1

A Snapshot of Life in Remote Aboriginal Communities South of 60Nadia Ferrara, PhDIndian and Northern Affairs Canada,Sustainable Communities Directorate

FNSDS Conference 2011Fairmont Waterfront Hotel – Vancouver, BC

2

Remote Aboriginal Communities South of 60

Remote Communities’ Project

INAC, through its last Sustainable Development Strategy, committed to developing an understanding of the quality of life in remote communities south of 60th parallel

3 year project focused on engaging Aboriginal people in defining what life is like in remote communities

Community workshops were held in 6 communities and an analysis followed on the values, meanings, and interpretations that they apply to their understanding of quality of life

3

Remote Aboriginal Communities South of 60

Community Workshops

Douglas First Nation (British Colombia) Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach (Quebec) Fond du Lac Denesuline Nation (Saskatchewan) God’s Lake First Nation (Manitoba) Kasabonika Lake First Nation (Ontario) Fort Chipewyan Métis Association (Alberta)

4

Remote Aboriginal Communities South of 60

Lessons Learned

Community workshops allowed us to summarize some lessons learned:

strengths of these communities, challenges they have to face, foundational elements of quality of life, how life at its best could look like in remote communities.

People within remote communities expressed: their pride about where they live, their strong roots in the communities, and a solid

foundation to help improve their quality of life.

5

Remote Aboriginal Communities South of 60

Common Challenges and Limits

Theme   Common Challenges / Limits to Quality of

Life

Dependencies/Linkages 

Inadequate Housing Overcrowding -Limited housing funding limited further by high costs of remote building-Lowers health and wellbeing

    Lack of access to healthy foods

-High transportation costs -Geography and location limits local food source options

Family and Community

Disconnected from history, culture, generations

Lack of parenting skills

-Substance abuse-Past and present trauma (residential school, domestic abuse)

Healthcare Limited access to nurses and doctors

-Quality of care suffers-Harsh staff conditions-Lower pay

Issues

Health and Wellness Poor food choices

Soft infrastructure

Hard infrastructure

6

Remote Aboriginal Communities South of 60

Common Strengths/BenefitsTheme   Common Benefits Dependencies/Linkages

 

Culture More culturally connected

More opportunity for cultural activities and traditions

-Family and community connections-Role of Elders

    Closer to traditional territory and nature

-Community cohesion-Historical situation regarding Treaties, governance

Language Strong language High frequency of use

-Existence of programs that promote traditional language in community (i.e. school, radio, TV)-Number of speakers

Family/ Community

One big family Close ties, better support, cultural transmittal

-Good / poor family relationships or history

7

Remote Aboriginal Communities South of 60

Common Quality of Life Tree

8

Remote Aboriginal Communities South of 60

Fundamental Components of Quality of Life

9

Remote Aboriginal Communities South of 60

Quality of Life Tree

10

Remote Aboriginal Communities South of 60

Quality of Life at its BestCommon sub-roots Common leaves (vision)

Language Bigger community

Family Strong language fluently spoken

Education Clean environment

Traditional Activities Healthy families and people

Community Activities Wellness – no drugs, alcohol, abuse

Healthy foods Self-government

Nature Paved road

Fish and animals More houses

Water Jobs for everyone / no social assistance

Alcohol and drug free Future economic development

Housing Everyone helping each other

Jobs Everyone getting along

11

Remote Aboriginal Communities South of 60

A Community-based Conceptual Framework

on Quality of Life in Remote Communities

12

Remote Aboriginal Communities South of 60

13

Remote Aboriginal Communities South of 60

Policy Recommendations

Community participants raised a number of core recommendations throughout the research process.

While these recommendations are particularly relevant to the six remote Aboriginal communities that participated in the research process, they are likely also relevant to other remote and non-remote Aboriginal communities.

The recommendations include: Simplification of funding protocols and reporting

requirements; Role of comprehensive community planning; Development of tools in INAC and other departments; and How communities access services through INAC and other

government departments