‘Do you have running water? I don’t and I live in Canada’

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
To me, it's an example of trying to force the federal govt to spend money on a problem that could be easily solved by aboriginals moving to cities and towns where everyone has clean water and sanitation. Allying with aboriginals to me is a sign Maude Barlow is no longer progressive, she is now reactionary and does not deserve support. And because she can no longer get public support, she must resort to international law.

She states that Canada ought to be sovereign over its water, yet bend to international organzations like the UN when it makes decisions on water. She can't have it both ways. Other countries cannot force us to create rights in water if we do not decide ourselves, by ourselves to do it. And we have not. The federal govt can ignore the UN on this issue.


‘Do you have running water? I don’t and I live in Canada’ - The Globe and Mail


‘Do you have running water? I don’t and I live in Canada’

MAUDE BARLOW

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Jul. 28, 2011 2:00AM EDT

One year ago today, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a historic resolution recognizing the human right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation. Two months later, the Human Rights Council adopted a second resolution affirming that drinking water and sanitation are human rights, and setting out the responsibilities all governments now carry to fulfill these rights.

Because the Human Rights Council resolution is an interpretation of two existing international treaties, it clarifies that the General Assembly resolution is legally binding in international law. Together, the two resolutions represent an extraordinary breakthrough in the international struggle for the right to safe drinking water and sanitation and a milestone in the fight for water justice.

For the past decade, Ottawa has consistently opposed recognizing the right to water and sanitation. The Harper government voted to abstain when the General Assembly vote took place, and then argued (incorrectly) that the resolution is not binding. Canada and Tonga are now the only countries in the world that have not recognized the right to water or the right to sanitation.

The only explanation the Harper government gives is that it’s concerned about Canada’s sovereignty over its water supply, an argument that’s been debunked by international legal experts who point out that a newly recognized right is a pact between a government and its own citizens and doesn’t oblige one country to fulfill that right in another. The more likely reason is that, with an enforceable obligation, the government would likely face extensive liability with respect to the terrible drinking water and sanitation conditions in so many first nations communities.

There are at least 49 “high risk” aboriginal communities in Canada with little access to clean water and more than 100 facing “boil water” advisories. First nations homes are 90 per cent more likely to be without running water than the homes of other Canadians. And unlike other Canadians, whose water services are provided by the provinces, the federal government is responsible for the delivery of public services to first nations. But the Indian Act doesn’t explicitly authorize the protection of source water and, as a consequence, says environmental lawyer David Boyd, first nations people on reserves are without the legal guarantees of water quality enjoyed by the other 34 million Canadians.

The UN’s recognition of the human right to water and sanitation could become a powerful tool for the first nations to force the Canadian government to deal with this situation. Canada, like all members of the UN, must put in place an action plan and submit it to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This plan is required to address three obligations that affect aboriginal communities.

Under the obligation to respect, water and sanitation services now delivered can’t be removed. But as local authorities move to increase water rates to pay for aging infrastructure repair or lease their water services to for-profit companies, poorer and marginalized Canadians can expect to start seeing water cutoffs as is happening in U.S. inner cities.

Under the obligation to protect, governments must step in to ensure that third parties such as corporations or extractive industries aren’t destroying local water systems. The Cree of Fort Chipewyan in northern Alberta could argue that their right to safe drinking water has been violated by the destruction of water sources in tar sands production, as could the Aamjiwnaang of Sarnia, Ont., whose water supply has been so contaminated by the petrochemical industry that two girls are born for every boy.

And under the obligation to fulfill, the government is required to take additional measures necessary to guarantee the newly recognized right. This means it must pledge to provide the safe drinking water and sanitation services to the first nations communities now without.

“Do you have running water? I don’t and I live in Canada.” These words are on posters that the Assembly of
Manitoba Chiefs took to the UN in an attempt to gain international recognition of their plight. It’s time for the Canadian government to recognize this most basic of rights, in Canada and around the world.

