Native problems require healing of causes

Page 6

Milt Pahl must be commended for admitting that the drinking tragedy at Peerless Lake that claimed six lives followed a failure by government to provide services effectively.

But that's still short of admitting that government policies led to creation of the conditions in which such a tragedy could happen.

And it's a far cry from admitting that the government's failure to safeguard the rights of these people, and to meet their special needs, directly contributed to those deaths.

It is at least encouraging that there is sufficient admission of failure in delivery of services to prompt a review of those services. Hopefully, this review will result in meaningful changes. But changing services and the way in which they are delivered will still be only treatment of symptoms.

No matter how perfect or extensive the services and facilities, they will be inadequate if the conditions that lead to these symptoms are not transformed.

Not only Pahl's statements, but the actions and policies of his government, indicate that such action is unlikely.

For communities like Peerless Lake the current situation is a consequence of the cultural shock resulting from resource development and the rapidly changing conditions it creates.

And this cultural shock is much more than just a psychological effect.

The destruction of traplines and the disappearance of game have taken away the traditional sources of livelihood, but there has not been a replacement of livelihood through jobs in the new activity that eliminated the old ways.

And to move people out of the community to where they might be able to get jobs would only cause further trauma - almost certainly compounded by the further frustration of not finding jobs anyway because there aren't any available, and because they aren't likely to get jobs that are available because they lack education, training, experience and the ability to compete effectively in mainstream society.

Since they didn't ask to be invaded, since the invasion of their lands and exploitation of them is a moral - and probably a legal and constitutional - invasion of their rights, and since most of them do not want to be uprooted from their communities, surely the onus is on the government to compensate for the results of their being invaded in a way that will make their lives work.

After all, it was government that permitted - and even encouraged- the resource development that is at the heart of the problem.