face-to-face talks that built mutual trust, understanding and, respect. These meetings were direct talks, without intermediaries. Some of the non-Native fishermen's groups involved had also been holding discussions for almost two years with the Mi'Kmaq Fish and Wildlife Commission about the food fishery. A year before, all LFA 34 groups had formally recognised this organization as the primary authority in the First Nations' fisheries. All this dialogue, along with the leadership shown by LFA 34 representatives, Chief Robinson, and Chief Meuse of the Bear River Band, paved the way for at least a short-term solution to this crisis.

For me, this is the key lesson learned so far from the post-Marshall situation: that Mi'Kmaq and non-Native inshore fishermen share common ground, and their elected representatives can work out positive solutions. We share common ground concerning our desire for livelihoods, viable and sustainable communities, and community stewardship of natural resources. We also share common ground in our common history. After all, we have been here together in Nova Scotia for almost 400 years. Especially in the first half of this period, it was the interaction all our peoples – Acadian, Mi'Kmaq, Scottish, English and others – that laid the foundations of modern Nova Scotia. Finally, we share common ground in the most literal sense – that is, we live in this place together, and since none of us are going anywhere, our descendants will be living together for some time to come. It is only natural that dialogue, based on mutual respect, should be the way we address our common issues and challenges. This process has to happen directly between Native and non-Native fishermen and their communities – no lawyers, no politicians, no mediators, no corporations, no media, no DFO – just people directly involved talking face to face.

As Mi'Kmaq communities enter the commercial fishery, we hope they will bring with them the values that conserved and protected Nova Scotia's natural resources for thousands of years. Many fishermen's organizations and their communities have been working to define new values to guide the fisheries of the future. We need and welcome Mi'Kmaq traditional values to help guide us in creating a new fishery for the future of Nova Scotia. This is going to require a lot of hard work, a lot of learning, and, above all, a lot of listening. Now that we have survived the difficult crisis of the fall of 1999, it is time to get on with this work. I believe that this is the way to move forward, to take care of our fisheries for the sake of our grandchildren and their communities, for tomorrow, for the coming years, and for future generations.

This article was put together during the week before November 23, when the Coastal Communities Network put its views before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in Halifax. Since that time, there have been further developments in the details of the agreement reached in southwestern Nova Scotia, especially with the opening of the lobster season on November 29. However, these developments do not change the basic fact that an agreement was reached at a critical and volatile point in the crisis, an agreement whose main achievement was establishing that Native and non-Native fishermen would share a common fishing season and common conservation limits. More recent developments do not diminish the courage and leadership shown by non-Native and Native fishermen's representatives in late October.

Nobody ever believed that the process of working out what Marshall will mean to our coastal communities would be either brief or easy. But, in spite of the predictable complexities, the basic point of CCN's presentation to the Standing Committee is still central to both our present and our future: the only way forward is though face-to-face dialogue based on mutual respect.

"A Necessary First Step Toward Self-Determination"

The Mi'Kmaq Fish and Wildlife Commission (MFWC) was established as a step toward meeting the responsibility to manage natural resources stemming from the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights held by the Mi'Kmaq in Nova Scotia. However, as I am sure you have been well informed, the Mi'Kmaq have been powerless in the fishery for many, many years. It was therefore with great excitement that the Marshall Decision was received, because it was seen as a move toward greater economic independence from government social problems, a necessary first step toward self-determination. The Mi'Kmaq must, and will, be involved in all aspects of the fishery, including the food fishery, full-time fishing, part-time fishing, and charter boat fishing.

The immediate step facing Mi'Kmaq communities has been how to get their fishermen involved in the short term. Despite inaccurate media statements and rumours, there are at this time very few Mi'Kmaq fishermen involved in commercial harvesting. Accommodating these fishermen in the existing fishery need not be a complicated matter. It will require DFO buy-outs and retirement of some existing licences, and, in other cases – such as developing species – it may require priority access. Other options are also possible: for example, in the lobster fishery in southwestern Nova Scotia, fishermen stated that they would be willing to reduce individuals trap limits by 25 to accommodate new Mi'Kmaq fishermen in the fishery. This would make room for 64 Mi'Kmaq fishermen, without displacing anyone. These options would accommodate the immediate need of Mi'Kmaq communities in that area. However, long-term solutions will need to be worked out through dialogue. In any event, increased involvement in the commercial fishery as a result of the Marshall Decision should not create undue hardship in non-Native communities.

