There are 17 Sustainable Development Goals that were outlined by the UN to be implemented by 2030. After some reflection, research and consideration, the issue of reconciliation in Canada directly (in my opinion) touches upon all of the goals, I will go in depth into a select few.

Reconciliation, as defined by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, is “coming to terms with events from the past in a manner that overcomes conflict and…is about establishing and maintaining a mutually respectful relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples” (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015, p. 6). This definition directly connects to goal #17 as a means of partnership. We need to work together to move forward. The ability to move forward is dependant upon everyone having the same basis of understanding, which is something the Commission worked to accomplish. In the TRC, residential schools were described as lonely, poorly located and maintained, staff training and monitoring was inadequate, abuse (physical and sexual) was present and diet was of poor quality (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015 ).

It is easy to imagine the effects these types of conditions could have on a group. This was not an isolated incident. 150 000 Indigenous students attended the 139 residential schools established across Canada (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015 ). Many people who lack sympathy toward the Indigenous peoples of Canada often lack information on the devastating conditions they faced at the hands of settlers, making reconciliation difficult, if not impossible. Having access to information and being educated connects to goal #4, Quality Education. Lack of knowing also connects to goal #16, Justice. Romeo Saganash once said “there will be no reconciliation without justice” (The Conversation, 2018). Indigenous peoples also make up a large portion of those in Canadian prisons, “the incarceration rate of Indigenous people is now at 26.4 per cent of the federal prison population, while they comprise only four per cent of the Canadian population” (The Conversation, 2018).

Let’s shift to more of a economic and health approach. No poverty is Sustainable Development goal #1. Child poverty rates of Indigenous children in Canada are far higher than that of non-Indigenous children (see image below).

Poverty also is closely correlated with inequality, reducing which is goal #10. Another thing closely correlated to poverty is hunger (no hunger is goal #2) which connects further to goal #13, Climate Change. The Indigenous peoples who continue to live traditionally and the Inuit of the Arctic are those most greatly impacted (Nunavut Climate Change Centre). Their ways of life are impacted by global warming and it’s impact on both the landscape and wildlife inhabiting the areas (connecting to goal #14 & 15 , Life below water and on land). Hunger and poverty can lead to eating unhealthy foods for financial reasons and have drastic impacts on health. A huge health issue plaguing the Indigenous communities of Canada is a heighten suicide rate, “suicide rates are five to seven times higher for First Nations youth than for non-Indigenous youth…for Inuit youth, the rate is among the highest in the world—11 times the national average” (Lendsay). Another major issues affecting the health of Indigenous peoples is the lack of clean drinking water as illustrated in the image below (clean drinking water is goal #6) – please keep in mind Winnipeg gets it’s fresh water from Shoal Lake 40.

This is a very brief overview. These are just a few issues that are difficult to fully delve into in a single blog post both due to their complexity and the interconnected nature of these issues. While I couldn’t touch upon them all, all of these goals are connected to sustainability and reconciliation and every aspect of all of us moving together toward a better future.

References

Lendsay, K. Indigenous Health Issues in Canada. https://www.express-scripts.ca/raising-health/Indigenous-Health-Issues-in-Canada

Nunavut Climate Change Centre. Climate Change Impacts. https://www.climatechangenunavut.ca/en/understanding-climate-change/climate-change-impact

The Conversation. (2018). Broken System: Why is a quarter of Canada’s prison population Indigenous? http:// https://theconversation.com/broken-system-why-is-a-quarter-of-canadas-prison-population-indigenous-91562

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future. http://nctr.ca/reports.php

Can parks meet dual mandate for protection and access? How can this be achieved at Wapusk? I have started this blog post many times but have found these questions particularly difficult and thought provoking. In short, obviously it would be ideal if a park could both remain protected while being accessible. Those are two of their main purposes, aren’t they? However, when looking at the situation realistically, especially at Wapusk, I’m not sure if this is entirely possible. First, there are practical issues. Accessibility comes with the need to meet human needs. At the most basic level, this requires bathrooms. In order to have these facilities a portion of the landscape is going to need to be cleared (resulting in vegetation loss), then there’s construction and hauling materials (requiring roads, creating pollution and noise) and will likely involve some sort of human wildlife interaction (which doesn’t always end well for the animal). Right there after we have just touched upon one human need, the landscape has already been altered for our needs/uses at the expense of the wildlife. If bathrooms weren’t created, there are still plenty of other issues: we need food, where will we dispose of the scrapes/wrappers? Will trails and roads be created allowing us to easily move through the landscape? What would that mean for the species in the area? What happens when there is a instance of human wildlife interaction? I am far from an expert on the topic but I find this reality sad.