Maude Barlow is national chair of the Council of Canadians and author of Our Right to Water
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
To me, it's an example of trying to force the federal govt to spend money on a problem that could be easily solved by aboriginals moving to cities and towns where everyone has clean water and sanitation.
You really have no clue about aboriginal culture or mindset. You just take your prejudice and say that they should just give up being someone and become another nobody in our culture. You have no respect for contractual agreements, no respect for people who are different than you. You just live in your isolated little reality with no clue that there is a whole lot going on out there that has nothing to do with your little prejudiced world.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
You really have no clue about aboriginal culture or mindset. You just take your prejudice and say that they should just give up being someone and become another nobody in our culture. You have no respect for contractual agreements, no respect for people who are different than you. You just live in your isolated little reality with no clue that there is a whole lot going on out there that has nothing to do with your little prejudiced world.

The aboriginal world cannot change overnight, it will take years. Many can barely speak English and think Regina is big city. There is a reserve in BC wthout an access road, a good metaphor for their cultural isolation. They live a subsistence life, just getting by, living in squalor, while a few prosper. They want us to pay to keep traditions that are not democratic. They are locked in a dead end relationship with the govt that excludes the mass of Canadians. Yet they are Canadians because they are not Russians, Arabs, Nigerians or Swedes. For one part of Canadian society to constantly give them things is not a solution.

Maude Barlow wishes to lever the UN to force the govt to give them "rights." An organization that has a majority of undemocratic countries and are very traditional also. She's desperate and ought to be ignored. Many more Asians and Africans are immigrating to Canada than Canadians are immigrating to Asia or Africa. That never seems to mean anything.

You can't even give one example of why aboriginal culture is worth preserving.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
True. Legal obligations are not eternal though. Things can change and things have changed over the past few centuries. Aboriginals are driving big rigs and running businesses, that wasn't written in any legal document not too long ago.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
The aboriginal world cannot change overnight, it will take years. Many can barely speak English and think Regina is big city. There is a reserve in BC wthout an access road, a good metaphor for their cultural isolation. They live a subsistence life, just getting by, living in squalor, while a few prosper. They want us to pay to keep traditions that are not democratic. They are locked in a dead end relationship with the govt that excludes the mass of Canadians. Yet they are Canadians because they are not Russians, Arabs, Nigerians or Swedes. For one part of Canadian society to constantly give them things is not a solution.

Maude Barlow wishes to lever the UN to force the govt to give them "rights." An organization that has a majority of undemocratic countries and are very traditional also. She's desperate and ought to be ignored. Many more Asians and Africans are immigrating to Canada than Canadians are immigrating to Asia or Africa. That never seems to mean anything.

You can't even give one example of why aboriginal culture is worth preserving.
I could give you a hundred or more but it would mean nothing to a closed mind like yours.
You spout on about democracy but have no clue what that means. We do not live in a democracy and you want to force that corrupt system on the rest of the world. Our culture and lifestyle depends on the rape, pillage and degradation of our environment and the subjugation of third world peoples and their countries. As far as I'm concerned there is little that is worth saving of our culture, political and religious systems. And when I run up against small bigoted minds like yours, I am convinced there is little of value here.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
I could give you a hundred or more but it would mean nothing to a closed mind like yours.
You spout on about democracy but have no clue what that means. We do not live in a democracy and you want to force that corrupt system on the rest of the world. Our culture and lifestyle depends on the rape, pillage and degradation of our environment and the subjugation of third world peoples and their countries. As far as I'm concerned there is little that is worth saving of our culture, political and religious systems. And when I run up against small bigoted minds like yours, I am convinced there is little of value here.