Another immediate concern facing Mi'Kmaq communities is the need to strengthen their fishery management structures. Since its inception, the MFWC has been constrained by the lack of sufficient financial resources needed to implement management activities such as monitoring, enforcement, habitat protection, research, and community-level planning. The continued development of the MFWC and other Mi'Kmaq fishery management initiatives, in spite of the lack of sufficient federal support, is a testament to the commitment of the Mi'Kmaq leadership to manage the activities of their harvesters. In the short term, DFO funding will be necessary to fully establish and implement a Mi'Kmaq fishery management system. However, in the long term, management costs should be borne by the resource industry itself.

This system will be based on the principles of joint nation-to-nation management. Furthermore, to ensure effective management, the Mi'Kmaq are working to establish a bottom- up approach to management decision making. Today, many Mi'Kmaq communities are organizing themselves so that harvester committees are actively participating in co-managing their resources with their government. This system is the foundation of a potentially beneficial change in the way fisheries are managed in Atlantic Canada. A co-management system involving Mi'Kmaq harvesters and the Mi'Kmaq government can be a good model for change. However, this will require changes to the Fisheries Act if the benefits of the Mi'Kmaq management system are to be realized within the non-Native fishery through joint management between the Mi'Kmaq and the Government of Canada.

DFO is, by nature of the Act, a large bureaucracy that has as its sole objective the implementation of a top-down management system. Despite all the evidence internationally and historically that top-down management systems are not more effective in protecting coastal communities and conserving fishery resources for future generations, the government continues to exert a top-down control system. In the period since the Marshall Decision, there has been no evidence that the organization is able to accommodate a bottom-up fishery management system such as that envisioned by the Mi'Kmaq.

Recent efforts in cooperation between Mi'Kmaq communities and non-Native organizations have been the result of discussions regarding mutual involvement in community-level management activities, such as joint research and monitoring projects. A bottom-up approach, through continued cooperation at the community level, will lead to a better understanding of the fishery, which will lead to better management systems.

DFO has created a system in which fishing has become a very specialized activity. There seems to be little attention paid to the benefits of multi-species harvesting and integrated management. While the Department talks about integrated management, little has been accomplished thus far. This issue is at the very centre of Mi'Kmaq resource management priorities.

Individual Mi'Kmaq harvesters are by tradition the focus of an integrated resource management system. For example, one harvester may seek part of their income from fishing and part from other harvesting activities. As a result, Mi'Kmaq harvesters are in a position to directly see the impact of improper management of one sector on another, and to personally feel the effects.

In addition to promoting integrated resource management, use of a "general harvester" strategy also provides added economic security at the family and local community levels. As one resource may be adversely affected due to resource depletion or global market changes, other resources can take up the slack and reduce dramatic loss to family income that may be experienced if the family was primarily dependent on one or two species.

Since September, there has been considerable effort to establish Mi'Kmaq fishery policy objectives, local harvest management plans, and longer-term development strategies that will not compromise the resource or the Mi'Kmaq relationship with neighbouring non-Native communities. While the policy is still in its formative stages, it identifies priority objectives for the fishery within the Mi'Kmaq nation, including self-determination, maximizing employment, and providing support for social programs and infrastructure. Unfortunately, existing legislation and the mode of operation of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are limiting factors for Mi'Kmaq fishery management efforts. This is not to say that individual DFO employees have created barriers, but rather that the system in which these employees operate cannot accommodate effective change.

While some people may have greeted the Marshall Decision with fear and suspicion, many now see it as an opportunity to promote better management of the fishery at the local, regional, and Atlantic Canada levels. This opportunity requires building trust between Mi'Kmaq and non- Native communities through cooperation, and legislative change that will enable a joint management system to be established.

Standing Committee's Recommendations

Any transfer of access to fisheries resources to First Nations communities must be accomplished through a federal government-funded voluntary buyback of a portion of existing commercial licences as they become available;

The emphasis should be on the acquisition of "core" multi-species licence packages for the local area for transfer to aboriginal communities rather than the transfer of lobster licences or any other particular species;

In order to encourage the sale of licences, the federal government should offer a limited lifetime capital gains exemption to fishermen;

Licences must be transferred to First Nations communities as communal licences. Where local agreements can be reached to make room for new aboriginal entrants by fishermen each voluntarily giving up a portion of their quota of lobster traps, in a manner that does not increase the overall fishing effort, the federal government should support those agreements.