Wapusk is a beautiful, isolated, pristine location and it seems an absolute shame to keep it from people who could greatly benefit. We are disconnected from nature, the land and animals. If we could see it in a relatively untouched environment, could you imagine the appreciation and respect for nature that could be sparked? However, we need to stop thinking of parks as something humans can benefit from and remember that these spaces are home to many other species. I think the main priority for Wapusk should be the animals and vegetation, their protection and research, then accessibility as a very distant second. In my opinion, keeping access limited and a privilege is the best solution for allowing both humans and animals to benefit.

With all this being said, I think smaller, more local parks can potentially do both. While humans love looking at images of polar bears online, no one wants to come face to face with one alone in the wild. We tend to have very different opinions of deer and squirrels. This is why parks like Assiniboine Park are so important. They allow us all the conveniences we require (like bathrooms), while allowing us to soak up all the benefits of being in nature but do not completely displace the natural inhabitants of the land and allowing for interaction (and hopefully appreciation).

Where do my environmental ethics lie? Ecocentrism focuses on the health of entire systems. There is only one planet Earth and I believe we need to find ways for all  species to live in harmony as well as protect the ecosystems that house each species. I debated which term to use and decided on  “harmony” over “together”. For humans to have the sense of safety and security they desire and animals/plants to have the habitat and space they need, we need to exist in parallel (with some separation). I am not naïve to the fact this will take a great shift in current mind sets and the current practices in place, I just believe a lot of things need to change, some rather drastically, as we are running out of time to act. 

 The issue separating ecocentrism from biocentrism that really solidified my choice was the issue of invasive species – don’t get me wrong, I have also killed a mosquito and spider or two. If all life is equal, there are minimal options when it comes to dealing with invasive species in an ecosystem. Invasive species are by definition invaders that have tremendous impacts on the ecosystems they are introduced to. Failure to intervene will lead to great loss of ecosystems, habitats and the species that inhabit those places. With the mass extinction we are already facing, is this something that we can afford? Species cannot be protected and thrive if they have no home, this is why I believe the only way to move sustainably into the future is  ecocentrism.

Whatever a person’s motivation is to make environmentally sound decisions is really irrelevant to me, as long as we recognize this is a group effort and that we need to do better before it is too late for all of us.

We rely on the environment every second of every day, yet the majority of people now a days have become disconnected from the environment that surrounds us. There are many things that contribute to this disconnection. Most of us spend the majority of our days in various buildings or traveling from one location to the next (often by vehicle), this is all time we spend separated from nature. Technology has also added to this disconnection. People now have the ability to telecommute or work from home, can visit with family and friends from their couches with things like FaceTime and Skype and don’t even have to leave their houses for groceries/food or clothing thanks to online shopping (which I won’t deny has it’s upside during frigid Winnipeg winters). While children in pre-advanced technology generations spent a lot of their days playing outside, the majority of today’s youth are in front of televisions or gaming systems which we know has been linked to things like obesity.

This is why the disconnection that plagues many of us is dangerous, not only to us but for the environment as well. The less connection people feel to the environment, it’s animals and it’s beauty, the less important it’s protection will become to them. This can become especially important when making decisions and weighing environmental impact versus economical value. Many people take for granted that there is water when they turn the taps on, there is oxygen ready for us to breathe and that there is plenty of food in grocery stores just waiting for someone to scoop it up. I’d argue few people think of the pressures put on all the natural resources that go into making our daily lives and lifestyles possible, as we’ve become so disconnected. With all that being said, I don’t think us humans are a lost cause just yet. There’s hope for reconnection, it just takes that first step and some effort. There has been a push for things like more green spaces in cities and bike lanes that allow people who may be in heavily developed areas to still connect with the environment and enjoy it’s beauty. Parks are such incredible areas as they contain trees, green space and animals that allow our ever growing disconnected society a chance to reconnect with something that is so vital for our existence.