As ordinary people, aboriginals are fine, but politically, their cultures resist a progressive march, that hundreds of millions, and even billions don't think is a bigoted march forward. You're too depressing and pessimistic about the future.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,912
11,193
113
Low Earth Orbit
In Canada women don't have to walk for 15 miles with a clay pot on their heads to fetch water. In Canada they drive the 15 miles to the water store.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
There is no reason not to have running water in Canada without having the taxpayer supply it. Many of us built our own water systems in rural areas without claiming the government has to pay.
Wether or not some of these communities should remain where they are or not is a whole different issue.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
The aboriginal world cannot change overnight, it will take years. Many can barely speak English and think Regina is big city. There is a reserve in BC wthout an access road, a good metaphor for their cultural isolation. They live a subsistence life, just getting by, living in squalor, while a few prosper. They want us to pay to keep traditions that are not democratic. They are locked in a dead end relationship with the govt that excludes the mass of Canadians. Yet they are Canadians because they are not Russians, Arabs, Nigerians or Swedes. For one part of Canadian society to constantly give them things is not a solution.

.

And many are more articulate in their speech than most "white men". I always understood that Regina is a big city. The reserve of which you speak is on Nootka Island.
 

Ariadne

Council Member
Aug 7, 2006
2,432
8
38
I must be missing something. Until I was in second year University, I lived with my parents (just outside of the city) and we had a well for water (pump was about 230 ft down) and a septic field (couldn't use bleach and other things that destroyed necessary bacteria). The water had an awful lot of iron in it, so we eventually had one of those water dispensers for drinking water. One of my brothers lives in the city today ... on a one acre lot ... and he has a water well and septic field. He also has a water dispenser for drinking water. The city services simply went around the small district he's in and has no intention of hooking him up to city services.

So ... is someone complaining because they choose to live outside a city and they haven't managed their water and sewer services without the assistance of the local, provincial or federal government??? ... or is there something more to this?

If the problem is running water, drill a well, drop the pump way down, get a plumber involved and voila ... running water. If the water is not drinkable, do what others do and get a water dispenser. If all of that is too much effort ... move into the city where it's mostly provided by gov't services.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
So ... is someone complaining because they choose to live outside a city and they haven't managed their water and sewer services without the assistance of the local, provincial or federal government??? ... or is there something more to this?

The law is different with respect to drinking water safety on reserves and for the rest of Canada. Simply put, there is not the same level of protection for consumers off reserve compared to those who live on reserves.

I'm not sure about the treaty rights, perhaps Bear will produce some comments for us, but I don't think that's a fair choice to make, to have safe water, or to have the rights you've been afforded.

Sounds sinister to me.
 

Ariadne

Council Member
Aug 7, 2006
2,432
8
38
The law is different with respect to drinking water safety on reserves and for the rest of Canada. Simply put, there is not the same level of protection for consumers off reserve compared to those who live on reserves.

I'm not sure about the treaty rights, perhaps Bear will produce some comments for us, but I don't think that's a fair choice to make, to have safe water, or to have the rights you've been afforded.

Sounds sinister to me.

When people drill a well, there is no guarantee that the water is safe to drink. The water we had smelled not so good and turned everything yellow ... from the iron. It's easy enough to get a water test done to determine whether it's safe to drink, and easy enough to get a water dispenser if it's not safe ... or boil the water before drinking. Lots of people are in that situation from time to time ... even people in big cities.

If the water safety criteria on reserves is different than what the people find acceptable, why don't they modify the criteria. Aren't reserves self-governing? Is the problem that people on reserves want better criteria but their elected leaders aren't doing anything about it so the people want the federal gov't to step in and force their elected leaders to do something?
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
To me, it's an example of trying to force the federal govt to spend money on a problem that could be easily solved by aboriginals moving to cities and towns where everyone has clean water and sanitation.




You just get crazier by the day.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
And many are more articulate in their speech than most "white men". I always understood that Regina is a big city. The reserve of which you speak is on Nootka Island.

Actually there are at least 20 of them on the coast. Not counting the ones no one lives in.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island



You just get crazier by the day.

There is a certain amount of logic in what dumpy says. He just has this way with words though....
Ignoring the cultural differences for a moment how many of us would stay in a community that has over 85% of the population on welfare? Probably none. We would move to where there are jobs, schools etc or at least find a camp job somewhere so we could support our families. But for some reason this does not happen on the rez. To a certain extent the federal government is at fault for promoting a culture of dependence somewhat backed by treaties that they never quite live up to but spend huge mounts of taxpayer dollars on every year.