Fisheries must be managed with the longterm objective of conservation of fisheries resources. Effective enforcement is crucial to conservation. DFO must rigorously enforce fisheries regulations with impartiality;

DFO must be provided with the resources to fulfil its obligation to conserve the resource. This means that DFO must have sufficient numbers of enforcement officers and that those officers must be provided with the equipment to do their job safely and effectively;

Aboriginal enforcement officers should be trained as full-fledged officers with the capacity to supervise any and all fisheries or other enforcement activities;

There should be one standard for all personnel to enforce the rules. There should be zero tolerance for fisheries violations. Sanctions for illegal fishing or the purchase of illegally caught fish should include minimum penalties to provide guidance to the courts and to achieve more consistent treatment of offenders.

Commercial fisheries for aboriginals and non-aboriginals must be conducted under one set of rules and regulations for all participants in a particular fishery;

DFO must enforce one set of rules for everyone and it must have the resources and personnel to do the job;

A cooperative, co-management, and community-based approach to management of fisheries should be promoted;

Snow crab fishery co-management agreements and salmon watershed committee structures should be examined as possible models for the integration of aboriginal fishermen into other fisheries.

The food fishery must be controlled to ensure that it is being conducted as a genuine food fishery and not an illicit commercial fishery;

There must be an examination of the question of whether the food fishery should be conducted during the same seasons as regular commercial fisheries;

There should be an examination of lobster fishing seasons and their impact on conservation. DFO should vigorously prosecute, without partiality, all of those who take part in illegal sales of fish caught for food, social and ceremonial purposes. Any buyer caught illegally purchasing lobster for a second time should lose his or her licence in addition to any other penalty;

All catches of lobster, whether in the commercial or food fisheries, should be properly monitored and documented in order that DFO has reliable harvest statistics;

Regulations for the food fishery should be reviewed for the purpose of tightening them up in order to simplify enforcement.

As licences are transferred to aboriginal groups, particularly in the lobster fishery, a way must be found to prevent excessive localized fishing effort in order to avoid adversely affecting the health of stocks, particularly in sensitive areas such as spawning and nursery grounds. No greater fishing effort should be allowed than is already the case, including at the local level.

The federal government must be more pro-active in facilitating the negotiations by providing stakeholders, both aboriginals and non-aboriginals, with funding and resources (including technical advice) to participate effectively in the process;

The federal government must put in place an interim fishing plan by spring 2000 to demonstrate its good faith. This plan could include a fisheries training program, a reduction and sharing of traps in areas where agreements have been reached, leasing of licences, and purchase of licences;

The federal government must provide DFO with the financial resources to accomplish this task in the next budget;

The mandate for the MacKenzie process must be amended to be more balanced and to let all stakeholders know that they have full access to the process.

The issue of whether non-status persons of Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, and Passamaquoddy ancestry are entitled to treaty rights affirmed by Marshall must be resolved;

The issue of whether treaty rights affirmed by Marshall apply to bands in Quebec must be resolved;

For the full text of the Standing Committee's report to the federal government, check the internet at:

Lab Mice, or Good Advice?

As is well known, many people in Industrial Cape Breton suffer from chronic unemployment. Jobs are fast disappearing, especially given government plans for the closure of the Island's coal mines and (probably) Sydney Steel. Workers face the prospect of receiving Employment Insurance (EI) benefits for several months, then having to turn to the province for social assistance. But, what if there were a way to stop the inevitability of this process? Surely it would be a sound idea to try to institute a program that might lead to better results – better lives – for both the individuals involved and the communities they live in. Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) thinks it may have just the program required, and it is anxious to run a seven-year-long experiment to see if that's so. (As planned, this program will be operational until early 2004, with a final assessment of it due three years later.) It's called the Cape Breton Community Employment Innovation Project (CEIP), and it was designed by an Ottawa-based, not-for-profit organization called the Social Research and Demonstration Corporation (SRDC).

SRDC says that the objective of the CEIP is "to assess whether community employment opportunities, identified and approved by local communities, can support community development, improve the future employability of EI and social assistance recipients, and create sustainable local employment, in free-standing cooperatives or non-profit agencies, within participating communities." This sounds a noble goal.

The four communities of Sydney Mines, Whitney Pier, New Waterford, and Dominion have been chosen to take part in the CEIP. SRDC will "provide overall project coordination," while funding will come from HRDC and the provincial Department of Community Services.

According to SRDC, each of the communities can decide whether they wish to take part, and those that do "will form a volunteer community board and choose the community employment projects or cooperative enterprises they wish to support." In communities that take part, "A local agency, to be selected through an open bidding process, will be the ‘Community Employment Coordinator' for those working in community employment positions. This agency will manage all the administrative details, supervise workers in the field, and coordinate the placement of workers." Over the next two years, "At least 1,500 randomly chosen, unemployed Cape Breton residents who are either EI or social assistance recipients will be given the opportunity to volunteer for the project." Half of the 1,500 will be given the choice of forgoing their benefits in exchange for three years of working on "community employment projects," and those that choose to do so will be paid at least $260 per week over that time. (These earnings will not be either Canada Pension or EI-eligible.) The other 750 will continue to receive their benefits and will act as a control group for comparative purposes at the end of the CEIP.

So, just what is this Social Research and Demonstration Corporation? A visit to its website will give you the following text on your screen:

Persistent federal and provincial budget pressures have resulted in increased scrutiny of both the cost and the effectiveness of social programs. At the same time, there is growing recognition that the social programs created in the postwar years may no longer be appropriate for the 1990s and beyond.

Another click of the mouse will reveal that SRDC is an organization that "attempts to bridge the worlds of academic researchers, government policy makers, and on-the-ground program operators," and that "SRDC has been patterned on a similar corporation created more than 20 years ago in the United States." A link is provided to the website of the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, SRDC's American sister organization, and a visit there takes you into the world of American welfare reform experiments, food stamps, work-for-welfare programs, and the like.

To some people in Cape Breton, this is a cause of great alarm. They see the SRDC's work in Cape Breton as the thin edge of the wedge, a large step toward a less caring society, a more American, less Canadian culture.

Father Bob Neville is one of those Cape Bretoners. A Catholic priest at St. Agnes Church in New Waterford, he's harshly critical of the CEIP. "Who, exactly, are they asking in each of these communities whether we want this thing?" he asks. "There was a meeting in Whitney Pier and 60 people showed up. For a lot of reasons, people at that meeting rejected the Project. So what happened? There was another meeting with about 12 people there, and they gave it the okay. The way this thing is being implemented tells a lot about what it's all about."

The way the CEIP is being set up isn't Father Neville's only problem with it. "When you agree to take a normal job," he says, "you always have a job description or some other pretty simple way to get an idea of what your duties are going to be. But with the CEIP, people will be hired without any knowledge of what they will be doing. The lack of liberty involved makes it little better than slavery. And they call it ‘training,' say that it will give people job-seeking skills. Most of the people involved will have been on EI, and that means that they have had jobs before. So, they've proven they have the skills needed to get a job. They aren't on EI because they lack job-seeking skills. They are there because so many real jobs are disappearing."

"But, my biggest problem with this CEIP," Father Neville continues, "is that it will co-opt the voluntary sector into implementing what is, at the very best, questionable government policy. It's nothing more than a ‘make-work' program dressed up in the language and ideology of the 1990s. And, as a social experiment, it will sap the dignity and steal the privacy of the people taking part in it."

John Hugh Edwards works at the Extension Department of St. Francis Xavier University in Sydney, and he also has serious reservations about the CEIP. "It verges on workfare," he says. "There's a great deal of resentment about this Project – people don't like the feeling that they're being experimented on. Perhaps some people might learn certain skills, but the fact that these earnings aren't EI-insurable, coupled with the fact that there seem to be no long-term strategies in place to create real, stable jobs in this area – it means that at the end of three years people will have to leave the Island to find work."

Although both Edwards and Neville are critical of the CEIP, they both acknowledge that they have something a lot of people lack: stable, long-term jobs in Industrial Cape Breton. "Yes, I have very, very serious problems with this Project," says Father Neville, and then points to his collar. "See this? It means I've got a job. If I didn't, and if the CEIP was the only way I could stay in my community, keep my home for another three years at least, well, I can understand why people might go for this thing."

Indeed, not all Cape Bretoners take as dim a view of the CEIP, or of the SRDC, as Edwards and Father Neville. When it comes to the SRDC, many Cape Bretoners see nothing wrong in taking a fresh look at the way government delivers its services and at the effects it has on the local economy and culture. "Goodness knows," these people might say, "look at where the current system has gotten us." And so, it's not hard to find people in Cape Breton who have a far less harsh view of the CEIP than Father Neville or John Hugh Edwards.

Eileen MacNeil serves on a steering committee set up to help in the formation of a community board for the CEIP in Sydney Mines. "I had a lot of reservations when I first heard about the Project," she says, "but there have been changes made, things like a health plan and allowing people to move in and out of the Project as their circumstances change. I got involved to try to make sure that it works as well as possible. I've been on Unemployment Insurance many times, and I've always found that it tends to make me stay home more, and that keeps me away from employment opportunities. But when I get out, say, by doing volunteer work, then that's the road that leads to job opportunities. And, I think the input that comes from the community boards will be fundamental to the success or failure of the CEIP. Whether it works or not will be up to those boards. It all depends on the community."

Sandra Dunn is a long-time resident and activist in Whitney Pier who serves as President of the local Historical Society. She can understand why people might welcome the Project, but also has some serious reservations. "For some people," she says, "it's the only way they can stay in Cape Breton. But the way it's being presented to people makes me wonder if it isn't being re-written as they go along. I was at a meeting in New Waterford and this woman put her hand up in support of the CEIP. After the meeting, I heard her say that this experiment – that's what it is, an experiment – was ‘a crock.' So I asked her why she had supported it at the meeting, and she told me that it was the only way her family would be able to stay in Cape Breton. So, you see, it's hard: as much as you might like to, you can't eat principles."

Talking to Cape Bretoners about the CEIP reveals pretty clearly that there is no clear consensus on the matter. Is it a workfare scheme, a social experiment that will rob people of their dignity and privacy? Or is it a chance for communities to have a real impact on the way government money is spent locally, an opportunity for communities to call their own shots? The answers depend, in no small part, on where you sit. The only thing that seems certain is that it will be some time before a clear answer emerges.

Treasure of the Musquodoboit Valley

Many of Nova Scotia's smaller communities lack any kind of funeral home. This means that when a family member dies, burial and memorial services are held elsewhere than in the community the deceased was a part of. And, despite the fact that funeral homes in Nova Scotia are often operated by a local person whose name appears on the side of a hearse and on a sign in front of the funeral home – giving the impression that the institution is rooted in the community – most are owned by one of three large multinational corporations whose principal goal is piling up financial profits.

This was the case in Upper Musquodoboit in 1992. If someone in the community died, funeral visitations would typically be held twenty kilometres down the road in Middle Musquodoboit, or even in Truro, more than 50 kilometers away. One Sunday morning in November of that year, Reverend Gary Burrill, minister at St. James United Church in Upper Musquodoboit, spoke from the pulpit about the possibility of setting up a local funeral co-op. Two years and much work later, the Arimathea Funeral Cooperative was licenced by the province to arrange funeral and burial services. (In New Testament accounts, it is Joseph of Arimathea who removes Christ from the cross and attends to the body.) Today, people in Upper Musquodoboit are able to bury their own.

And not just people in Upper Musquodoboit. In the five years the Co-op has been operating, it has grown in leaps and bounds. In order to understand something of that growth, one has to grasp that Arimathea is organized a bit differently than most co-ops. It costs $25 for an individual to join, and more than 730 people from as far afield as Lake Charlotte, Lawrencetown (Halifax County), Nine Mile River, and Stewiacke have done so. But, in order for an individual to join, she or he must designate a "sponsoring congregation," a church in their own community that will host the funeral services. To date, there are 24 such churches.

Though the Co-op is still accepting some new sponsoring congregations, its Board recently decided, given its limited size and resources, not to accept congregations too far afield geographically. While the Board hopes other funeral co-ops might be established elsewhere in the province, it is beyond the scope of Arimathea to cover much more than the Musquodoboit Valley and certain other areas of Halifax, Hants, and Colchester counties.

"The Co-op allows communities to use their own churches, their own sacred places, when showing last respects to members of those communities," says Burrill. "And the Co-op performs funeral services far more cheaply than do corporate funeral operations." With Co-op run funerals, most of the logistics are performed by people within the community, and the casket or urn is sold at a far cheaper price than those typically quoted by corporate funeral operations.

Wanda Smith serves as Director of the Arimathea Co-op, and she recalls her father's funeral. "Dad died in 1991, and the funeral home in Truro charged $2,900 for the casket. Now, the Co-op provides a comparable one for $500." Depending on the services required, a commercial funeral home typically charges anywhere between about $4,000 and $8,000 for a funeral. At Arimathea, the central goal is simply to cover the cost of funerals and burials, not to generate corporate profits. Its prices range between about $1,200 and $3,800, taxes included. People who are not Co-op members can be buried for an extra $250.

"With a funeral like my Dad's, at a private funeral home," says Smith, "grieving families are surrounded by sombre-suited professionals they don't know. With a Co-op funeral, families are surrounded by people in the community, people whom they know care. And people can identify with the space in their own church. They identify it with their community."

Getting the Co-op started was no easy project, remembers Smith. "At first, it was hard to find an embalmer. Then, I had to get certified as a Funeral Director. Also, casket brokers and makers were reluctant to deal with us in the early days because, I think, they feared that the large commercial operators would somehow punish them. But that's pretty much over now."

A hearse was also a necessity for the Co-op, and a typical one costs more than $100,000, a figure well beyond Arimathea's modest means. So, it bought a mini-van locally for $31,000 and then purchased a "conversion kit" from an American firm for another $8,000. Arimathea's "hearse" does an able job of transporting remains with dignity.

Donnie Hutchinson was raised in Upper Musquodoboit but spent part of his working life out West and in Lunenburg County, where he once served on municipal council. In 1980, he and his wife Ruth returned to Upper Musquodoboit. He was involved in the early days of building Arimathea, and served on its founding Board of Directors. Now, he often assists Wanda Smith in directing funerals.

"I remember Gary Burrill speaking from the pulpit about cooperating in the process of funerals," he tells me as Ruth offers us both coffee and snacks in the couple's living room. "He talked about how it was the mission of the church to care for both the living and the dead. Immediately, there were a number of us who were taken with the idea, so we met here, in this house, and in other places. We talked to other people in the community, and most felt that the existing private system took advantage of people at a time when they're most vulnerable. A year later, we had a building to house the Co-op and hold meetings."

"I remember my grandparents' funerals, many years ago," Donnie continues. "They were done by local people in our homes or our church. The Co-op is a way to bring those farewells back to our own communities. It moves the deaths of local community people away from elaborate ceremonies in distant places, and takes them back to the simplicity of a community farewell."

Donnie has long been sympathetic toward the co-op movement. "While Gary was the spark that started Arimathea," he says, "people here in the Musquodoboit Valley are very familiar with the co-op movement. For many years there have been consumer co-ops in both Upper Stewiacke and Middle Musquodoboit. There's a blueberry co-op up the road in Dean, and we've had a credit union here in Upper for more than 35 years." (Unfortunately, the latter of these co-ops, Sharon St. James Credit Union, was merged with the much larger, multi-branch, Dartmouth- based Heritage Credit Union in the spring of 1998, and has recently closed its doors for the last time.)

Until last year, Janice Campbell served as minister for United Churches in the communities of Elderbank, Meagher's Grant, and Antrim, and all three churches became sponsoring congregations with Arimathea. She has seen some of the good the Co-op has done in each of those congregations. " The Co-op gave people a sense that they really can work successfully to change things for the better," she recalls. "It was empowering for people in those small communities, and everything associated with Arimathea is surrounded with thoughtfulness and kindness. It provides a wonderful outlet for people's basic human decency."

It's quite a combination of qualities that is associated with the Arimathea Funeral Cooperative. Empowering people and communities. Thoughtfulness and kindness. The inexpensive, respectful, and caring performance of funeral services. Providing an outlet for human dignity. Arimathea is clearly a treasured resource in the small communities of the Musquodoboit Valley and other nearby areas.

For more information about the Arimathea Funeral Cooperative, call Wanda Smith at 758-5034.

Small Steps Make Great Strides

Chezzetcook Inlet on the Eastern Shore is an attractive body of water with extensive salt marshes and mudflats, but it has a problem. All the homes in the area are on septic tanks, many of which may not be functioning properly, and high levels of fecal coliform bacteria have flowed into the Inlet for several years. Because of this, the soft-shell clam fishery has been closed there since 1989. Testing in the area has also indicated that many homes in the area have contaminated wells.

The Chezzetcook Harbour Revitalization Association (CHRA) is a community group based in West Chezzetcook and Grand Desert. Our principal goals are to eliminate the pollution entering Chezzetcook Inlet, to revitalize traditional industries, to create new economic opportunities, and to ensure that residents have good quality drinking water. We have received assistance in our efforts to achieve these goals from many sources. Our greatest contributions of financial and technical assistance have come from Human Resources Development Canada, the Halifax Regional Development Agency, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Other sources of funding and technical assistance have come from Environment Canada, the Nova Scotia Departments of the Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Natural Resources, along with the Clean Nova Scotia Foundation, Nova Scotia Power, and the Eastern Shore Community Health Board. The CHRA is also actively involved in fund-raising to assist our ongoing efforts to improve the environment.

In 1997, CHRA commissioned ABL Environmental Consultants to do a pollution control study. It indicated the need for a central treatment facility, which would cost around $4.3 million. We had originally hoped that site-by-site improvements could solve the problem in Chezzetcook and Grand Desert, but the study concluded that current designs for standard on-site systems wouldn't effectively solve the pollution problem because of the tightly-packed clay soils in this area. They prevent proper filtration of waste material through the soil layers. Therefore, the study concluded, a central treatment facility, was the only viable solution.

Unfortunately, the cost of such a system probably puts it out of reach for such a small community of less than 1,000 people, so we're looking at alternatives. Perhaps a less expensive model of central treatment might be possible, or we might find new technologies in on-site systems that will fit the bill. We need to seek out as much information as possible on what possiblities are available, so we can then present this information to the people of the community and let them make an informed decision on which treatment would be most effective and cost-efficient.

So, the CHRA is now looking at ways of assuring that wastewater is effectively treated. If we're successful, it could mean many new jobs for an area that is currently struggling economically. Re-opening the Inlet to clam harvesting could allow up to 50 workers to harvest the flats and create another 30 to 40 jobs indirectly. Cleaning up the Inlet would also bring the surrounding communities closer together and give them a renewed source of optimism. But a clean Chezzetcook Inlet is essential if this is to happen.

The CHRA has launched a number of initiatives to improve conditions in and around the Inlet, and we are looking at a wide range of other opportunities for the community. These initiatives include:

Salt Hay Project: salt hay has been encroaching on the Inlet's clam beds for several years, mostly due to increased sediment that has made it shallower, and this has created habitat very well suited to salt hay. At the same time, though, it has had a detrimental effect on the clam beds. Not only is it very difficult to dig through the salt hay's tough root system, but clams do not grow well with salt hay around. In looking for ways to get rid of the salt hay, or at the very least control its further spread, the CHRA discovered a potential market for it. Salt hay seems to be a valuable commodity in the eastern United States, where it is a popular garden mulch. Several other uses have also been identified for it, and we are currently trying to establish a local market for salt hay.

Clam Bed Re-seeding Project: a section of the clam flats has been marked off as an experimental plot. We have removed salt hay from this area and put clam seed there in an effort to re-establish stocks in the area. We have also placed several test boxes in the plot and are measuring the growth and survival rates of seed clams as they are introduced there. Data from this experiment will help determine which areas of the flats are good candidates for rehabilitation. We are also planning enhancement programs using tree boughs to alter the flow of the current. This encourages clam spat (eggs) to settle out in areas of the flats currently devoid of clam stocks.

Managing the Clam Harvest: each year, in March and April, the CHRA conducts water and shellfish quality monitoring projects. We've succeeded in getting a winter season opened for shellfish harvesting, because our test results indicated that bacteria levels are reduced during times of cold weather. This has brought substantial economic gain to local harvesters. But our objective remains to have the clam flats opened year round, and in order to sustain this industry and ensure it is managed properly, the Eastern Shore Clam Fishers Association (ESCFA) has developed a fisheries management plan that will provide for protection and conservation of this industry for future generations. The CHRA and ESCFA plan to work together to expand the reseeding, salt hay, and other enhancement programs so that this will become a very profitable industry.

Other Natural Resources: we are also hopeful of developing some of the Inlet's other resources. There is a market for sand worms in many areas: locally they are used for bait during the winter months. Periwinkles and crabs are abundant in the Inlet. Local clay was once used by a former brick factory on the shores of Chezzetcook Inlet. There is also potential for aquaculture of various types in this well-protected estuary.

Tourism: there is a great opportunity to develop tourism in the area. The beauty of the Inlet's quaint seaside communities is complemented by the cultural and historical background. Although the Mi'kmaq camped in the area in summer for hundreds of years, today the people of this area are predominantly of Acadian ancestry. Their cultural heritage was evident in how they lived and how they organized their village around the Catholic Church. Much effort has been spent in restoring an original Acadian house and turning it into a museum. Trails are being developed along old rail beds. There are plans for establishing an interpretive centre, a boardwalk, and a look-off. The area is also renowned for the many varieties of sea and land birds that stop to feed in the protected estuary.

The potential for this area is great. With the cooperation of residents and various levels of government, we can help the area thrive. We hope our communities can some day serve as a model for other towns and villages across the province that may be experiencing problems similar to our own.

For more information about the CHRA's activities, contact the author at 452-1793 or e-mail him at :

This article was adapted from an earlier one that appeared in Between the Issues, newsletter of the Ecology Action Centre. Special thanks to June Hall.

Coastal Communities News is published bi-monthly by the Coastal Communities Network, a non-profit society registered in the province of Nova Scotia.

Coastal Communities News is made possible by the generous efforts of many volunteers, and by financial contributions from Human Resources Development Canada, and by donations and in-kind contributions from the Nova Scotia Department of Education and Culture, as well as from member groups and organizations.

We welcome all articles and submissions, from individuals and groups, with content in keeping with the role and nature of this magazine. We reserve the right to edit all submissions. Except where additional credit has been given, all articles are prepared by the Editor and Editorial Board.

Our Mission Statement

The Coastal Communities Network is a volunteer association of organizations whose mission is to provide a forum to encourage dialogue, share information, and create strategies and actions that promote the survival and development of Nova Scotia's coastal and rural communities.

"A Large Voice for Small Communities"

CCN is made up of organizations rooted in Nova Scotia's coastal and rural communities, and it is the diversity of its membership that gives it strength. Your organization, and your community, can help CCN determine its direction and strengthen its voice still further. Join the Coastal Communities Network today.

CCN's strength lies in its membership, which is made up of organizations rooted in Nova Scotia's coastal communities. The range of member organizations is very broad, including churches, fish harvester groups, municipalities, community and regional economic development agencies, unions, universities, and local community groups. CCN welcomes the participation of any organization that represents the interests of a coastal community or issue and is interested in working together with similar groups across the province. Your organization can become involved in a number of ways:

— by participating in regular monthly meetings of the CCN membership. These are held in Truro (usually on the first Tuesday of each month), and allow representatives from member organizations to review what is happening in coastal communities across the province, plan actions on issues of common concern, and review progress on CCN-sponsored projects;

— by getting on our mailing list to receive regular copies of Coastal Communities News. Send us your name and address by mail or fax, or call us directly;

— by contributing written articles to Coastal Communities News, and so letting everyone know what's happening in your community;

— by taking part in CCN workshops and information sessions. Special events like this are held on topics of importance to coastal communities (for example, community economic development, co- management in the fishery, etc);

— by inquiring about CCN's resource library, which includes information, reports, and studies on topics that affect the future and sustainability of coastal communities.

CCN Coordinator:
PO Box 1613
Pictou, N.S. B0K 1H0
Phone:(902)485-4754 Fax:(902)445-7134
e-mail:coastalnet@ns.sympatico.ca

CCN Communications Office:
Phone: (902) 445-7168
Fax: (902) 445-7134
e-mail:ccnews@ns.sympatico.ca

"For the Sake of Our Grandchildren"

"A Necessary First Step Toward Self-Determination"

Standing Committee's Recommendations

Lab Mice, or Good Advice?

Treasure of the Musquodoboit Valley

Small Steps Make Great Strides

Coastal Communities News

Join the Coastal Communities Network

Our Mission Statement

"A Large Voice for Small Communities"

How to Become Involved in the Coastal Communities Network

How to Become Involved
in the Coastal Communities Network